Church Bashing

[BarneyFife]

The Spirit had better teach me (and us). I'm counting on it.

Since we're bashing harmful doctrines, I'm bashing the very process that generated those doctrines. To use your yeast infection metaphor, this leaven (combined with the leaven of a hermeneutic that uses literalism when understanding other rhetorical modes would be more appropriate), this leaven has infected most of the Evangelical wing of the US churches. Yet our left-wing drifts because they have abandoned the very moorings of scripture that anchor it back to Jesus himself. and the final state is worse than the first.

39 You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

When we got around to arguing how many resurrections there will be, I realized I can't play this game anymore. I can't take the cognitive dissonance that's required. If some of my brothers and sisters disfellowship me for that, so be it.

Brothers and sisters, you may continue.

Hear, hear! Bravo, Brother!

 

[marks]

Again, completely missing the point. Your theory is THE ONLY REASON anyone ever goes to prison is debt.

No it's not. I don't think you understand my POV well enough to speak for me.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

The "Apparent" contradictions are there in scripture for a reason, and that is to point us to fellowship, rather than Nicolaitanism (Ruling over the Laity) which Jesus hates. Mankind will follow mankind until they learn to totally rely on God. Mankind presents the doctrines of men for other men to follow; the contradictions draw question to this; thus, you have a continual swinging to and fro between the teachings of men. (Read Ephesians 4:11-16) The Point of this being that we need to reach the point of saying "Lord thou Knowest" as Ezekiel did when posed the question can these dry Bones live (Ezekiel 37) instead of answering "yes" or "no". It is a point of understanding that we do not know the mysteries of God, unless he reveals them to us.

So for example, we have a bunch of scriptures that support eternal security and a whole bunch of contradictory verses that support conditional security, and both sides will quote them and argue them all day, and you will get tossed to and fro by these arguments. But what if God intended both views for the new born believer that by walking through the valley of doubt of our security we may come to know that blessed assurance of our salvation from the one that has purchased us. That we may know we are his not merely doctrinally but relationally, and that when this happens we will Know that we are His treasured possession. (Malachi 3:17)

God Bless

Wow, this is amazing spiritual discernment!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I’m calling bull hockey.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No it's not. I don't think you understand my POV well enough to speak for me.

Much love!

I question if YOU understand your POV well enough to speak for you.

 

[Lambano]

You mean like…


4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.

So it’s cognitive dissonance to believe these are both true since God has said them both?

Nah, that can easily be contextualized depending on the situation, the argument, and the fool (like me). I'm talking about something different.

 

[marks]

But what if God intended both views for the new born believer that by walking through the valley of doubt of our security we may come to know that blessed assurance of our salvation from the one that has purchased us.

You don't raise a child in an environment of fear expecting to produce a secure individual. That's abuse.

Telling the child of God they may yet be rejected, knowing that's not true? To me that is, well, nevermind.

God didn't give us birth to play those kinds of mind games. That's what people do. Don't project that onto God. It's just bad teaching.

Much Love!

 

[marks]

I question if YOU understand your POV well enough to speak for you.

We drift in and out of meaningful and useful conversation.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

All right, fair enough. Yet believing two contradictory premises is basically the definition of "Cognitive Dissonance". So what then is the purpose of this arguing if it's not to persuade those who hold the contradictory view? The exploration may be helpful to reveal additional truths that you didn't see before, you may even be persuaded in that the other position was correct all along, but in the end, you're still stuck with cognitive dissonance. And to do what? Display our exegetical skills? To demonstrate our fidelity to a book that only points us to the One in who we should trust?

39 You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Cognitive dissonance is a tool used by interrogators to destabilize the subject and make them more pliable for whatever purposes the interrogators intend. Usually for evil.

You make a compelling case but I must confess that I feel much safer subscribing to The Holy Scriptures than to Psychology Today.

 

[marks]

I thought the whole population of those faithful to Christ is what constitutes the church?

And that's why the verse in 1st Corinthians that tells us if you destroy God's temple, He will destroy you is referring to murdering one another, or even includes those in the world or the church who would try to lead us out of the faith.

I think the context there is about dividing the body of Christ, the temple spoken of here. "You are the temple of God", "you" here is plural.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

I just take is as I read it. A mark on your right hand or forehead associated with worship of the beast and his image.

I know a lot of people think its not really a mark, and its not really on your right hand or forehead. But that's not me.

Much love!

So do you think the beast is really a beast as it is described?

 

[marks]

So do you think the beast is really a beast as it is described?

The beast is, I think, a ruler and an empire.

And just to head this one off . . . no, God doesn't have feathers.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

OK. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Maybe to clarify . . . my OP complaint was against those who make disparaging comments against large groups of people of whom they have no personal knowledge.

Such complaints are false on their face, being overgeneralizations. Such comments are presumptuous, given comment on things the speaker is ignorant about. Being false and presumptuous, they are therefore fleshy and unedifying. Being fleshy, they serve the speaker.

So the one who says such things is, as I see it, making disparaging comments about others so serve some personal need, generally speaking, I think, an emotional disorder.

In the simplest terms, people tend to put others down to make themself feel better about themselves.

Someone who feels the need to be superior to others will include that in their words, making sure everyone knows how much better they are, in whatever sense they need to address there inner emotional lack.

Anyway, in my research, and interactions with people, this is what I see, what I think, for what it's worth.

Much love!

I wonder if John the Baptist was just trying to make himself feel better. Just a thought.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Nah, that can easily be contextualized depending on the situation, the argument, and the fool (like me). I'm talking about something different.

Okay I’ll take another guess…do you mean like…thinking there’s only one way to eternal life while also thinking men are born eternal?

 

[Lambano]

You don’t much care for puzzles I take it?

These pieces don't fit. Let me bend a corner here, make this indentation there, press down on it a little harder.... Ah, there. Now it fits.

Not a puzzle; a game. Games have rules. If I don't agree to the rules, what else can I do but take my ball and go home?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Wait, what about "Where there is suffering, sin has ceased?" Or something like that.

Or these:
For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers,2 of mthe affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. nrely not on ourselves obut on God pwho raises the dead.

This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings.

 

[David H.]

You don't raise a child in an environment of fair expecting to produce a secure individual. That's abuse.

Telling the child of God they may yet be rejected, knowing that's not true? To me that is, well, nevermind.

God didn't give us birth to play those kinds of mind games. That's what people do. Don't project that onto God. It's just bad teaching.

Much Love!

Do you write in a book how much you love your child, and then have a teacher teach that fact to your child from that book, Or do you show a child your love for them relationally and intimately?

 

[Brakelite]

All I can say is read it more carefully. Especially the end punishment for not forgiving after you were forgiven. It isn’t lake of fire for that man. It is a “prison” that he won’t come out of until he has paid the last farthing. It is a purgatorial type place. It is like:
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Everyone recognizes that death is a separation. Let us assume that the outer darkness is in fact the lake of fire, that sinners do indeed suffer according to the evil they committed, (many of few stripes) and that getting out of that predicament, escaping the suffering, is the second death?

 

[Brakelite]

In the end, does "might make right"? Whoever carries the biggest stick determines what right and wrong is?

@marks, my brother, that's what I wanted you to think about.

God destroyed entire civilizations. The Bible is replete with genocide. Do you declare God wrong?

Of course not. I'm not sure what I may have said that led you to think I'd think that way.

Much love!

The above quotes speak for themselves.

How do you relate this to a person who not only has their record of their dept been wiped clean, but has also been given a new life? And assurances that we will never be separated from Him again?

Christ paid the debt for every man on Calvary. Without exception. We have been forgiven. The requirement or criteria, at least one of them, or in the end benefiting from that precious grace, is that we forgive others. Yes, of anyone goes to destruction in the end it is because of sin. Because of the debt owed.
Our sins were laid upon Christ at Calvary. The only conclusion is that there remains in heaven a record of those sins and they are laid upon individuals who refuse to forgive... Repent.
There is a much larger study on the sanctuary that wholly supports the above.

 

[Brakelite]

And the record of that debt has been blotted clean. At the cross.

Are you sure? That would strongly suggest OSAS. In the OT the blood of the sacrifices were taken into the sanctuary. The sacrifice and death of the victim was but the first step. To what purpose was the blood sprinkled before the veil? To wipe the debt clear... Or record it?