Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How man judges me is the lease of my worries, I am most concerned with what pleases my heavenly Father.
There are those that agree, having been taught of the Spirit, and those that agree that having some understanding of the word .
Not every man is 100% spirit filled and 100% obedient at every level.
When you went to school and were tested in English ,did you know every thing before the teacher taught it to you ? Did you pick it all at once, or little bits at a time ?
From my expirence I picked up certain aspects, and had to apply extra effort, to retain the other aspects, and unlearn some bad aspects and bad habits .the same holds true in this relationship especially because people have invested so much in misinformation.
A lot of what Paul teaches is misinformation some directly conflicting with what Jesus taught in very specific terms.
Some one desperate for the tutelage of the Holy Spirit ,willing to shed past teaching may be able to be awakened to clearification by the Spirit .
I would much rather not teach any one that is God's job.
My job is to tell you it's His Job.
The steps of a righteous man are ordered by the Lord.
I would much rather not teach any one -- that is God's job.
My job is to tell you it's His Job. The steps of a righteous man are ordered by the Lord.
Nice deepities there ... but it doesn't really address the problem that there is no objective way to determine who god is talking to and who is making stuff up. You claims to be hearing from god in the form of the holy spirit, but that is simply your claim.
Your way around that is to say that you are simply pointing others to the holy spirit; and that would be fine if the holy spirit told everyone the same thing. You say that no one is perfect in hearing the spirit of god, but that's an excuse, not a solution. If the holy spirit speaks to imperfect people who come up with wildly different ideas of what he's saying, then what's the point of him speaking at all?
God, being god, was perfectly capable of baking in full knowledge of himself into everyone so that everyone is on the same page. He didn't, though, and then by most Christian teachings he's willing to burn people in hell for being on the wrong page.
I used to think that a reverence for scripture solved the problem but the interpretation of scripture is still subjective. And you're not even an inerrantist; you're willing to admit that Jesus and Paul contradict each other, and cast your lot with Jesus. But to do that you have to throw inerrancy under the bus.
My way out of the thicket was to admit that everyone is making it up as they go, there's no way to reconcile all the claims and counterclaims, and there's no need to because it's nearly 100% BS anyway.
An actual Biblical society would have no money, rather barter and concern for fellow members would dominate. No poor, no rich, no greed, no selfishness. the problem of course is that today such believers could not maintain a Country as the neighbors would just gobble it up. There are not enough people who would actually want such a level society either.
You don't imagine that in a barter system the disagreement can't arise as to how many of my apples is your horse worth?
"Money' is nothing more than a representation of value.
The most negative definitions are usually used with the words envy, lust and greed.
When applied in a more positive way, they can be positive, useful and motivating.
Such as emulation, love, and ambition.
Read The Virtue In The Vice, OP.
Also read Doctor Strange, the Infinity Gauntlet comic where he faces Adam Warlock. The guy wants to make everyone be "happy" and you quickly realize this is a nightmare. A similar premise happens in the last book of The Wheel of Time.
Two posts above me, the reason that god doesn't do just that is because the way of God's truth is not a hard and fast set of rules. The 10 commandments are specific things we shouldn't do, but they are only 10 and most of them are negative rules. God doesn't tell us how to live, possibly because so long as we don't kill ourselves or the earth, there isn't really a rule for how we should live. Actually, if Hinduism is right, the one thing baked into our clay is that we came to this life to learn and decide our mission. What that is, is part of us, and it varies from person to person. Finding what's important to us is our mission, and then the other stuff isn't crucial.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 07-12-2015 at 06:17 AM..
Nice deepities there ... but it doesn't really address the problem that there is no objective way to determine who god is talking to and who is making stuff up. You claims to be hearing from god in the form of the holy spirit, but that is simply your claim.
Your way around that is to say that you are simply pointing others to the holy spirit; and that would be fine if the holy spirit told everyone the same thing. You say that no one is perfect in hearing the spirit of god, but that's an excuse, not a solution. If the holy spirit speaks to imperfect people who come up with wildly different ideas of what he's saying, then what's the point of him speaking at all?
God, being god, was perfectly capable of baking in full knowledge of himself into everyone so that everyone is on the same page. He didn't, though, and then by most Christian teachings he's willing to burn people in hell for being on the wrong page.
I used to think that a reverence for scripture solved the problem but the interpretation of scripture is still subjective. And you're not even an inerrantist; you're willing to admit that Jesus and Paul contradict each other, and cast your lot with Jesus. But to do that you have to throw inerrancy under the bus.
My way out of the thicket was to admit that everyone is making it up as they go, there's no way to reconcile all the claims and counterclaims, and there's no need to because it's nearly 100% BS anyway.
Your dismissal of the fact Jesus specifically designated the Holy Spirit to teach in His place ,and the fact that in heaven only those with Jesus actual Lordship will have entry Matthew 7;21,22,23, you do not actually have a relationship .
Those in the relationship do agree in many aspects ,but like I said there is a lot of learning and unlearning that must be addressed in each individuals life till it is 100% and hopefully with a bent to obedience to the Holy Spirit unity from God's point of view is found.
It would be disturbing to think God would allow chaos I heaven ,having kicked Satan out for his rebellion.
That's just not His way.
Your dismissal of the fact Jesus specifically designated the Holy Spirit to teach in His place ,and the fact that in heaven only those with Jesus actual Lordship will have entry Matthew 7;21,22,23, you do not actually have a relationship.
I do not dismiss that the Bible states that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit for essentially the purpose you state. I may not believe that as you do, but I am simply saying, if this were true, what would be expect to see? Would we expect the chaotic situation that actually obtains where few agree on what the HS is actually saying? Where you can come along and reject to an extent at least the Pauline writings and the inerrancy of scripture, thus relegating yourself to an even more minority position than that of most fundamentalists ... how does this demonstrate that, as scriptures claim, that God is not the author of confusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
Those in the relationship do agree in many aspects ,but like I said there is a lot of learning and unlearning that must be addressed in each individuals life till it is 100% and hopefully with a bent to obedience to the Holy Spirit unity from God's point of view is found.
2000 years and counting and I do not see any evidence that this coalescing around Truth is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
It would be disturbing to think God would allow chaos I heaven ,having kicked Satan out for his rebellion.
That's just not His way.
Of course it's disturbing to contemplate the possibility if you're invested in the notion of heaven. But on the general principle that "past is prologue" I've pointed out the chaos in this life and suggest that it is suggestive of what would happen in any afterlife. If god can have order then, he can have it now. And Satan is not a significant obstacle to an omnipotent deity; if he can kick Satan out later he can do it now, or simply outperform him. Or not have created Satan in the first place. Or not have allowed his rebellion to play out. Or any number of other things.
This Satan character is presented by you and other Christians as essentially an inevitable fact of THIS life, and you are okay with that because he is excluded from the next. Even allowing for the sake of argument that Satan and sin is actually a correct diagnosis of the present human condition, this presents problems for the arguments you are making because it shifts the entire value proposition of your ideology beyond death and probably beyond human existence as we know it. The solution to the human condition happens in the death-realm which conveniently is not accessible for evaluation or verification. ALL that we have to evaluate is whether there are any boons to human existence here and now such as unambiguous straightforward answers to the Great Questions and to human suffering. And I can see none. At all.
It depends on what you mean by "Bible based" society. To most evangelical fundamentalists, they are talking about an idealized, sterilized version of the 1950s. They long for a sexually repressed society in which father knows best and everyone knows their place. They are fine with unchecked greed and capitalism, war, and discrimination against women and minorities. God only cares about what people do in their bedroom.
The United States today is too pluralistic for it to possibly be that "moral" society that evangelicals long for. Not even the real 1950s were as pristine as they perceive them to be. Even if they were able to roll back the clock on marriage equality, Lawrence vs. Texas, abortion, prayer in schools, and banning creationism in science classes, it still wouldn't be enough for them. Because this is a pluralistic society, not everyone would go to church. There would still be crime. There would still be homosexuals. There would still be entertainment considered vulgar. There would still be people having sex out of wedlock. There is simply no way to bring about the society that evangelicals want while remaining a free country. It could only come about under an oppressive dictatorship and all dissent would need to be dealt with.
It depends on what you mean by "Bible based" society. To most evangelical fundamentalists, they are talking about an idealized, sterilized version of the 1950s. They long for a sexually repressed society in which father knows best and everyone knows their place. They are fine with unchecked greed and capitalism, war, and discrimination against women and minorities. God only cares about what people do in their bedroom.
The United States today is too pluralistic for it to possibly be that "moral" society that evangelicals long for. Not even the real 1950s were as pristine as they perceive them to be. Even if they were able to roll back the clock on marriage equality, Lawrence vs. Texas, abortion, prayer in schools, and banning creationism in science classes, it still wouldn't be enough for them. Because this is a pluralistic society, not everyone would go to church. There would still be crime. There would still be homosexuals. There would still be entertainment considered vulgar. There would still be people having sex out of wedlock. There is simply no way to bring about the society that evangelicals want while remaining a free country. It could only come about under an oppressive dictatorship and all dissent would need to be dealt with.
I will not make the argument that capitalism = godliness. That's not my view. It may be the most fair, as it rewards effort and work and punishes free loaders...but it's not perfect. There will be people that fall through the cracks and those that genuinely need help from others. But even in Acts 5 we see the selfish attitude of Christians causing issues with a communal living arrangement.
Look at Revelation 21-22. God spells out what society will be when he lives among his people. That's what it looks like. A life of biblical principles means that we love each other, we get along, and we seek to serve others. In essence, we fulfill the Law of Moses by loving God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength...and we love our neighbors as ourselves. But the problem was that sin got in the way for the people of Israel in the OT, and sin gets in the way today. ONLY after God deals completely with the issue of sin will it work.
That, at least, is very good. Government as practiced by early Christians in Acts 2:45 was much more akin to pure communism. But you say they were wrong? God wasn't using the disciples to suggest true communal living?
However, that is certainly NOT what christian culture demands of government today.
The problem is God's "people" defining what is sin without appropriate understanding of the cultural context in which "holy" scripture was written. The fact that too many people claiming to be Christian want to dominate the lives of people who aren't is how religion is itself sinful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
