Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 59
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by LawDog View Post
    Part of me thinks I should wait longer before responding to this; part of me thinks this needs to be addressed immediately. I'm going to listen to the 'act now' side of my brain.

    Do you think that Jesus Christ had a wife and she was simply left out of the Bible? If he did not, then the suggestion here is that Christ engaged in a casual sexual relationship; that he committed the sin of fornication. He was not simply a man. He was the Son of God. He was the perfect and sinless man. If Christ sinned just as we sin, then his sacrifice would be worthless. The atonement of Christ's blood only works because he was without sin.I know that this is a popular sentiment and is taught at the pulpit of many a sect, but I think it is absolutely nonsense. Was Christ married? 'Neither the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord'. I don't get it. Fornication is never 'condemned' as it were. It is adultery, of which the biblical definition is, basically, extra-marital sex. Was Jesus married? I am sure that he was, and I would not be surprised if he had more than one wife. In fact, I would be surprised if Mary Magdalene was his only spouse. Was she 'left out' of the Bible? Bro, a MILLION things were TAKEN out. To believe that the bible is a 'complete' book is to not understand what the Bible is.

    Did He get pissed off? Yes. The Bible says as much. Which gives us evidence that being angry is not in and of itself a sin.

    Of course he ate and urinated. That's part of taking on an earthly form. While crapping may be "dirty" in the biological/disease sense, it isn't sinful.

    Whether he ever insulted someone is a very complex question. It's a lot deeper than it looks at first glance. His dismissive treatment of the Pharisees could be considered insulting, but he did not do so in order to belittle them. He did it to bring glory to the Father; to point out their errors and guide people to the truth. One must tell the truth, and bad people (or those engaged in bad behaviour, at least) tend to take the truth hard. Dancing around what you MEAN TO SAY doesnt help anyone. Jesus was tactful, but I don't think he pretended to be 'above' shutting someone down for fear of hurting their feelings. Not in the slightest. He said what was best to be said in every moment. And to conspiring, back-stabbing liars.... Fuck them.

    Christ is indeed the model of a man. We should strive to be like Christ, despite knowing that we will come short. To declare that for Christ to be "a man" he would have to be guilty of your preferred sins. We are all guilty of confirmation bias or of projection to a larger or greater degree. However, I tend to agree more with Gabe on this. I don't usually come out and say as much since there are plenty of people on this forum willing to sniff his ass crack and tell him it smells of roses as it is (hey man, its true lol) however, I cannot find any single man in the scriptures that was held as an exemplary man of God who was, well, a wimpy bitch. Being able of extreme kindness and the ability to offer aid are not mutually exclusive traits to a large capacity for violence and anger. Those here should know this. Do I think Jesus was the perfect man? Of course. Do I think he was he hippe queer bait so often presented to us by the Goodie Two-Shoe types? Well, they are guilty of projecting, as well.

    I say this sternly, but with love and respect.
    I generally agree with Mr Suarez, here. I would rather kill a man in righteousness with a few 'fuckyoumotherfuckers' or a 'eatshitcommiefuck' or something and then go pull a cork afterward with the boys, than be a 'the Lord will come to my rescue' types.

    Praise God, but keep your powder dry.

    As Americans, whatever disgusting society we have developed is our own fault, and it is OUR job to fix it. God didn't create this mess, we did. We clean it up.

    Ill believe I will be judged based on the amount of good I did for others, as compared to the amount of bad I intentionally did. My level of repentance for having done said bad, ect.

    Believing in 'turn the other cheek'... yeah. Fuck that shit. It's not what He actually said, anyways.

    I prefer the Law of Vengeance.

    I would rather be the Goel.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    171

    Default Christian Resistance to Tyranny

    I believe it was the Council of Nicaea. Approximately 300 years after Christ if I remember correctly. That seems to be the magic number for how long an institution can resist Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    Edited to add - response to Dorkface. Should have used the quote function


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by patriot3386; 09-27-2021 at 05:40 PM.
    "Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it."
    - Richard Rahl, The Sword of Truth

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorkface View Post
    I forget what it was call... I learned about it in a bunch of classes I had to take before the catholic church would let me marry my wife because they didn't think I was catholic enough or some bs. It was a big get together where a bunch of people got together to decide, yes decide, what was going to be in the bible. There was a bunch of gospels they didn't want to include for one reason or another. If man has decided that then whats to say they didn't alter other stuff. Man is fallible and will twist things to suit their own need.

    So saying "ItS NoT In ThE BiBlE!!! REEEEEE" considering there is a ton of stuff they didn't want to put in it doesn't hold water.

    Oh also the commie piece of shit we have for the pope.

    Tell me people in power haven't altered things for their own benefit.

    Always question the validity of everything.
    The Council of Nicaea.

    Bunch of guys got together (they are not the first or second to do this) and decided on what would be considered cannonized scripture in the new Bible (greek word meaning a bunch of books). Important to note that they included books in the Cannonized Bible that broke their own rules for cannonization. Which is funny.

    Things are not all what they seem to be.

    Question everything. Most of it is bullshit.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    454
    It wasn’t the Commies in the church that drove me to leave, although that did influence my decision...

    ...it was my utter contempt for the lazy fucks in the congregation, unwilling to lift a finger to better their family or financial situation. So many of them simply looked skyward with open arms, waiting for manna to rain down from the heavens.

    You become the average of the five people you hang out with the most. I chose to no longer hang out with lazy swine who lack ambition, and instead surrounded myself with successful people. And my life has been better ever since.
    “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is the time to dare and endure.” - Churchill

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Exiled in Texas
    Posts
    7,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorkface View Post
    I forget what it was call... I learned about it in a bunch of classes I had to take before the catholic church would let me marry my wife because they didn't think I was catholic enough or some bs. It was a big get together where a bunch of people got together to decide, yes decide, what was going to be in the bible. There was a bunch of gospels they didn't want to include for one reason or another. If man has decided that then whats to say they didn't alter other stuff. Man is fallible and will twist things to suit their own need.

    So saying "ItS NoT In ThE BiBlE!!! REEEEEE" considering there is a ton of stuff they didn't want to put in it doesn't hold water..

    Always question the validity of everything.
    You’re referring to the council at Nicaea. In the second century A.D. a group of Christian academics (that’s the best modern expression I can come up with for what they were) gathered together with the goal of assembling and organizing the separate books that would comprise what we now know as the Bible. Some books lacked a sufficient pedigree and were excluded. The books that were chosen were vetted and debated. Their goal was to compile a complete and reliable set of Scripture, without being overly redundant.

    It’s reasonable to question it. How did they decide? What about the Apocrypha and other excluded books? At some point you have to act on faith. This point, for me, was one of those times. God tells us that the Bible is “sufficient;” it contains everything we need. He tells us that it was inspired by Him. While a man’s hand may have held the pen, the words are of God. If God inspired men to write the words correctly, wouldn’t he have guided the men who stitched it all together?

    At some point, it takes faith. But it’s not unfaithful to question it. Especially when you get into different translations, there is room for questions. That’s just good scholarship. Scrutinize it and decide.

    As you scrutinize, be careful to not ascribe to the Bible things that are not in there. Even in his own day, the Apostle Paul warned about false teachers within the church. The things you’ve been taught by the clergy are only of value to the extent that they conform to the Bible. You can trust the Bible. You can’t trust a priest.
    Virtute et Armis

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Taylor View Post
    Ill believe I will be judged based on the amount of good I did for others, as compared to the amount of bad I intentionally did. My level of repentance for having done said bad, ect.
    That's not the standard the Scripture sets forth. The judgment of heaven or hell (to put it the simplest way I can think of) is whether your name is in the Book of Life, and that depends upon response to God's sovereign grace enabling you to accept and surrender to Christ's saving work on Calvary. Now the things we do matter, but those things are not the standard of salvation, only of reward. No one earns his way to Heaven.

    And any law of vengeance is His and His alone to execute because He and He alone is judge. Yes, we are justified in killing people under certain circumstances, defending ourselves and our property, suing to obtain remedies for wrongs against, so on. That does not vest us with the power of vengeance, however.

    I'm with LawDog on the role of the Council of Nicaea. The authority was not in the canonizing men themselves but in God who showed what was holy writ and what was not. The Bible as it stands shows its sufficiency to "answer all the questions," as Francis Schaeffer described the burden (and test) of a worldview, with internal consistency. That's enough.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Faramir2 View Post
    That's not the standard the Scripture sets forth. The judgment of heaven or hell (to put it the simplest way I can think of) is whether your name is in the Book of Life, and that depends upon response to God's sovereign grace enabling you to accept and surrender to Christ's saving work on Calvary. Kind of defeats the whole 'take up the Cross and follow me' than, doesnt it. Now the things we do matter, but those things are not the standard of salvation, only of reward. No one earns his way to Heaven. Simply 'accepting' Jesus' sacrifice does not constitute, in my mind, an entrance into heaven. Or the lack thereof a condemnation to hell. Jesus' said himself 'by their works ye shall know them'. So while I don't pretend to buy my way into heaven, sitting on my ass with my church friends while we pat ourselves on the back and talk about how awesome (err, how we are all sinners, I mean) is not greater than a man who goes out and tries to accomplish a good thing, even if he has faults and errors.

    And any law of vengeance is His and His alone to execute because He and He alone is judge. Yes, we are justified in killing people under certain circumstances, defending ourselves and our property, suing to obtain remedies for wrongs against, so on. That does not vest us with the power of vengeance, however. If He didn't want me to take vengeance, than he should not have blessed me with children. Vengeance sure as hell is mine when we are talking about that over which I am made steward. Any man who says different is a liar or a coward. This is what the Goel is. Old Testament. You know, the part Christians pretend isn't there, except for the Psalms and Proverbs (the feel good parts)

    I'm with LawDog on the role of the Council of Nicaea. The authority was not in the canonizing men themselves but in God who showed what was holy writ and what was not. The Bible as it stands shows its sufficiency to "answer all the questions," as Francis Schaeffer described the burden (and test) of a worldview, with internal consistency. That's enough.
    I do not believe that the men in Nicaea were holy, nor called of God. Good intentioned, good willed one only must assume so.

    Called of God? Not hardly.

    Theirs is not to determine that which comes from God, neither the extent of that which is His Word.

    If you think the only revelation is that which is found in the Bible or Torah or whichever scripture you adhere to, this does not even make logical sense.

    I am a heretic, I believe, even in my own church.

    EDIT TO ADD:

    As far as the bible being sufficient to discover the truth of all answerable questions, or it's sufficiency, I will say this:

    the Bible does not even show how the Church is to be organized. How can one possibly say that it is sufficiently complete?? This organization was painstakingly covered in the Old Testament during the Pre-Christ days. So how can we say that it is complete when this same level of organizational and administration was likely INTENTIONALLY not included in the New Testament? It is most obviously not. Sufficient to live a righteous life, yes I believe so. But from what authority does any Pastor call upon to claim that his church is 'the one' or whatever? He has none. Literally zero. Pastors used to recognize this fact. I believe the Methodist faith was originally established on this principle as one of it's core concepts; that NO ONE had authority from God.

    It is not complete. This is not a condemnable acclamation before the Lord since I am not responsible for writing the or composing the Bible, am I? But to pretend that something is OK when it is fairly obvious that it is not...

    Therefore, any man worshipping at home or finding fault in the organized religions of the country is no more at fault than he can reasonably expected to be. In fact, recognizing that Modern American Christianity is a bad joke is a step closer to the truth than away from it, imo.
    Last edited by Ryan Taylor; 09-27-2021 at 07:37 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by LawDog View Post
    You’re referring to the council at Nicaea. In the second century A.D. a group of Christian academics (that’s the best modern expression I can come up with for what they were) gathered together with the goal of assembling and organizing the separate books that would comprise what we now know as the Bible. Some books lacked a sufficient pedigree and were excluded. The books that were chosen were vetted and debated. Their goal was to compile a complete and reliable set of Scripture, without being overly redundant.

    It’s reasonable to question it. How did they decide? What about the Apocrypha and other excluded books? At some point you have to act on faith. This point, for me, was one of those times. God tells us that the Bible is “sufficient;” it contains everything we need. He tells us that it was inspired by Him. While a man’s hand may have held the pen, the words are of God. If God inspired men to write the words correctly, wouldn’t he have guided the men who stitched it all together?

    At some point, it takes faith. But it’s not unfaithful to question it. Especially when you get into different translations, there is room for questions. That’s just good scholarship. Scrutinize it and decide.

    As you scrutinize, be careful to not ascribe to the Bible things that are not in there. Even in his own day, the Apostle Paul warned about false teachers within the church. The things you’ve been taught by the clergy are only of value to the extent that they conform to the Bible. You can trust the Bible. You can’t trust a priest.
    I’m quite tired so forgive my possibly only somewhat coherent post; the topic matter is too important to leave to later and forget.

    There’s a lot more to the Council at Nicea, and the other councils, than is commonly reported. For one, books that hinted at mysticism were erased from canon. The biggest problem with The Holy Bible is the version we have is the only one we know of that had fanatical scribes and monks that risked life and limb to preserve it. The current version is the most accurate historical document we have of anything remotely its age, so we must necessarily use it to measure everything else against, and anything that disagrees with it must be set aside. This is assuming one understands fully that which one is measuring against, of course.

    As Dorkface said, always question the validity of everything. This is not directed at LawDog, but to all. Like the US Presidency: do you really think the most powerful office in the world is allowed to be selected by chance? Are you really that naive? Same here: do you really think the most powerful book in the history of the world would be allowed to run free, organically? Or do you think a certain emperor or king or two had some influence in how it was edited? Considering they were the patrons, directly or indirectly, of those doing the work? Some things need to be taken on faith, but the grand majority can be discussed and supported in honest, rational discourse. Question. Everything. Or go bleating on with the others.

    One easy standard to hold church teachers and leaders against: Scripture must be taught in context of church history, original meanings of words(themselves in historical and societal context), and context of Scripture itself. If anyone teaches a message on standalone verses and talks about “I think” or “I feel” you may be listening to a Marxist. Or an idiot, but I repeat myself.

    There are lifetimes to unpack here. Another example: most of the New Testament was written by (Christian)Jews, for Jews and those living with Jews, under the Roman Empire. Much of what is taught does not directly apply to Americans living under the Constitution. Lessons can and should be learned, but any church teacher teaching those messages as directly applying to American Christians is a liar or a Marxist(or possibly just an idiot), but again I repeat myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    Hmmm. Alone...it seems I am not.
    Not remotely. It’s a small group, but there are others. Absolutely nothing wrong with being a professed biblical Christian while acknowledging that there may be a significant missing part of the story without invalidating any of it. An example of that is the Book of Enoch is quoted in Scripture, but not included in it. Which version of the Book of Enoch is accurate is anyone’s guess at this point, unfortunately.
    Last edited by Captain Ron; 09-27-2021 at 07:46 PM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Taylor View Post
    I do not believe that the men in Nicaea were holy, nor called of God. Good intentioned, good willed one only must assume so.

    Called of God? Not hardly.

    Theirs is not to determine that which comes from God, neither the extent of that which is His Word.

    If you think the only revelation is that which is found in the Bible or Torah or whichever scripture you adhere to, this does not even make logical sense.

    I am a heretic, I believe, even in my own church.

    EDIT TO ADD:

    As far as the bible being sufficient to discover the truth of all answerable questions, or it's sufficiency, I will say this:

    the Bible does not even show how the Church is to be organized. How can one possibly say that it is sufficiently complete?? This organization was painstakingly covered in the Old Testament during the Pre-Christ days. So how can we say that it is complete when this same level of organizational and administration was likely INTENTIONALLY not included in the New Testament? It is most obviously not. Sufficient to live a righteous life, yes I believe so. But from what authority does any Pastor call upon to claim that his church is 'the one' or whatever? He has none. Literally zero. Pastors used to recognize this fact. I believe the Methodist faith was originally established on this principle as one of it's core concepts; that NO ONE had authority from God.

    It is not complete. This is not a condemnable acclamation before the Lord since I am not responsible for writing the or composing the Bible, am I? But to pretend that something is OK when it is fairly obvious that it is not...

    Therefore, any man worshipping at home or finding fault in the organized religions of the country is no more at fault than he can reasonably expected to be. In fact, recognizing that Modern American Christianity is a bad joke is a step closer to the truth than away from it, imo.
    Don't know that this thread will continue much longer but wanted to make a few responsive points, starting with the bolded, embedded responses to certain of my remarks.

    1. Taking up the cross: No, noting that salvation by faith in Christ through the grace of God does not defeat the purpose of taking up one's cross and following Him. The two serve different functions. Jesus Himself said that one must come through Him. Where He says to take up one's cross and follow Him, in John 17, is about how we then live out that faith day-to-day, moment-by-moment. Salvation at the point of justification comes by nothing but faith in Him by grace alone, and His command to take up the cross and follow Him does not contradict that. See also James 2, discussing the importance of showing faith by works, but distinguishing that from being saved by works. What contradicts the true message is your statement that doing the right things is necessary to entering Heaven. It is not, as the entire New Testament, most particularly Romans 3–4, makes abundantly clear. What we do is important but for a different reason. That also means members of the church should sit on their duffs praising/flagellating themselves. That's wrong, but certain churchgoers' wrong actions don't change the actual condition of salvation. (And the Reformed side of me suggests, too, that failing to live consistently with what one espouses suggests the person is not actually a Christian to begin with, but only a pew-sitter, in this sort of situation.)

    2. The Old Testament and the avenger: I'm quite familiar with the Old Testament and the Mosaic law (wrote my undergrad Honors thesis paper on it), and I accept and study every part of the Bible, whether it "feels" good or not. (For the record, I think the Old Testament law far more just than most of the law in place today; but whether it is Scripture and thus necessary to study in order to know God and live as He commands has nothing to do with my approval vel non.) The avenger may have been a figure accepted by custom, but it was hardly one ratified by the Old Testament law. In fact, Old Testament law provided cities of refuge precisely so that someone who killed another by accident could receive sanctuary from the avenger and receive a procedurally and substantively just judgment. Nowhere does that law contemplate that a family member may take justice/vengeance into his own hands, and God himself says, through David the Psalmist, that vengeance is His and His alone.

    Now I totally sympathize with your sentiment. I don't have kids but would like to soon, and I do have a wife and an infant nephew. My inclination, were someone to try to hurt them? They would get a hurtin' put on 'em, as they say in the South. You better believe it. But that does not mean that vengeance in the sense it seems you mean is permitted or justified under the Scripture. Think hard about that one.

    3. Nicaea, revelation, and sufficiency/completeness of the Scripture: The men of Nicaea were not, so far as I can tell, later-day prophets, which is the sort of character you seem to deny they had. To the extent that they were not Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, Amos (just to include a Minor Prophet), no, they were not the same sort of "men of God" referred to in the Old Testament (and the New) in the "mouthpiece of God to the Hebrew nation" sense of a prophet. They came together to resolve competing claims of various writings that claimed in their own texts and others claimed they were Scripture. Those men were wise and discerning, and I also think it reasonable to trust, as LawDog explained, that they were guided by God on which books fit within the canon. As Captain Ron pointed out, to state it more generally, many things were excluded from the canon. In the case of mysticism, that's because mysticism—in the sense of meditative, heightened consciousness, self-development by internal reflection measures—contradicts what else God had said about growth of an individual coming from knowing and following Him, knowing Him first through the Words He spoke through the prophets and later as written down (including by the prophets, see, e.g., Jeremiah 35–37). (Not to mention that, as Paul pointed out, a doctrine that would contradict anything in the true Gospel of God is a doctrine of demons—ouch, good reason to exclude books predicated on mysticism that was inconsistent with the Gospel.) They knew these things for certain from the preexisting Old Testament canon and the testimonies of the apostles to what Jesus Himself taught. In discerning what books were canon and which not, they knew that the revelation of God would be internally consistent, in every particular, because God is the same for all of time, and His character does not change. (See several chapters of Jeremiah, in which God reiterates that He has not changed and therefore His love for and promises to His people did not change.) Accordingly, anything that contradicted what they knew about God—which did not change at any point in history, I cannot stress enough—necessarily could not be canon. And certain things they already knew to fit, such as Paul's writings and those of the other known, confirmed apostles. The question was how to filter out the crap that others were purveying. More could be said about the Council of Nicaea, but I think that suffices for this point: The men who formed the council may not have been "called" in the sense of the Old Testament prophets, but that's not the point.

    Related but somewhat tangential: Burden is on you to prove that asserting that God's revelation comes only through the Bible is illogical, which you haven't done, only asserted it. That aside, it is a perfectly logical position because the Bible is the only confirmed canon. God spoke in particular ways through particular people in history, and those who heard from someone who purported to speak for the Lord were to test that person, most basically on whether what was spoken actually happened. One of the key tests was internal consistency with the known and trusted Word of God already received. That internal consistency is key here because the New Testament makes plain that prophecy post-Jesus's incarnation concerns speaking truly about the already-revealed Word. And the redemptive plan of God in Jesus now being complete, in that Jesus has come, died, been buried, rose, and ascended, means also that the revelation of God about Him and through those who taught the early church about Him is also complete. That means extra-Scriptural revelation, in the sense of producing more Scripture, no longer exists precisely because God's message is complete.

    No, the Bible doesn't speak exhaustively—but that does not mean it does not speak sufficiently. That means we must study to understand it and "show ourselves approved," as Paul put it to Timothy (don't recall which letter off the top of my head). And you're entirely correct, the New Testament doesn't tell us precisely how to structure churches. One with authority to speak from God, at that time, on the issue, however, did specifically say not to neglect to meet together. That means we are to meet together, full stop, and we are to call out those who neglect to do so, which I have done here. I in no way desire to speak presumptuously. But the Scripture is clear as glass on this point, which means I have not, nor has anyone else who has raised the same point. And you're also right that no pastor has the authority to declare his church to be the only right denomination (one reason I summarily reject most things the Church of Christ and Independent Fundamental Baptists teach), but that's also utterly beside the present point. A pastor does have the duty, as Paul emphasized to the church at Thessalonica, Timothy, and Titus, to preach the Word faithfully, including to call out and discipline those members of the church who refuse to follow what the Word says.

    So to put a finer point on it: Yes, to the extent you deny these things, you are a heretic. That's what the Scripture itself, applied to what it seems you believe, indicates.

    ***

    So getting back around to the original main point: We must say truly what the Bible says, recognizing that it is our only rule for faith and practice, and recognizing consequently that it only contains certain things and not others because those others are, in God's judgment, not necessary to include. We must nonetheless submit to what it says, learning from it through the work of the Holy Spirit in us. That is a point we must not lose in all this. The Spirit is the one who guides, not simply man's cognition. Yes, God gave us minds, and so we must use them. We must use them properly and in due submission to God's Word, as He made us. That also requires humility and complete submission to His Spirit, a concept I do not like, humanly speaking, but that as one redeemed by the work of His Son, I must accept—and when I see that that puts me into my proper lane, so to speak, I can accept it joyfully, because then I am willing and open to the growing work of the Spirit. And therein lies joy and contentment.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,726
    Yeah, I agree.

    A religious committee of high ranking church leaders, convened by a king, to define the precepts of a religion, and to pick and choose what texts are or are not correct, couldn't have possibly been corrupt, bias, or influenced by personal motivations, political influence, or power.

    Everyone knows committees always make the best decisions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •