Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

2nd Peter 3:3-4ff

Page 6 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 11:02 am

Sand wrote:
And you and I are well aware that these are not singular and unique instances of the way top Christians behave.


Not throughout history, no. And knowing human nature, it certainly won't be the last, as cult activities in recent decades clearly show.

But if "top Christians" are acting inconsistently with Biblical principal, can you honestly make the claim that they are exemplary of the faith? I don't think anyone rightfully can. You might also say "top Christians" include people like Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, among many others. I apologize to anyone here if I'm stepping on toes, but their teachings are blatantly contrary to the Gospel. Look at the way these people live! They don't have a single dollar people didn't give them because those people believed that some miraculous benefit would come to them if they sent a donation. I bet Benny and Kenneth get together all the time at Copeland's mansion to smoke pot on the back porch because they know not even the IRS can stop them, all while they practice speaking in tongues and have a good laugh at their congregations' (literal) expense. They are clearly greedy, self-righteous hypocrites who do not exemplify the kind of leaders Christ intended for the body of believers, and judging the rest of the body of believers by select groups of evangelicals and Catholics is totally unjustified.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:02 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Tetraquartz wrote:
Sand wrote:
I see. They hired experts the way Bush set up Guantanamo. That way Bush is entirely innocent of all that brutality. It seems Bush read up on and appreciated the history of Christianity. " Those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it" type of thing. So those religious officials who were well versed in the Bible decided the best policy was to kill all those who would see it for themselves. They must have been very scared people would spot the contradictions and inconsistencies and the best thing to do is to torture and murder them. So much for the efficacy of religion in teaching morality.


'Well versed' doesn't mean obedient, or even faithful. There are plenty of Bible scholars who are not believers, for various reasons of their own. Not to say the faithful shouldn't fully understand what they believe in.

Most of what has been put forth as inconsistency and/or contradiction was more a problem with the reader's pre-conceived idea of the Bible's role, and often a language translation error. Newer translations have cleared up some of those problems, when they referred back to the original language of the texts. Also problems arise when people try to work the Bible to fit their own world view, rather than emptying themselves and humbly accepting the Word's direction.
Yet in Acts 17, there's an example of how Paul worked. I don't seem much in the way of blind acceptance. Paul was speaking with intelligent, educated people, just as he was. In Philippians 3:1-11 he tells of how he gave up all his academic knowledge, credentials and status so as to simply preach Christ crucified.

Either way, it doesn't matter to some people. There are those who are faithful in spite of limited resources and there will always be unbelievers, no matter how much evidence one can present to them.

If people didn't believe in Jesus when they saw him face to face and experienced his miracles, they aren't going to believe some story about him. Paul and the other apostles faced the same frustrations when they spoke about the gospel to others. People were the same back then as they are today.


By well versed I indicated that these were the people who spent their lives not only being biblical scholars but, more importantly, directing Christian policy. If they were unresponsive to the essence of Christianity as you seem to comprehend it, who in the world would be? And you and I are well aware that these are not singular and unique instances of the way top Christians behave. Christianity itself must take some responsibility in the matter.


Even the Roman Catholic Church recognized the corruption that it had within itself, and during the time of the Reformation, when Protestantism was beginning, the Catholic Church also sought to reform itself. A lot of the corruption IS just people using their authority in a terrible manner, which happens in all organizations. You claim that these Church leaders should have been effected by what they knew, but so also did this happen with the Sadducees and Pharisees in Jesus' time.

When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.


But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 11:08 am

Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:14 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.



Tetraquartz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 246
Location: California

12 Apr 2010, 11:15 am

Sand wrote:
By well versed I indicated that these were the people who spent their lives not only being biblical scholars but, more importantly, directing Christian policy. If they were unresponsive to the essence of Christianity as you seem to comprehend it, who in the world would be? And you and I are well aware that these are not singular and unique instances of the way top Christians behave. Christianity itself must take some responsibility in the matter.


Christianity is not to blame for the bad behavior of errant Christians, because nowhere does Christ's teachings and that of his apostles condone such behavior. If anyone is going to be judged, it is Christians who have made a bad example of their faith. They will be judged more harshly than non-believers even, because they should have known better.

There are people who are hearers of the Word only, and then there are those who are not only hearers but doers of the Word, like what James 1:22- 25 says... one can read the bible all day long and study it for the next half century but if they don't apply it to their everyday lives, it's not going to have much of an influence in their thinking.

Anyway... there it is. I'm not the most educated or intelligent of people, if it weren't for the spiritual guidance of the Word and its influence in my life over the past 30 years, I'd still be quite the fool. :D


_________________
Never assume you know what I'm thinking, just ask for clarification. :mrgreen:
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'. " -- Hans Asperger (1938)


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 11:16 am

Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church is NOT morality. The foundation of the Church is the faith believers have that Jesus paid the death penalty for all. Morality for believers arises out of the desire to follow Jesus' example. We act because we believe, not believe because our actions save us.

The Catholic Church specifically slipped into the kind of fundamental, legalistic ceremonial observances that Jesus preached against. Other forms of corruption in the Catholic Church stemmed from those fundamental behaviors. Many Christians accept that faith alone saves, not baptism, Eucharist, Mass, intoning "Kyrie Eleison" EXACTLY three times, and so on. Tithing doesn't save you. Being nice to your friends doesn't save you. However, a Christian follows good moral and ethical guidelines because he or she believes that being a good person in the image of Christ is what we are called to be as believers. Works don't save you. Works are simply a testimony to your faith.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 11:17 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:20 am

AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
And you and I are well aware that these are not singular and unique instances of the way top Christians behave.


Not throughout history, no. And knowing human nature, it certainly won't be the last, as cult activities in recent decades clearly show.

But if "top Christians" are acting inconsistently with Biblical principal, can you honestly make the claim that they are exemplary of the faith? I don't think anyone rightfully can. You might also say "top Christians" include people like Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, among many others. I apologize to anyone here if I'm stepping on toes, but their teachings are blatantly contrary to the Gospel. Look at the way these people live! They don't have a single dollar people didn't give them because those people believed that some miraculous benefit would come to them if they sent a donation. I bet Benny and Kenneth get together all the time at Copeland's mansion to smoke pot on the back porch because they know not even the IRS can stop them, all while they practice speaking in tongues and have a good laugh at their congregations' (literal) expense. They are clearly greedy, self-righteous hypocrites who do not exemplify the kind of leaders Christ intended for the body of believers, and judging the rest of the body of believers by select groups of evangelicals and Catholics is totally unjustified.


And if you face reality is this not the facts of life about the results of Christianity? Does this not leave you in despair?



Tetraquartz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 246
Location: California

12 Apr 2010, 11:21 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


Ah, in my own experience, that doesn't exist. There are no "high church officials" in a purely bible centered church. Elders, yes, Deacons, yes. Preachers and teachers, yes. But they were under scrutiny and had to pass stringent criteria to gain such a position. If they behave in any way contrary to the Bible's criteria, they will lose their position.
The other stuff you are likely referring to are more political and worldly positions than spiritual ones.


_________________
Never assume you know what I'm thinking, just ask for clarification. :mrgreen:
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'. " -- Hans Asperger (1938)


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

12 Apr 2010, 11:28 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.


They are free to indulge in immorality just as much as any of us are free. They are also free, just as other are, to indulge in MORALITY and do those things which would be a GOOD testimony to the faith. Further, they are free to turn away from immorality.

Church leaders (any church here) have an awesome responsibility to emulate Christ-like behavior. Those that fail do so at the risk of destroying not only their own credibility but that of the church they lead.

The best thing to be done, I think, in any church (Catholic or Protestant) is to take every measure possible to make sure that leaders are the best witnesses of the faith. If they are consistently wrong, get rid of them. But like I said, they aren't reflective of the actual teachings of Christ and the Bible and should not be used as an example of what ALL Christians believe and practice.



Last edited by AngelRho on 12 Apr 2010, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tetraquartz
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 246
Location: California

12 Apr 2010, 11:28 am

Sand wrote:
And if you face reality is this not the facts of life about the results of Christianity? Does this not leave you in despair?


Well, in my case, I suppose I should feel some degree of despair, because I have become too great of a fool for Christ. Ah, yes, what a dismal life, there's no hope for gratification or reward in this world. How did Christians get to be so insane? Yet, since Jesus was accused of sorcery and Paul was accused of going insane, it's not such bad company, since I admire them so much.


_________________
Never assume you know what I'm thinking, just ask for clarification. :mrgreen:
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'. " -- Hans Asperger (1938)


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:39 am

Tetraquartz wrote:
Sand wrote:
And if you face reality is this not the facts of life about the results of Christianity? Does this not leave you in despair?


Well, in my case, I suppose I should feel some degree of despair, because I have become too great of a fool for Christ. Ah, yes, what a dismal life, there's no hope for gratification or reward in this world. How did Christians get to be so insane? Yet, since Jesus was accused of sorcery and Paul was accused of going insane, it's not such bad company, since I admire them so much.


Aside from my incapability to accept the basics of faith that believe without question that a supernatural force is responsible for he inception of the universe and its main focus is the human race, the repeated failure of all religions to instill basic decency and compassion in the bulk of its followers discourages me from placing any confidence in its processes.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 11:41 am

AngelRho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.


They are free to indulge in immorality just as much as any of us are free. They are also free, just as other are, to indulge in MORALITY and do those things which would be a GOOD testimony to the faith. Further, they are free to turn away from immorality.

Church leaders (any church here) have an awesome responsibility to emulate Christ-like behavior. Those that fail do so at the risk of destroying not only their own credibility but that of the church they lead.

The best thing to be done, I think, in any church (Catholic or Protestant) is to take every measure possible to make sure that leaders are the best witnesses of the faith. If they are consistently wrong, get rid of them. But like I said, they aren't reflective of the actual teachings of Christ and the Bible and should not be used as an example of what ALL Christians believe and practice.


To an extent, the ability to remove horrible leadership depends upon the form of Church government. Some are more democratic and some are more hierarchical. In both situations corruption occurs, where the members of the Church with a democratic system of rule can threaten the elected leader if they preach something they don't want to hear and where the Church government is hierarchical the leadership is there with only their higher ups to worry about which is nearly identical to Wal-Mart and other corporations. There is not a system of mere human government which cannot be undermined with sin.

What is truly sad is what you make a reference to in your second and third paragraphs, that people perform the association fallacy, or fallacy of composition, in regard to one part being representative of the whole. "I have a notebook, and the first page is written upon, therefore all pages of the notebook are written upon." Some people perform this fallacy on purpose, for rhetorical purposes, such as to persuade.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

12 Apr 2010, 11:57 am

i think 2nd peter 3:3-4 clearly illustrates christianity's position as to "the burden of proof."



and i still like the LOLCATBIBLE version better. i mean, if you're going to feed me a bunch of "because i said so" it might as well have sugar on it.


oh yeah, and sand..... how dare you imply that people might associate the actions of an organization's leadership with the members which compose that organization and follow said leadership's leadership.....

2nd peter 3:3-4 really is the foundation of everything you're running into, here. "my god is totally real, showed up to prove it (but only really put in enough effort to prove it to a few people and didn't bother to leave any lasting proof), and even though we killed him for it, he's gonna come back and bring me f***tons of ice cream and presents. ...he just hasn't yet... ...and didn't leave any info as to when he would... and he knew you would totally think i was lying, so his buddy told me [i]don't worry, dude. just because you'll sound crazy and people will point out how crazy you sound and that you have absolutely nothing to go on but really shaky hearsay that is not only contradicted by evidence but also contradicted by itself, doesn't mean that guy i told you is going to come back with ice cream and cookies isn't actually coming back. it just shows those damn infidels are infidels.[i] and that is proof enough to dispel all of your evil blaspheming lies!"



seriously, how do you argue with that? 2nd peter 3:3-4 ftw.

bring up the book of Job. that one's way more fun.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 12:08 pm

waltur wrote:
i think 2nd peter 3:3-4 clearly illustrates christianity's position as to "the burden of proof."



and i still like the LOLCATBIBLE version better. i mean, if you're going to feed me a bunch of "because i said so" it might as well have sugar on it.


oh yeah, and sand..... how dare you imply that people might associate the actions of an organization's leadership with the members which compose that organization and follow said leadership's leadership.....

2nd peter 3:3-4 really is the foundation of everything you're running into, here. "my god is totally real, showed up to prove it (but only really put in enough effort to prove it to a few people and didn't bother to leave any lasting proof), and even though we killed him for it, he's gonna come back and bring me f***tons of ice cream and presents. ...he just hasn't yet... ...and didn't leave any info as to when he would... and he knew you would totally think i was lying, so his buddy told me [i]don't worry, dude. just because you'll sound crazy and people will point out how crazy you sound and that you have absolutely nothing to go on but really shaky hearsay that is not only contradicted by evidence but also contradicted by itself, doesn't mean that guy i told you is going to come back with ice cream and cookies isn't actually coming back. it just shows those damn infidels are infidels.[i] and that is proof enough to dispel all of your evil blaspheming lies!"



seriously, how do you argue with that? 2nd peter 3:3-4 ftw.

bring up the book of Job. that one's way more fun.


This is a perfect example of the type of quasipolemic diatribes that I am tired of.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 12:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the Christian Church is morality, not power as in other controlling institutions. If the fundamental teachings of the Christian doctrine are powerless to properly direct the mechanisms of the church then the doctrines must be too feeble to be useful.


The foundation of the Christian Church isn't morality alone, it's Christ's death on the Cross for the atonement of sins. Morality comes from loving God enough that you desire to not offend Him by continuance in sin, and acting upon that love for Him by ceasing sin.


And of course, high church officials are then, with God's will, to feel guilty but free to indulge in immorality.


No, they aren't. You honk your own horn about being able to think while everyone else can't, but this post of yours is just failblog quality dude.

Also, if you are referring to the practice known as indulgences, that was one of the items which was reformed within the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.


They are free to indulge in immorality just as much as any of us are free. They are also free, just as other are, to indulge in MORALITY and do those things which would be a GOOD testimony to the faith. Further, they are free to turn away from immorality.

Church leaders (any church here) have an awesome responsibility to emulate Christ-like behavior. Those that fail do so at the risk of destroying not only their own credibility but that of the church they lead.

The best thing to be done, I think, in any church (Catholic or Protestant) is to take every measure possible to make sure that leaders are the best witnesses of the faith. If they are consistently wrong, get rid of them. But like I said, they aren't reflective of the actual teachings of Christ and the Bible and should not be used as an example of what ALL Christians believe and practice.


To an extent, the ability to remove horrible leadership depends upon the form of Church government. Some are more democratic and some are more hierarchical. In both situations corruption occurs, where the members of the Church with a democratic system of rule can threaten the elected leader if they preach something they don't want to hear and where the Church government is hierarchical the leadership is there with only their higher ups to worry about which is nearly identical to Wal-Mart and other corporations. There is not a system of mere human government which cannot be undermined with sin.

What is truly sad is what you make a reference to in your second and third paragraphs, that people perform the association fallacy, or fallacy of composition, in regard to one part being representative of the whole. "I have a notebook, and the first page is written upon, therefore all pages of the notebook are written upon." Some people perform this fallacy on purpose, for rhetorical purposes, such as to persuade.


I am well aware I cannot persuade you of anything. But perhaps my disappointment in the entire religious concept can carry a bit of the deep repulsion I feel for the immense deception of the whole business.