moderator, can we have a "True Christians" section and a "Fake Christians" section?

[ChiefCowpie]

it is getting really confusing in here... the "True Christians" would be the place where the Deists, Gnostics and Unitarians could post and the "Fake Christians" could be where all the Nicene Creders post

[EllisDTripp]

it is getting really confusing in here... the "True Christians" would be the place where the Deists, Gnostics and Unitarians could post and the "Fake Christians" could be where all the Nicene Creders post

Sounds like a great idea, Chief, but there might be intellectual property issues involved here.

"True Christian®" is a registered trademark of Landover Baptist Church:

http://www.landoverbaptist.com

, where the unsaved are unwelcome. Glory!

And I'm sure their team of True Christian® lawyers would sue this site in an instant if we were to somehow associate their trademarked term with such things as Deism, Gnosticism, or (heaven forbid!) Unitarianism.

:)

[know1nozme]

Wow, EllisD, where do you find this stuff?!? I mean I knew there were some f*cked up people out there claiming to be doing "God's work," but it is just amazing what people can get away with and still call themselves "Christians."

Maybe it would be a good idea if someone clarified just what a Christian is supposed to act like, because this is definitely some Old Testament sh*t being espoused on the site you linked to.

Where’s the love and compassion and forgiveness? What happened to all those great lessons taught by the Son of Man? Pearls before swine, I guess...

[Lilyrayne]

I think that site was a satire... at least I certainly hope so.

[ericf]

I love Landover. It is one of the funniest sites one the planet.

And, yes, it is complete satire. This is from their Terms of Service right in the Preface.The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody.

Now, knowing that... go read the letters... they are the funniest part.

[HuckFinn]

ChiefCowpie,

I have ask you yet again to please provide some solid historical evidence to support your repeated claim that Gnosticism, Deism, Unitarianism, etc. represent the "true" teachings of Jesus and his earliest followers. Otherwise, you have no basis whatsoever for describing this hodgepodge of heresies as "Christian."

[Applespark]

hahahahaha:p

[Juiceman3000]

Sounds like a great idea, Chief, but there might be intellectual property issues involved here.

"True Christian®" is a registered trademark of Landover Baptist Church:

http://www.landoverbaptist.com (http://www.landoverbaptist.com/)

, where the unsaved are unwelcome. Glory!

And I'm sure their team of True Christian® lawyers would sue this site in an instant if we were to somehow associate their trademarked term with such things as Deism, Gnosticism, or (heaven forbid!) Unitarianism.

:)
Yuk Yuk EllisD!

Wow your having a hilarious old time supermoderating these Christian Forums!

I wonder how long I can go mocking your fake beliefs (notice I stated that like it was a fact) and making EllisDtripp parody's while 'high fiving' and smirking about how stupid you are?

I bet that , suddenly, you will become extremely serious and concerned about 'fairness' to others and forum guidelines?

DarrelKitchen was a bigot too but at least he didnt pro-actively set about to FLAME BAIT the very forum he was 'moderating' like YOU DO EllisDtripp.

I defend your right to be a flame-baiter Ellis - but I just wanted to know how quickly you will try and take away my right to call you on it?

Days?
By the next time I try and post?
When you get zinged back and it makes you mad?

[chris]

"Maybe it would be a good idea if someone clarified just what a Christian is supposed to act like, because this is definitely some Old Testament sh*t being espoused on the site you linked to. "

i think that site is clarifying what a christian is supposed to act like








i called the number they gave for the church, but the number didnt work

i love the parts on women

"
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Fred Neiman, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."
Dr. Neiman went on to say that, "once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."
"

"PLEASE NOTE: "If you send an e-mail submission to this site, you are certifying that you are 18 years or older and you are granting The Landover Baptist Parody Website a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display your submission (in whole or part including your personal e-mail address) and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed."


that site rivals www.jesusishitler.com (http://www.jesusishitler.com/) in its humor

[EllisDTripp]

I wonder how long I can go mocking your fake beliefs (notice I stated that like it was a fact)

And what might those "fake beliefs" be, Juicey?

I bet that , suddenly, you will become extremely serious and concerned about 'fairness' to others and forum guidelines?

And exactly what forum guidelines did my post violate? Please provide a quote of the relevant text.

DarrelKitchen was a bigot too but at least he didnt pro-actively set about to FLAME BAIT the very forum he was 'moderating' like YOU DO EllisDtripp.

If you take the LBC site as "flame bait", perhaps it is because it comes a little too close to the truth about SOME so-called Christians? Maybe it makes you examine some of your own behavior? At any rate, this thread has nowhere NEAR the flamebaiting potential (or downright stupidity) of the "You Might be an Atheist if..." thread you and the others are yukking it up in. The thing about a Goose and a Gander comes to mind about now....

I defend your right to be a flame-baiter Ellis

Gee, I'm so freaking honored, Juicey! I can hardly contain myself....:rolleyes:

Are you going to "defend" ChiefCowpie, too? After all, he is the one who actually STARTED this thread in the first place. You know, with that post that called you a "Fake Christian"?

- but I just wanted to know how quickly you will try and take away my right to call you on it?

You're right on the edge of the cliff, Juicey. So close that the slightest wind could knock you over.....I hope you didn't have beans for dinner! :)

[Juiceman3000]

Your last comment is the only one I need to see.

Not that Im surprised though.

Hey.. your the one who has to sleep at night knowing your a hypocritical asshole.


Edit: P.s.. I LOVE Landover Baptist because it demonstrates how pathetic critics must be that they actually have to create an imaginary soft target customised to accomodate their own misguided arguments.

Everytime I see that site it makes me laugh - at you.

[HuckFinn]

Take it outside, Ellis and Juiceman.

[Lilyrayne]

I just can NOT wait until the personal forums are back up... **rolling eyes**

At least then there will be an "outside" to take these kinda things to!

But hopefully it won't get in there in the first place.

*sigh*

[HuckFinn]

Trading personal barbs can occur through private messages; it doesn't contribute anything to these discussions. (If Juiceman thinks Ellis is a baiter, why does he keep taking the bait?)

Back to the topic of this thread, I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier post. I'm assuming that the evidence I requested hasn't been presented because it doesn't exist.

[WayfaringStranger]

cheif, there is a name for gnosticism, its called gnosticism, why dont you put your posts under that and leave the christians alone?

[ChiefCowpie]

ChiefCowpie,

I have ask you yet again to please provide some solid historical evidence to support your repeated claim that Gnosticism, Deism, Unitarianism, etc. represent the "true" teachings of Jesus and his earliest followers. Otherwise, you have no basis whatsoever for describing this hodgepodge of heresies as "Christian."
unitarians, deists and gnostic don't have to kill 50 million people to prove their religion is right as have the nicene creders...that's proof enough for me

[gnrm23]

well...

gnosticism did evolve around the same time as pharisee-ism & the new covenanters movement (& the essenes as well)...
and it was the first major "heresy" that "the church" had to contend with; and as such, it had a definite effect on the growth of "orthodox" ( here meaning as opposed to heterodox, & not in the sense of "eastern" churches) --- the apostles creed, & more emphatically the nicene & athanasian creeds were promulgated as an antidote to the gnostic interpretation(s) of the christ story...
and many of those who could be called gnostic considered themselves to be christian (or even "the true christians"...); but their insistance on direct personal revelation, and the delusional faith of "the uninitiated, and their resitance against central authority, eventually relegated them to the sidelines --- but only after a couple of centuries of vigorous contention; and something mirroring the gnostic view tends to pop up every few generations... indeed, harold bloom thinks that gnnosticism is an unstated (& perhaps even unrealized) major influence on american christianity (& its many offshoots, including stuff like christian science, mormonism, & even some of the pentecostal & charismatic strains...)

and unitarian/universalist folks - well, they think jesus is totally cool, they just don't want to call him god...
& deists think god is totally cool, they just don't want to call him jehovah...
;) ...

ymmv...

[darrellkitchen]

DarrelKitchen was a bigot too ...___________________________________
big·ot Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifghttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gift)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
___________________________________

Though JM3 is not around for my response, I'm sure he will incarnate again. But, since I have no partialities to a group, and have not been pushing Buddhism, have not spoken in any manner which relates to race or color of skin, and have no politics whatsover ... then the only thing I differ is that the term "Bigot" oes not apply to any part of me.

Not once have I shown partiality to a group, religion, race or political topic or subject. But then again why should I?

Sorry ... but the term in which you apply this to is incorrect and based solely on personal bias and has no logical basis.

Perhaps because I differ on how one treats another human being is why you would think I'm being a "Bigot"?

Who knows.

Metta,

Darrell

[moominmamma]

DarrellKitchen, I'm really sorry that you got called a bigot by Juiceman. I've only read a few of your posts, and you certainly don't seem to in any way deserve that label ,you appear to be a fair-minded and thoughtful person.

However I've also read some of Juicemans posts and yes he is antaganostic,but frankly I've seen a lot worse,and I can only assume he has been banned because of his previous bad reputation in the old forum. That seems to me to be a shame as I thought in starting again we were wiping the slate clean for everyone,

feeling that something somewhere isn't quite right in all this

best wishes

Moominmamma

[Lilyrayne]

Moominmama, don't complain too much about Juiceman's banishment... that is grounds for your own banishment according to the forum guidelines. **rolls eyes**

[Harmony_rain]

I especually like this artical that was written about a "disruptive" church attender.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0999/effeminate.html (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0999/effeminate.html)

[Harmony_rain]

oh Bree, this thing your talking about can i be apart of it? I like having smart conversations about Christianity with other smart, none judgemental people.

[Lilyrayne]

Sure! :) *hugs*

[Harmony_rain]

YEAH!!! thanks a bunch. Your awsome.

[WayfaringStranger]

cmon chief i thought you were a smart guy. christians never killed anyone. those were kings and generals, they just used religion as an excuse to gain support. most of then actually were gnostic themselves.

[Brocktoon]

Im a little confused as to why someone thought it was alright to post a topic with no other purpose but to call Orthodox (or non-gnostic) Christians 'Fake Christians' - and the moderator not only allowed it to go by but seemed to join in on the flame?

Personally Im not overly bothered by the insult but it seems odd it would be 'cheered on' by Admin.

Maybe we should clarify the word 'fake'.
Fake should refer to someone knowingly, deliberately and falsely masquerading as something legit.

Even if the 'Nicene' Christians were misguided it wouldnt necessarily mean they are 'fake'.
You could even call the Gospels 'Fake Gospels' (That what most of us think Thomas and Mary Magdeline Gospels are) but that isnt to say believers like ChiefcowPie are themselves 'Fake'.

In fact - because he believes in them means he is not a 'Fake believer'

Well... you all get what I mean right ?

;)

[ChiefCowpie]

"fake" in this sense means altered...the fake christians follow the altered message of christ

[gnrm23]

hey, if history is written by the winners, i suppose that you could say the creedal, trinitarian christians pretty much "won" ...

[darrellkitchen]

Im a little confused as to why someone thought it was alright to post a topic with no other purpose but to call Orthodox (or non-gnostic) Christians 'Fake Christians' - and the moderator not only allowed it to go by but seemed to join in on the flame?First off, Brocktoon, who is this "the moderator" you are referring to?

I have never, and never will encourage others to call what someone else does as being "fake." And being the moderator of the Philosophy & Religion forum I would like very much for you to point out to me where I have encouraged this. Now if you were referring to a moderator, then you should know there are several moderators on this site.

Personally Im not overly bothered by the insult but it seems odd it would be 'cheered on' by Admin.Now there is only one Admin and that would be Skip. So, I ask that you point out to me where an Admin "cheered on" anyone.

You have every right in your own beliefs to say whatever you wish. However, when pointing fingers, you should be a bit more specific. When accusing one moderator of doing something and not being specific on which moderator it is, your in essence accusing all moderators. Do you find this fair judgement?

Think first. I know we all have a problem with thinking first, especially when we disagree on something. But it does prevent wrong ideas or missapprehension of ideas and can help prevent or eliminate overly sensitive attitudes from flaring.

Metta,

Darrell

[EllisDTripp]

Not to mention the fact that the original poster is a moderator, as well....

:)

[HuckFinn]

unitarians, deists and gnostic don't have to kill 50 million people to prove their religion is right as have the nicene creders...that's proof enough for meIs that really the best you can do? Pathetic. Where's your factual evidence that (A) Christians have killed 50 million people and (B) they've textually altered the "real" teaching of Jesus?

[Smudge]

The reason for Christianity allowed Himself to be killed (murdered), as He knew, it would give us eternal life.... (well, for those who take the offer).

Anyone who murdered in ''His name'' was false...IGNORE them. The end.

[Brocktoon]

DarelKithen
Quick note on my previous 'open question' regarding Moderators/Admins

I thought the readers of this thread would have known 'of what' I was refering to and in the interest of making a generalised (non-personal) question I chose not to name names lol.

For the record - I wasn't refering to you Darryl.

You have to excuse me but the other forum I visit always refers to the Mod as 'Admin'.
Here I see that there is one 'Admin' and several 'Mods'.
My bad.

Anyway... it was just something that stood out as unusual and I had to ask the question.

My question has been answered now anyway so ....

Lets all move on to good times!
:D

[ChiefCowpie]

Is that really the best you can do? Pathetic. Where's your factual evidence that (B) they've textually altered the "real" teaching of Jesus?



http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/IC_GFNJE.GIF James the Just & Salvation via Works



In the first century, two concepts of Christian salvation contended for acceptance by a nascent church. One viewpoint was championed by none other than the official leader of the first century Christian church, James the brother of Jesus. This is the James who was also known to the early church as "the Righteous" or "the Just."

In a short New Testament epistle bearing his name, James asks: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? … faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."

James is clearly writing to refute an alternative viewpoint – expressed by Paul the apostle. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul had declared that: "… we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

To churches of the 20th and 21st centuries, the debate remains as fresh as it was almost two thousand years ago. Fundamentalist, evangelical Christians typically put their doctrinal eggs in the basket of faith; mainstream churches emphasize works – often in the form of social action. In the pantheon of Christian nobility, the role of James (and his one little book) today goes virtually unnoticed. Yet his influence at one time pervaded the early Jewish church. Even today, the perspective of James lives on, prompting a more careful look at what we know about the man and his mission.

[Meagain]

Boy, this Christian forum brings out the best in us all, dosen't it?

I would like to enter into this thing on Cowies' side with some facts (as I have read them) but I'm tied up in another thread about the resurrection which has morphed into discripencies in the new testament. So I don't know if I have the time.

But... very briefly the Gnostics held that JC was never an actual person, but a, what word am I looking for, a metaphor?, for the Christain ideal. JC was a mythical being used to advance the teachings of the church. The same as the pagen gods such as Osirus, et al.

This was the first heresy.
I can present "proof" through several books written on the subject, if I get time. Right now I am busy in the other thread.

But, let me say, it is never my intention to mock anyone's belief, but if you truely want to see the opposition arguements don't yell if they disagree with your own.

Then you can make your own informed decision as to what to believe or accept as "fact".

[Brocktoon]

ChiefCow... I believe the James and Paul agreement was already discussed at great length in these forums before the switchover.

Amazingly... everyone including you agreed there was no contradiction and that the two perspectives actually complimented each other (as I recall)

Now it seems like you are just plopping that debate into the middle of this thread because you ...?.... you just think its something to disrupt this topic?

[ChiefCowpie]

if the debate was finished, everyone would be a deist

[Smudge]

That picture is really offensive.

Would anyone post something like that mocking Islam?

Even non-Christians like the historian Josephus (around at the time of the early Christians), knew Jesus was a real Person, who had lived, done miracles, was crucified and whose followers believe was raised from the dead.

True faith leads to works, but works do not bring true faith.

Those who are Christians get this understanding in their lives in a practical, experiential way.
We serve out of love and gratitude, not to earn salvation...a totally free gift.

No clash between James and Paul at all, for those with the Holy Spirit to teach them.

[Spiritforces]

Quote from the baptist church : What We (and God) believe:

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible, the Landover Baptist Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do.

Oh my... they really trademaked the Saved One.

Oh my...


I quote that most of extremist may introduce them exactly with that sentence.

But I'm sad

[Spiritforces]

Same site : a bit under in the same text:

If the individual is a female (http://www.liberty.edu/StudentAffairs/DeanOfWomen/index.cfm?PID=2985), then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable.


I always knew He said something about that.

Sad as I said

[Brocktoon]

Quote from the baptist church : What We (and God) believe:

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible, the Landover Baptist Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do.

Oh my... they really trademaked the Saved One.

Oh my...


I quote that most of extremist may introduce them exactly with that sentence.

But I'm sad

Please be aware that Landover Baptist is a fabricated Church.
Its not real.

Its a fictional Church created by 'artists' and is there vision of what a church should be like to suit their own needs.

I'm not sure if you knew that?

[Peace]

it is getting really confusing in here... the "True Christians" would be the place where the Deists, Gnostics and Unitarians could post and the "Fake Christians" could be where all the Nicene Creders post
Why point out people differences? Isn't it better to debate with both points of view? One sided debates sound like a dragg.

No offense or anything, but we spend all our live pointing out people differences. Isn't it time to spread the unity?

[Brocktoon]

Dont worry Peace.. Chief is just attempting to drop insult bait , without any real creative effort being put into it.

Id appreciate it more if it wasn't so bland and uninspiring as 'Your fake and what you call Heresy is real'.

Come on Chief.. you can do better than that?

[Spiritforces]

I did not knew it, but.... Aren't all the churches created in such a goal? or all the religions establishments?

I'm sorry for sayin this, but there is a part of truth into it

[Jozak]

The thing is though, I have read REAL websites that say that crap. I thought it was real at first until I read the disclaimer. I cannot count how many fundementlaist sites I have been to that claim Catholics are Mary worshippers, Mormons are cults, etc etc.

I am proud of my Catholicism---damn heretics ;) [joke]

[Brocktoon]

Jozak,
I don't know who or where all these 'fundamentalists' are because I have yet to find a group refering to themselves in such a way.
It basically an 'insult' term internet 'smarties' like to use derisively.

I think a few are pointing out that some Catholics are 'Mary Worshippers'... particularly those who pray to her for intersession 'as if' she were part of the GOdHead.
Others like to insist that she is 'The Mother of God' which presumably means they believe she is almost superior to God himself.

Im not saying you do this - but some deserve to be called 'Mary Worshippers' based on the outrageous and non-biblical beliefs they are following.

[gnrm23]

especially in america, there is an overlap between different labels...
fundamentalist, born-again, bible-based, revivalist, etc...

"the B I B L E,
yes that's the book for me,
i stand alone with the word of god,
the B I B L E !"
as the song goes...

~

anyways, www.freejesus.net (http://www.freejesus.net) might be considered a "fundamentalist" website...

a sort of anti-religious website with a lotta good links to fundie sites can be found at www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/mxl.html (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/mxl.html)

[HuckFinn]

The thing is though, I have read REAL websites that say that crap. I thought it was real at first until I read the disclaimer. I cannot count how many fundementlaist sites I have been to that claim Catholics are Mary worshippers, Mormons are cults, etc etc.

I am proud of my Catholicism---damn heretics ;) [joke]One need not be a "fundamentalist" to recognize that Mormonism denies basic Christian theology:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

[TheHammerSpeaks]

I’ve spent years of my life in search of the nature of salvation. I have come to many conclusions which turned out to be dead ends, many truths which I now believe to be false. The sin (that devil) which led me to my wicked answers was one whose essence was a superficial understanding, and perhaps a fear, of faith: I was in search of the fastest possible way to please God and force Him, by His own Law, to grant me eternal life. Of course, I did not realize this at the time. I believed that I could feel the love of God flowing through me, but the “love” that I felt was only a perverse love of myself as I stood in awe of myself, who could unravel the mysteries of His law – But I unraveled nothing; it is mystery precisely because it can not be known.

Nietzsche wrote, to paraphrase, that the philosopher mummifies – dehistoricizes - all that he touches. When deprived of their becoming, all things turn to dust. For me, to be a Christian is to undergo a process, an act of becoming, a life-long struggle between faith and doubt which can never be reconciled. Yet from every such conflict, one’s faith can be strengthened; I firmly believe this.

I have now come to realize that those who wholeheartedly claim that salvation is a product of faith alone, or of good works alone do not fully appreciate (and, consequently, claim to understand!) the totality of faith. Grace is the gift of the key to the Kingdom, given by the Father unto His Elect. It can be given only through the Will of God. Thus, Grace is the immediate cause of salvation; this is undeniable. The question that naturally follows is, “How does one please God and be granted His saving Grace?”

This devil of superficial faith of whom I wrote only a few short paragraphs ago is the devil which tempted me that I could know the Will of God through my feeble intellect, and that it was true that the laws of His creation govern the Will of God. This devil believes that, like a shot fired into the air, a man who is of faith, or a man who does good works will soar into the heavens. Or, like that which is written on our constitutions (which are idols to many), that “All men are equal before the law!” and that there is some divine precedent for salvation. Well, God is limited by no precedent. His Will is good, and His Law is good by extension - not the inverse. His Will is law, and His Law is good, even when it seems terrible to my feeble mind.

What is terrible is terrifying, and, in terror, I turned away from the truth and feared faith. Why? Well, there were two reasons: 1) If God’s Will is good, and God wills of me something that seems unthinkably immoral, it would be right to obey God’s Will, yet to do so would be unbearably painful, and 2) How am I to differentiate between the Voice of God and, say, a hallucination?

After further struggling with faith, I came to the conclusion that the former question answers the latter. If one is of such strong love and deep feeling that to do evil is absolutely unbearable, that is to say impossible, then he could only do such an act with the help of God, since for God nothing is impossible. Of course, I am not such a man. I sin, but there are some sins which I believe I could not commit through my own power. Thus, good works must precede faith – not the inverse, because faith in hands of a man who loves not his neighbour is a dangerous thing. What appears to him to be the Will of God is, in fact, only base urges, and he enjoys carrying out the Will of God. Do not be fooled; one can know the true Will of God because it is hard, because it is painful.

My struggle with faith was far from over, however. At my new knowledge of salvation, I became filled with pride. I had faith! Surely I was one of God’s Elect! But this was not the case. Those who “know” that they are among the Elect are lost. To doubt is human and, paradoxically, evidence of faith. To have faith is to have the humility to realize that while one can never understand the Will of God in its totality (it can only be understood as it is revealed to us), God’s Will is always good. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, if, after the Final Judgment, there is only one man in Hell, and if that man is me, then I will fall to my knees and praise the Judgment of God. Thus, even though I now have a deeper understanding of faith than I did some years ago, I make no presuppositions as to the fate of my immortal soul except that its destination shall be the Will of God, and that it is good

[Brocktoon]

Let me be the first to applaud that as the Mother of All First Posts in the HipForums.

Interesting insights into your process of being perfected too. Many will relate to a lot of the twists and turns, which we all went (or are going) through.

There are a few assertions you make regarding Faith and works.
In particular, you suggest that works must precede Faith?

Now Ive heard some versions of this but I wonder if you can clarify this more?

If Im 'on the same track' then I think you are talking about the 'action' one makes to recieve the free gift?
Are you suggesting the one saved by faith 'did something' in the sense they 'did receiving' in order for the gift to be place in their hands?

Interstingly - Kierkegaard was the first philosopher I read.
(Bertrand Russel was 'the' first but I dont consider him much of a philosopher ;)

[Smudge]

I am 'uncomfortable' with the Hammer's post.

I think it is unecessarily complicated....

Those who truly have faith in Jesus (who Hammer did not mention), will be able to put profound things in simple terms.

Faith is Gift
We can never earn it- as we are not perfect beings i.e. nothing, but nothing we can do can gain us faith- it is Gift from the Father's love. (Yes, grace)

Now, once we RECEIVE this faith (which many do not- and strive for it), we will then, out of gratitude and love, as we begin to grow up spiritually, 'do' 'good works' to please our Father.
As long as we never think we can do anything of spiritual worth, except for it being Him doing it through us...
..as that is self-righteousness, our own works.


Those who “know” that they are among the Elect are lost
I do not believe in the 'elect' in a strict Calvinistic way- for as John 3:16 says: whoever believes in Him will not perish....
But there is nothing WRONG about having assurance, knowledge of our salvation....not when we realise it is the Gift of God.
If we believe it is somehow, even partially down to any 'good' in us- then yes, indeed, it is wrong to base our assurance on that, as yes indeed we may be lost and not know it.
For it is God who saves, not us.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Let me be the first to applaud that as the Mother of All First Posts in the HipForums.
I appreciate your praise, but please, do not waste it on me. I have no answers; I am no Doctor of Theology. I do not claim to know the Will of God. Indeed, I do not even believe that it can be known in its totality. I believe that there is much to be learned from Socrates when he said that he knew nothing, and that, paradoxically, his claim requires a great deal of contemplation to... understand.

Interesting insights into your process of being perfected too. Many will relate to a lot of the twists and turns, which we all went (or are going) through.
But do not be fooled into believing that the process has an end in sight in this life. Do not assume that perfection can ever be attained. I have struggled for many years and I have yet to see an end in sight. I have no reason to believe that the process of becoming a Christian will even end on my deathbed, should I be blessed enough to spend my last excruciating days in silent contemplation of the Lord.

There are a few assertions you make regarding Faith and works.
In particular, you suggest that works must precede Faith?

Now Ive heard some versions of this but I wonder if you can clarify this more?
I believe that this is only practical, not necessarily the Will of God. I was struggling with the following problem: "How do I know that I have faith?" September 11th was a painful experience for all of us, more so, I dare to say, for of us who are religious. Those men certainly believed that they had faith and yet they were able comit a sin so evidently contrary to the Will of God. How could I be sure that I would never make such a fatal mistake? It eventually became evident to me that if I could literally not bring myself to sin of my own power, then that power present in me that allows me to comit an act which appears immoral to me must be the Power of God, and why else would God give me such power unless it is His Will that I comit such an act?

Of course, I sin all the same. I enjoy it. I love to sin. I am not worthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and I pray that God will forgive my miserable, wretched soul. I am not at a point in my life where all sin is unthinkable to me; I seriously doubt whether I will ever reach such a point. But I like to believe that I am incapable of such a thing as murder, though I have never been granted an opportunity to test my faith. I do, indeed, fear that it may not be as strong as I like to believe.

If Im 'on the same track' then I think you are talking about the 'action' one makes to recieve the free gift?
Are you suggesting the one saved by faith 'did something' in the sense they 'did receiving' in order for the gift to be place in their hands?
I feel that it is a mystery, something which cannot be known. Certainly, God's Grace is a gift through His own Will and requires nothing on the part of the receiver. It is possible for God to grant Grace to anyone, even those who rather not accept it. Faith, on the other hand, is far more complicated. For me, it was a choice, a conscious act of my own feeble will. Yet, in my faith, I find strength in God. This is the paradox, the mystery. As to the origin of good works, it seems to me that the work in itself is the sole product of the man who works it. However, humility in that work, the understanding that for all the good I do on this earth, I am still a sinner and unworthy to enter His Kingdom... this is an understanding of faith.

Interstingly - Kierkegaard was the first philosopher I read.
(Bertrand Russel was 'the' first but I dont consider him much of a philosopher ;)
Unfortunately, Kierkegaard was far from the first philosopher I read. If I had read him sooner, then perhaps I would have arrived at my present understand of faith earlier in my life. Perhaps I would have moved beyond it by now, as well.

I am 'uncomfortable' with the Hammer's post.
Perhaps, then, you can understand how I felt when I first came to these conclusions, the fear I felt.

I think it is unecessarily complicated....
Perhaps, then, you have stronger faith than I. I do not find that difficult to believe because I am a terribly weak man and an unworthy sinner.

Those who truly have faith in Jesus (who Hammer did not mention), will be able to put profound things in simple terms.
As to the subject of Christology, it is first necessary to understand the nature of both man and God separately to later understand the nature of Christ, who is both God and man. In Christ, all the paradoxes present in man are surely resolved. But this is a luxury awarded only to Christ. Man can never hope to understand the mysteries except through revelation, which, as far as I know, is yet to be full and complete in any one man.

Faith is Gift
We can never earn it- as we are not perfect beings i.e. nothing, but nothing we can do can gain us faith- it is Gift from the Father's love. (Yes, grace)
Perhaps you are right and your certainty is a consequence of your faith, and perhaps my confusion is a sign from God, telling me to repent and meditate on the Passion. In either case, I must repent and meditate on the Passion.

Now, once we RECEIVE this faith (which many do not- and strive for it), we will then, out of gratitude and love, as we begin to grow up spiritually, 'do' 'good works' to please our Father.[quote]

You may be right. As I wrote, my point on the issue was only one of practicality, to ease my mind.

[quote]As long as we never think we can do anything of spiritual worth, except for it being Him doing it through us...
..as that is self-righteousness, our own works.
Quite right! Nothing I do can possibly make me worthy to enter His Kingdom. Salvation is a gift from God.

I do not believe in the 'elect' in a strict Calvinistic way- for as John 3:16 says: whoever believes in Him will not perish....
But there is nothing WRONG about having assurance, knowledge of our salvation....not when we realise it is the Gift of God.
If we believe it is somehow, even partially down to any 'good' in us- then yes, indeed, it is wrong to base our assurance on that, as yes indeed we may be lost and not know it.
For it is God who saves, not us.
I am not a Presbyterian; it is surely possible that, if God wills so, all can be among the Elect, but, whatever the number, it must be dependent upon God's Will. However, I do not think that assurance is possible, at least not for me. Perhaps it is only because of my lack of faith.

[Brocktoon]

Let me make a suggestion here.

Don't agonise too much over your own inner-conflicts or inability to bridge every minute detail.
Not that there is no time or place for these questions - because surely there is.

I just happen to think there is a certain point where you can 'try too hard' to justify your own sinful nature in light of Gods Grace.

In the end you can make it needlessly difficult and worse yet - miss out on a lot of celebration and freedom from what ultimately has happened with you!

To put it another way.. (this advice given to me from a brilliant Pastor):

The devil would simply love it if we spent our entire lives trying to 'fix up' that carnal old man we were.
After all.. every minute we spend trying to examine that dead 'flesh' and keep our eyes on it - is another minute not living in our new spiritual life!

HAmmer.. live in the newness of the life you have been given and that old dead faithless carnal body will have less power than ever before!

:D

[Jozak]

Jozak,
I don't know who or where all these 'fundamentalists' are because I have yet to find a group refering to themselves in such a way.
It basically an 'insult' term internet 'smarties' like to use derisively.
Go visit the Bob Jones Universtiy (Baptist) site.....or http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/, www.chick.com (http://www.chick.com/), http://www.born-again-christian.info/christianity.htm


I think a few are pointing out that some Catholics are 'Mary Worshippers'... particularly those who pray to her for intersession 'as if' she were part of the GOdHead.
Others like to insist that she is 'The Mother of God' which presumably means they believe she is almost superior to God himself.
That is entirely two different things. I don't know ANY Catholic that beleives Mary is a godhead, equivalent to God, etc. We pray to her and saints for intercession--all that means is we ask them to pray for us. I am sure you have asked your family and friends to pray for you, or you tell them you would pray for them, it's the same thing.

Im not saying you do this - but some deserve to be called 'Mary Worshippers' based on the outrageous and non-biblical beliefs they are following.
There are various accounts in the bible of intercessions, especially with Mary. Early Church fathers are on record of doing this as well, and I will gladly take their word over someone who decided Martin Luther had "seen the light" and formed their own church. (This could get huge, but if you like we can talk about it, possibly start another thread?) Most of the people who beleive this have a very narrow minded view of things, and don't even take the time to really research all the facts about Catholic beleifs, but instead post a site about born again "Christians", and then link it to a JACK CHICK publication--it's the epitome of hypocrisy.

[Brocktoon]

My main complaint about the word 'Fundamentalist' is that its a word being used primarily by anti-religionists and especially popular in internet forums.

'Fundamentalist' now has an undeserved derogatory meaning.. which is effectively 'meaningless' since it can describe 'anyone'.

Are you a 'Fundamentalist' because you adhere to ancient traditions?
Am I a 'fundamentalist' because I wont believe certain scriptures are 'allegorical or poetic'?

Its become as meaningless as the words 'Protestant', Pagan or 'literalist'.
Who are Protestants? Extreme Charismatics? Episcopalians? Dutch Reformed?

Whos a 'Pagan'? Satanists? African bush religions? Goth teenagers role-playing LotR Elvish fantasies?

Thats all Im saying when I critisise the label 'Fundamentalist'.
Its not a term often used by any Christian groups to describe themselves either.

.....

As to Mary.. well I have to say Im not aware of any biblical instruction on this 'intercession' with the dead?
I was honestly not aware the dead can hear our prayers but if they can - then I suppose they can pray for us.

[gnrm23]

side note here...
well, this last sunday (trinity sunday) the congregation recited (read it, actually, 'cuz whosoever knoweth this one by heart is seriously out there...) ----> THE ATHANASIAN CREED !

whoa...

[Jozak]

My main complaint about the word 'Fundamentalist' is that its a word being used primarily by anti-religionists and especially popular in internet forums.

'Fundamentalist' now has an undeserved derogatory meaning.. which is effectively 'meaningless' since it can describe 'anyone'.

Are you a 'Fundamentalist' because you adhere to ancient traditions?
Am I a 'fundamentalist' because I wont believe certain scriptures are 'allegorical or poetic'?

Its become as meaningless as the words 'Protestant', Pagan or 'literalist'.
Who are Protestants? Extreme Charismatics? Episcopalians? Dutch Reformed?

Whos a 'Pagan'? Satanists? African bush religions? Goth teenagers role-playing LotR Elvish fantasies?

Thats all Im saying when I critisise the label 'Fundamentalist'.
Its not a term often used by any Christian groups to describe themselves either.

.....

As to Mary.. well I have to say Im not aware of any biblical instruction on this 'intercession' with the dead?
I was honestly not aware the dead can hear our prayers but if they can - then I suppose they can pray for us.I totally see what you mean, but I mean fundementalist Christians, who take the KJV bible literal on all parts, oh except for the Catholic beleifs of communion and other places. Catholics for the most part don't interpret the entire bible literally, becasue it is somewhat dangerous ( and in my opinion foolish) to do so. Protestants are Christians who are not of Catholic/Orthodox denominations. Protestants=protest, that includes Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc.

The dead can hear our prayers becasue they are alive in heaven (or purgatory but I am sure you don't beleive in that) Even the Jews pray to/for the dead.

A great example of Mary's intercession with Christ was at the Wedding of Cannon, I forgot the passages, but it's a pretty famous story.

[gnrm23]

i can assure you that most denominations who would accept (however grudgingly) the label "protestant" would balk at being grouped with LDS (mormon)...
~
the marriage at cana --- was the first miracle of jesus --- the old "water into wine" trick...
mary the mother of jesus came to him and said that the wedding feast had run out of wine; he finally agreed to attend to the problem, & had the stewards fill jars with water & then taste the liquid - which had suddenly become the best wine...
(possible historical variation: why would his mother come to him about needing more wine for the party, unless the very groom of the feast was jesus himself?)
ymmv...

[Brocktoon]

I can not believe the wedding could possibly be used to justify prayers to Mary.

I wonder what happened to 'the Guff' in Catholicism?

Did that get done away with by the Priest Luther or do some catholics still Protest that reform?

[HuckFinn]

Protestants are Christians who are not of Catholic/Orthodox denominations. Protestants=protest, that includes Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc.Did you look at the link I cited in my previous post? Mormons are not Christians!


The dead can hear our prayers becasue they are alive in heaven (or purgatory but I am sure you don't beleive in that) Even the Jews pray to/for the dead.Are the dead omnicient and omnipresent like God?


A great example of Mary's intercession with Christ was at the Wedding of Cannon, I forgot the passages, but it's a pretty famous story.Augustine drew exactly the opposite conclusion from this passage:

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came. For whiIe He was God and the Lord of heaven and earth, He came by a mother who was a woman. In that He was Lord of the world, Lord of heaven and earth, He was, of course, the Lord of Mary also; but in that wherein it is said, "Made of a woman, made under the law," He was Mary's son. The same both the Lord of Mary and the son of Mary; the same both the Creator of Mary and created from Mary. Marvel not that He was both son and Lord. For just as He is called the son of Mary, so likewise is He called the son of David; and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, "Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Hear Him also declared the Lord of David; let David himself declare this: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David's son and David's Lord? David's son according to the flesh, David's Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary's son after the flesh, and Mary's Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" But think not that I deny thee to be my mother: "Mine hour is not yet come;" for in that hour I will acknowledge thee, when the weakness of which thou art the mother comes to hang on the cross. Let us prove the truth of this. When the Lord suffered, the same evangelist tells us, who knew the mother of the Lord, and who has given us to know about her in this marriage feast,-the same, I say, tells us, "There was there near the cross the mother of Jesus; and Jesus saith to His mother, Woman, behold thy son! and to the disciple, Behold thy mother!" He commends His mother to the care of the disciple; commends His mother, as about to die before her, and to rise again before her death. The man commends her a human being to man's care. This humanity had Mary given birth to. That hour had now come, the hour of which He had then said, "Mine hour is not yet come."

[cerridwen]

I didn't know christianity was THAT divided....

[NaykidApe]

Some people listen to the synphony and other people just read the sheet music, which is Ok I guess.


It's when the people reading the sheet music tell everybody else to turn off the damn stereo so they can tell them what the songs about, that's when things get interesting.

:Dhttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/icon14.gifthumbs up on the thread Chief.