Someone asked me a question the other day, "how do I avoid repeated sin?" I want to answer this in an addiction context. Most repeated sin is addition of one sort or another. It could just be a thinking disorder (I feel bad, therefore I need this sin), but more than likely it is a compulsion to perform an act that we think we cannot help.
So how do we avoid our addictions?
1. Recognize that giving in to this sin displays a sense that our needs are not being met.
This sense could be true, or might not be. But sin never fulfills our need-- it only covers it up and then we have a worse problem to deal with. But this doesn't mean that the need isn't real. We probably have a lack that we are not dealing with, but our bodies are re-directing us to another source that doesn't really meet the need. Our bodies are stupid, we should be smarter than them. So we should analyze ourselves-- what is wrong, what is lacking, how can we fulfill these needs in a godly way?
2. Recognize that giving in to this sin, we are allowing our sense of need be more important than God or others
To give in to repeated sin is simply one thing-- selfishness. Even though we are told how much our sin hurts others and our relationship with God, we do it anyway. This is the ultimate selfish act-- we are only focusing on ourselves instead of what we should be focusing on-- the God who loves us and gives us our very life and the people around us we are supposed to be serving.
3. Giving into the sin is a result of a thought disorder
Thinking that the sin will fulfill our needs is a disorder in our thinking that ultimately destroys us. How do we reform our mind? How can we transform our thinking, which we seem to have so little control over? There are many ways, but here's a few:
a. Read the word daily, especially the gospels and the psalms.
b. BEFORE you read the word, do some exercise. This "stirs up" your brain neurons, and allows new thinking to take place.
c. Meditate on your life and what God wants of you. Don't allow yourself to complain or have any selfish thoughts! Focus on God's plan and God's will. Journal it, if you can, so you can read it later.
d. Pray for God's deliverance and Spirit daily, without exception.
e. Throw yourself so much into God's plan for your life that you don't have room to think about your misery.
4. Remember at all times-- God didn't make us Christians in this age to have our needs met, but to suffer!
Jesus told us to rejoice in the suffering and persecution we experience for Him, because it is an indication of our salvation. We've got to stop the pity parties we allow ourselves to have and recognize that if our needs aren't being met by doing God's will, then we must be doing something RIGHT! The more we allow ourselves to sacrifice for the sake of others and our own humility, the more God will reward us in the end. So let's not look for the "quick out" of our troubles. Let's be glad we have the troubles we experience.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Divisions and the Spirit
If the Spirit is not divided against itself, then why are there so many denominations? -Gordon
A denomination does not mean a division in the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement once about how to deal with fallen recruits and so had to begin different ministries. Does that mean that the Spirit was divided? No, it meant that the Spirit wanted to work differently with each of them. Paul was going to the "front lines" in a severe ministry, and weak believers just couldn't do that ministry. It would have been wrong for Paul to compromise his ministry for the sake of someone who wasn't ready to participate in it. But should Barnabas have listened to Paul? No, his task in the Spirit is to bring up the weak and encourage them. Because of Barnabas, John Mark became the strong disciple he turned into. Different ministries were necessary at that point.
Even so, the denominations. God allowed the divisions so that the church might be strong in different areas. If it weren't for the minority Pentecostal movement, there would not have been the powerful move of the Spirit over the last hundred years. If it weren't for Luther, there wouldn't have been such an emphasis on the Bible for the last four hundred years. If it weren't for the Mennonites and Moravians, there wouldn't have been Protestant Christian communities. God established these divisions to allow the Spirit more movement to work.
Of course, sometimes divisions turn ugly and there is backbiting, gossiping and every other kind of terrible disunity. God did not cause that, but people's self-centeredness and narrow-mindedness did. Disagreements need to be guided by Galatians 5-- not of the works of the flesh, but of the fruit of the Spirit. Only then will division and denominations agree to go in different ways, but still remain unified in the Spirit.
A denomination does not mean a division in the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement once about how to deal with fallen recruits and so had to begin different ministries. Does that mean that the Spirit was divided? No, it meant that the Spirit wanted to work differently with each of them. Paul was going to the "front lines" in a severe ministry, and weak believers just couldn't do that ministry. It would have been wrong for Paul to compromise his ministry for the sake of someone who wasn't ready to participate in it. But should Barnabas have listened to Paul? No, his task in the Spirit is to bring up the weak and encourage them. Because of Barnabas, John Mark became the strong disciple he turned into. Different ministries were necessary at that point.
Even so, the denominations. God allowed the divisions so that the church might be strong in different areas. If it weren't for the minority Pentecostal movement, there would not have been the powerful move of the Spirit over the last hundred years. If it weren't for Luther, there wouldn't have been such an emphasis on the Bible for the last four hundred years. If it weren't for the Mennonites and Moravians, there wouldn't have been Protestant Christian communities. God established these divisions to allow the Spirit more movement to work.
Of course, sometimes divisions turn ugly and there is backbiting, gossiping and every other kind of terrible disunity. God did not cause that, but people's self-centeredness and narrow-mindedness did. Disagreements need to be guided by Galatians 5-- not of the works of the flesh, but of the fruit of the Spirit. Only then will division and denominations agree to go in different ways, but still remain unified in the Spirit.
Can We Lose Our Salvation?
Can we lose our salvation?
This one is easy-- the Bible says you can.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
For if we continue sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.Hebrews 10:26-31
Hebrews 6 describes a Christian-- one who has tasted of the heavenly gift and has shared in the Holy Spirit-- and then falls away (which means no longer believes) then they cannot be turned back to repentance again.
Hebrews 10 talks about a believer who refuses to repent from their sin and the terrible punishment they will receive.
Theologically, this is also easy to understand. The basic requirement for receiving salvation is faith, right? Then if you no longer have faith, even if you once did, then you no longer have the salvation. Jesus uses a number of descriptions of those who refuse to obey Him or who refuse to believe in him and they will be burned in fire, cast out of the kingdom. This isn't just a temporary punishment, but his descriptions of eternal hell. You can look it up-- John 15:6; Matthew 7:21-27; John 3:36.
The reasons many say that there is no possibility of losing one salvation is twofold:
a. Theologically, people misunderstand the idea of predestination. Paul speaks of a church being predestined before God. But Paul is speaking of a group of people, not each one individually. It was predestined-- prophesied, in fact-- that the Gentiles would be saved. It was predestined that people of every nation would enter as citizens of God's kingdom. But Paul never said to Timothy, "You are predestined, nothing you say or do will send you to hell." Predestination is the salvation of a remnant, not of an individual.
b. Biblically, people misunderstand the passages of assurance. For instance, Romans 8, where Paul says, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ." But Paul was not speaking of our refusal to accept that love, to accept the salvation He is offering us. He was speaking of angelic powers-- demons-- and sufferings that people would claim that we do not have God's salvation if we suffer like that. Well, Paul says that sufferings or demonic forces cannot put a block between us and God. That is true. But if we refuse God's gift of obedience, His gift of the Holy Spirit, then He will not force us to accept salvation, even if we wanted it earlier in our lives.
Again, the argument against loss of salvation is picking up certain Scriptures, misunderstanding them, and ignoring others.
This one is easy-- the Bible says you can.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
For if we continue sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.Hebrews 10:26-31
Hebrews 6 describes a Christian-- one who has tasted of the heavenly gift and has shared in the Holy Spirit-- and then falls away (which means no longer believes) then they cannot be turned back to repentance again.
Hebrews 10 talks about a believer who refuses to repent from their sin and the terrible punishment they will receive.
Theologically, this is also easy to understand. The basic requirement for receiving salvation is faith, right? Then if you no longer have faith, even if you once did, then you no longer have the salvation. Jesus uses a number of descriptions of those who refuse to obey Him or who refuse to believe in him and they will be burned in fire, cast out of the kingdom. This isn't just a temporary punishment, but his descriptions of eternal hell. You can look it up-- John 15:6; Matthew 7:21-27; John 3:36.
The reasons many say that there is no possibility of losing one salvation is twofold:
a. Theologically, people misunderstand the idea of predestination. Paul speaks of a church being predestined before God. But Paul is speaking of a group of people, not each one individually. It was predestined-- prophesied, in fact-- that the Gentiles would be saved. It was predestined that people of every nation would enter as citizens of God's kingdom. But Paul never said to Timothy, "You are predestined, nothing you say or do will send you to hell." Predestination is the salvation of a remnant, not of an individual.
b. Biblically, people misunderstand the passages of assurance. For instance, Romans 8, where Paul says, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ." But Paul was not speaking of our refusal to accept that love, to accept the salvation He is offering us. He was speaking of angelic powers-- demons-- and sufferings that people would claim that we do not have God's salvation if we suffer like that. Well, Paul says that sufferings or demonic forces cannot put a block between us and God. That is true. But if we refuse God's gift of obedience, His gift of the Holy Spirit, then He will not force us to accept salvation, even if we wanted it earlier in our lives.
Again, the argument against loss of salvation is picking up certain Scriptures, misunderstanding them, and ignoring others.
Is God the Author of Sin?
So, is God the author of sin? -Gordon
I must answer with Paul-- Certainly not! We need to see the source of the question before it is answered. People assume that since God is sovereign, that He is in control of all things. This is certainly not true. If it were, then one must do some amazing metaphysical hopping in order to say that God is not in control of every sin, every disaster, every temptation. But an all-controlling force is not the description of God in the Bible. Rather He is a king who has great power, but puts limits on his own power, in order to share his sovereignty-- his rule-- with others. And in that sharing, others, in their inadequate sense of justice and mercy, created sin in disobedience to God because sin seems more "moral" than God. At least, that was the beginning of sin. Nowadays it is cool to be "bad" or "evil" and to "break moral standards" especially if they seem arbitrary. But sin didn't begin as a way to be evil. It began as a way to be more moral than God allowed us to be.
We aren't given the full story of what happened to Satan before Genesis 1 which caused him to rebel against God and to tempt Adam and Eve. We do know, however, that God allowed many angels to rule over the earth for a period of time. They were partners in His creation. And we know that many of them were disgusted that God gave his rule over the earth to humanity. So they wanted to undermine humanity, and so they do evil things to humanity, like tempting them to rebel against God. In this way, they suppose, God must destroy them and re-establish angelic rule over the earth. But God does not change His mind once He's made a promise, and so even though humanity is a sinful, rebellious race, yet God still allows humanity to rule, planning for redemption instead of destruction.
All this is to say that God is only good and is actually more good than any of us could imagine. He is not, nor could ever be the author of sin. James says, "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone (to do evil)." So how could God have created sin? God did, however, give freedom for some of his creations to create. He gave restrictions, but He did not, nor does He, absolutely control. The fact that the world is sinful but we have a perfectly good God is the best proof of free will. This world is NOT how God wants it. And that is because He surrendered some of his control to us. Many have accused Him of being foolish in that way. I just figure that He has a better plan.
I must answer with Paul-- Certainly not! We need to see the source of the question before it is answered. People assume that since God is sovereign, that He is in control of all things. This is certainly not true. If it were, then one must do some amazing metaphysical hopping in order to say that God is not in control of every sin, every disaster, every temptation. But an all-controlling force is not the description of God in the Bible. Rather He is a king who has great power, but puts limits on his own power, in order to share his sovereignty-- his rule-- with others. And in that sharing, others, in their inadequate sense of justice and mercy, created sin in disobedience to God because sin seems more "moral" than God. At least, that was the beginning of sin. Nowadays it is cool to be "bad" or "evil" and to "break moral standards" especially if they seem arbitrary. But sin didn't begin as a way to be evil. It began as a way to be more moral than God allowed us to be.
We aren't given the full story of what happened to Satan before Genesis 1 which caused him to rebel against God and to tempt Adam and Eve. We do know, however, that God allowed many angels to rule over the earth for a period of time. They were partners in His creation. And we know that many of them were disgusted that God gave his rule over the earth to humanity. So they wanted to undermine humanity, and so they do evil things to humanity, like tempting them to rebel against God. In this way, they suppose, God must destroy them and re-establish angelic rule over the earth. But God does not change His mind once He's made a promise, and so even though humanity is a sinful, rebellious race, yet God still allows humanity to rule, planning for redemption instead of destruction.
All this is to say that God is only good and is actually more good than any of us could imagine. He is not, nor could ever be the author of sin. James says, "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone (to do evil)." So how could God have created sin? God did, however, give freedom for some of his creations to create. He gave restrictions, but He did not, nor does He, absolutely control. The fact that the world is sinful but we have a perfectly good God is the best proof of free will. This world is NOT how God wants it. And that is because He surrendered some of his control to us. Many have accused Him of being foolish in that way. I just figure that He has a better plan.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Romans 4
Steve,
What is Romans ch 4, talking about. And what can we learn from it?
Gordon
You don't ever give me the easy ones do you?
First of all, the main point of the body of Romans is a defense of Paul's ministry of giving the gospel to the Gentiles without them needing to become Jews first. In the first part he talks about how sinful gentiles are, and then how sinful Jews are. Then he says that the solution-- how we get connected to God-- is by faith (by committing ourselves to God's kingship through Jesus.).
The question Paul is dealing with in Romans 4 is, "So you are saying that the Law is pointless? That we never needed the Law in the first place?" Paul replies, "I'm not getting rid of the Law-- instead, I am affirming what the Law itself taught!"
So he talks about Abraham, one of the central saints in the Law, about how he was made right before God through faith, and that before he was circumcised. Thus, Paul was saying, Abraham was exactly in the same place as modern Gentiles are-- he wasn't a "Jew" in the religious sense, and he was saved by his commitment to God's kingship.
Then Paul goes on to say that this is exactly how everyone is saved, whether Jew or Gentile, and that this was the point of the Law to begin with.
What is Romans ch 4, talking about. And what can we learn from it?
Gordon
You don't ever give me the easy ones do you?
First of all, the main point of the body of Romans is a defense of Paul's ministry of giving the gospel to the Gentiles without them needing to become Jews first. In the first part he talks about how sinful gentiles are, and then how sinful Jews are. Then he says that the solution-- how we get connected to God-- is by faith (by committing ourselves to God's kingship through Jesus.).
The question Paul is dealing with in Romans 4 is, "So you are saying that the Law is pointless? That we never needed the Law in the first place?" Paul replies, "I'm not getting rid of the Law-- instead, I am affirming what the Law itself taught!"
So he talks about Abraham, one of the central saints in the Law, about how he was made right before God through faith, and that before he was circumcised. Thus, Paul was saying, Abraham was exactly in the same place as modern Gentiles are-- he wasn't a "Jew" in the religious sense, and he was saved by his commitment to God's kingship.
Then Paul goes on to say that this is exactly how everyone is saved, whether Jew or Gentile, and that this was the point of the Law to begin with.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
How Are Catholics Wrong?
How do you know that Catholicism is wrong? I ask because until the age of 18 I was not very religious but I tended to be more protestant in belief, but for the last 3 years I have been in the Catholic Church. I have had several fall outs, but I always seem to return. This is very confusing for me and my biggest fear is going to hell because of all this confusion amongst Christians as to who is correct in their teachings. I have several books by Catholics that seem to prove to me by using scripture and history that Catholicism is the original and true branch of Christianity, but a small part of me tends to be skeptical of this. I go through phases of faith, for a few months my faith will be so strong I seriously consider joining the Catholic priesthood, but then at other times my faith is weak and I start to doubt Catholic teachings. I know you are a pastor, so I figure your knowledge on this subject could help to steer me in the right direction. Thank you,
God Bless,Mark
Thanks for putting your trust in me on this subject, although I doubt that just because I'm a pastor that I would necessarily be correct on the subject.
I never asked the question, "Is Catholicism wrong" in my search for God. Rather, I wanted to know in what way Jesus was right. My focus has never been this denomination or that, and even though I did choose a denomination for myself, it is not because I thought that all the other denominations are "wrong". There are some things about the Catholic beliefs that I find problematic-- Maryism, the focus on the Pope as the leader of the visible church, especially-- and so I couldn't openly join that church myself. However, some of the greatest saints that have ever lived, and some that are still alive, were and are part of the Catholic church. Jesus is clearly active in that church, even if I find some of the leadership to be questionable.
My point is, I guess, is that Jesus isn't limited to a particular church. I have talked to a number of our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox tradition, and they have a very good way of seeing the churches-- that each church is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, and we don't either want to exclude one, nor hold one up as greater than the others.
Does this mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong doctrine? Yes, of course there is. We should always be comparing what we believe to what Jesus taught to see if it is accurate with the only Teacher who spoke all the Truth. And the Spirit is still in the process of teaching me what is true and what I need to avoid. But I trust that the Spirit is doing the same in the hearts of those who truly trust in Him, no matter what visible church they are a part of.
There are many in each visible church who are not trusting in God and the Spirit as well. And we need to avoid those folks, especially when they are in leadership in the churches. But I don't want to limit God's work in my life by denying his word to me through a Catholic or a Protestant or an Orthodox or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever church they are a part of. I want to hear what God has to speak to me, no matter which vessel He chooses to use, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I hope that makes sense.
Steve K.
God Bless,Mark
Thanks for putting your trust in me on this subject, although I doubt that just because I'm a pastor that I would necessarily be correct on the subject.
I never asked the question, "Is Catholicism wrong" in my search for God. Rather, I wanted to know in what way Jesus was right. My focus has never been this denomination or that, and even though I did choose a denomination for myself, it is not because I thought that all the other denominations are "wrong". There are some things about the Catholic beliefs that I find problematic-- Maryism, the focus on the Pope as the leader of the visible church, especially-- and so I couldn't openly join that church myself. However, some of the greatest saints that have ever lived, and some that are still alive, were and are part of the Catholic church. Jesus is clearly active in that church, even if I find some of the leadership to be questionable.
My point is, I guess, is that Jesus isn't limited to a particular church. I have talked to a number of our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox tradition, and they have a very good way of seeing the churches-- that each church is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, and we don't either want to exclude one, nor hold one up as greater than the others.
Does this mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong doctrine? Yes, of course there is. We should always be comparing what we believe to what Jesus taught to see if it is accurate with the only Teacher who spoke all the Truth. And the Spirit is still in the process of teaching me what is true and what I need to avoid. But I trust that the Spirit is doing the same in the hearts of those who truly trust in Him, no matter what visible church they are a part of.
There are many in each visible church who are not trusting in God and the Spirit as well. And we need to avoid those folks, especially when they are in leadership in the churches. But I don't want to limit God's work in my life by denying his word to me through a Catholic or a Protestant or an Orthodox or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever church they are a part of. I want to hear what God has to speak to me, no matter which vessel He chooses to use, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I hope that makes sense.
Steve K.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Suffering and Salvation
Hey Steve,
It was good to talk to you last night(as always). Would you please expound on what you were saying about how we, as Christians are supposed to suffer.
Gordon
As I mentioned, the central passage I'm basing this on is Romans 8:17. The context of Romans is how the Gentiles are saved, equal to Jews, and all throughout it, Paul speaks about faith. But he mentions suffering at significant junctures, such as Romans 5:1-5, right in the midst of his discussion about how Jesus died for our sins. Then, in 8:17, in discussing how we know we are children of God through the confirmation of the Spirit within us, he says "we have received the inheritance, IF we have joined in his (Jesus') sufferings" We don't receive salvation if we do not participate in Jesus sufferings.
This agrees with what Jesus himself said. Jesus said that we would be his disciple only if we "take up your cross". He said that we would only obtain eternal life if we lose our lives. He said that we would obtain many blessings with following Jesus, but with them persecutions. The beatitudes are all about the suffering receiving God's blessing, while others who received only comfort in this life would get nothing.
So it seems to me that obtaining salvation is not just about believing the right thing or about acting the right way-- although these things are essential. But an essential ingredient is that we must also suffer for the gospel. According to Peter, it does us no good to suffer for what evil things we've done-- that's just justice. But we must go the extra step of suffering for Jesus and the gospel, and then we will obtain salvation.
What kind of suffering? There's many kinds described in Scripture:
-We could be persecuted for standing with Christ
-We could surrender all our possessions for the kingdom
-We could do what we must in Christ, even if it means our family or friends reject us
-We could preach the gospel in a threatening environment
- We could live a life of sacrifice for others, always giving, always surrendering, always looking for the loving thing to do, even if it is not best for ourselves or for our family
-We could surrender our inheritance so we could receive it in Jesus
-We could support and stand with those who are rejected for Jesus' sake, even if we get tarred with the same brush
We can tear out a part of ourselves to avoid sin
And more and more. The opportunities to suffer abound. But if we live a life avoiding suffering, then we spend our lives avoiding what Jesus could give to us. God doesn't give salvation to anyone who asks for it. They must need it first.
It was good to talk to you last night(as always). Would you please expound on what you were saying about how we, as Christians are supposed to suffer.
Gordon
As I mentioned, the central passage I'm basing this on is Romans 8:17. The context of Romans is how the Gentiles are saved, equal to Jews, and all throughout it, Paul speaks about faith. But he mentions suffering at significant junctures, such as Romans 5:1-5, right in the midst of his discussion about how Jesus died for our sins. Then, in 8:17, in discussing how we know we are children of God through the confirmation of the Spirit within us, he says "we have received the inheritance, IF we have joined in his (Jesus') sufferings" We don't receive salvation if we do not participate in Jesus sufferings.
This agrees with what Jesus himself said. Jesus said that we would be his disciple only if we "take up your cross". He said that we would only obtain eternal life if we lose our lives. He said that we would obtain many blessings with following Jesus, but with them persecutions. The beatitudes are all about the suffering receiving God's blessing, while others who received only comfort in this life would get nothing.
So it seems to me that obtaining salvation is not just about believing the right thing or about acting the right way-- although these things are essential. But an essential ingredient is that we must also suffer for the gospel. According to Peter, it does us no good to suffer for what evil things we've done-- that's just justice. But we must go the extra step of suffering for Jesus and the gospel, and then we will obtain salvation.
What kind of suffering? There's many kinds described in Scripture:
-We could be persecuted for standing with Christ
-We could surrender all our possessions for the kingdom
-We could do what we must in Christ, even if it means our family or friends reject us
-We could preach the gospel in a threatening environment
- We could live a life of sacrifice for others, always giving, always surrendering, always looking for the loving thing to do, even if it is not best for ourselves or for our family
-We could surrender our inheritance so we could receive it in Jesus
-We could support and stand with those who are rejected for Jesus' sake, even if we get tarred with the same brush
We can tear out a part of ourselves to avoid sin
And more and more. The opportunities to suffer abound. But if we live a life avoiding suffering, then we spend our lives avoiding what Jesus could give to us. God doesn't give salvation to anyone who asks for it. They must need it first.
Jesus' Miracles
Calvin wrote:Why, if Jesus could turn water into wine, didn't he do things that were more relevant? If he was the son of God, and he had those powers, you wouldn't perform magic at your friends wedding, you would stop people from starving. Now I know he did that thing on the mountain, with the fish and the loaves of bread, but him organizing that meeting was the least he could do to lay out some catering. I think Jesus would agree with your main point: that the water to wine miracle wasn't relavant. I think that's why he refused to do it at first, but his mother manipulated him into it. As humans, we all get caught in social situations, doing what we don't think is appropriate.Jesus spent most of his time meeting the needs of the people around him, especially those who displayed great faith in God. He was making a point. God will grant deliverance, not for the whole world, but for those who live out their sincere faith in Him-- others need not apply. Jesus worked on a one-on-one basis. He healed the sick, one by one, and so saw each individual and their needs, and met each person at their place of need.As a movement of Jesus, Christians are supposed to do the same. The third century Romans were impressed at how the Christians met so many more needs than the government could, and so they were gathering more followers. If only the church today would meet the heart of the needs of people, through the power of God, rather than arguing about theology and getting involved in politics then the church might go back to how it was originally.Steve K
.
.
Discussion on Inclusion, continued
Mr. Kimes,
Well said on most points. Thank you for your response.
I agree with your studied approach to Muslims, by using the Qu'ran to point them to the Bible and from there to Christ. I do, however, disagree with your view that they are believing in the same God. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does the God of Israel (literal or spiritual) refer to Himself as Allah. That was Mohammed's invention. Thus, I can't see any real harmony between the Qu'ran and the Bible once a person has been brought to a true knowledge of the faith. However, if an ex-Muslim were to validate his conversion by confessing Christ as Lord and God truly come in the flesh and resurrected from death to life, I might be persuaded that they "got it".
Regarding dangers in any denomination: how true, since a denomination is a human invention and has no power to save or preserve us. You refer to many dangers, so I'm interested in knowing what particular dangers you are speaking of regarding the Anabaptists. That is, outside of the perfectly natural human tendency toward self-righteousness, separation from the world to the point we are ineffective, and the ever threatening bitter root of rivalry.
What I seek in any fellowship are these principles:
1. Biblical standards that are adhered to, not just mouthed.
2. Authority, leadership, and personal discipline based on the New Testament in whole
3. Gathering together for mutual edification, knowledge and reproof
4. True subservience to God and lack of personal ambition
5. Prayerfulness and irreproachable lifestyles
6. Preaching of God's Word, not man's philosophy
I'm glad to know you don't waste God's time protesting sectarian things of a political or governmental nature. I disagree that Jesus' cleansing of the temple is a proper analogy. It was because his Father's house was being defiled, not a principle being disagreed with.
You give Roman Catholics much more latitude in their religious practice than the Bible does. I believe that the Catholic church is as corrupt, paganistic and worldly as any man made religion could be. As long as a person prays to Mary, confesses to a priest (believing they alone give absolution), worships idols in the form of saints, prays repetitious prayers (rosary beads) and believes the pope is a valid substitute for Christ on earth they are damned (Rev 21:8) and we, as Christians are not to associate with such (1 Cor 5:11).
Again, I am not trying to be contentious with you. I agree with most of what you do, but I draw the line when it comes to opening my arms for anyone who bears a resemblance to a Christian. They either believe solely in Christ for salvation and live a life that reflects that.....or they don't.
Thanks again for your response. It's much appreciated. I believe you are absolutely correct that many will be disappointed in "that day" when Christ tells them he doesn't know them because they simply neglected His other commandments. I sincerely believe we must lose our lives in order to find them, as Christ said. I just don't want to lose my salvation as well by not being vigilant against the snares we are warned about.
In Christ, blessing and truth be with you.
SF
Thank you again for your reply.
As far as the issue with Allah, linguistic research has determined that "Allah" is just the Arabic form of the Hebrew word "Eloyah", one of the common names for Yahweh used in the Hebrew Bible. Certainly, "Allah" was used long before Muhammad. And also, we need to look at not just the root of a word, but how it is used. For the majority of Muslims in the world, "Allah" means a personal being who is spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate and who takes action in our world. Since this is our definition of God as well, then there should be no argument that "Allah" is the same God, even if we disagree about the root of the word.
The main disagreement we have with the Muslims is not who God is, but how he is known to us and how we can be right before Him. We should stick to the main subject, instead of getting off on tangents-- the souls of Muslims depend on it.
As far as Catholics go, many of their practices are Biblical, such as confession to a priest-- John 20:23 and James 5. They believe that a believer, even when dead, are still in fellowship with the believers on earth, and "praying" to them is nothing more than asking another believer to pray for them. I would agree that worship of Mary and statues is idolatry, but most Catholics would say that there is no worship going on there. And, in fact, the "Hail Mary" prayer is made up of passages from Scripture about Mary.
It says no where in Scripture that discussing things with false teachers is a sin before God. So there is nothing wrong with having discussions with them and understanding their point of view. However, it does say that those who judge with a wrong judgment-- that not based on God's word-- will be judged. We are supposed to reproof believers, as you say, but if we are judging based on a misunderstanding of someone else's perspective, or judging based on principles that are not found in Scripture, then we are the ones in danger of going to hell.
The danger to the Anabaptists are twofold, in accordance with the two groups that the Anabaptists have divided into. The first is what I mentioned above-- that of judging other groups as going to hell because they do not agree with their personal interpretation of Scripture, when the other groups are just as sincere in following Jesus as they, just in a different way. Many conservative Anabaptist groups go this way, and I pray that the Lord would deliver many of them from false judging, for I do not want to see my brothers and sisters going to hell for separating themselves from their fellow believers.
The danger to the other main Anabaptist group is the opposite one: welcoming in their midst those who teach false doctrine, especially the doctrine of plurality. The church is supposed to have a basic code of ethics and discipline and reproof, as you mentioned. We cannot accept as a part of the church anyone who says the right words. While we cannot discipline without clear knowledge of wrong-doing, we also cannot ignore the sins done, as if they were not sins at all. Many Anabaptists are accepting homosexuals and others in sexual sin as members of the church. And this is corrupting the church.
Now, I accept everyone in my church. But I do not call them all members or believers. I have homosexuals and drunkards and drug users and profane people in my church. They all come. But they are not ready to be a member because they do not live in accordance with following Jesus. I am working, as an evangelist and discipler, to bring them to that place. And many of them have worked with the Spirit of God to become a true follower of Jesus. But I recognize that this is a process, not always an instant transformation, and I am patient enough to wait and see that transformation happen.
My main point was not that the Anabaptists are going to hell. Rather, it is that most fellowships have those within them who are following Jesus within that context. And they all have those who follow the letter of their cultural paradigm, but do not have the truth of the power of the Spirit and the gospel. The Anabaptist are no different. There is NO "pure" church on earth, because the flesh enters into every human organization. And the longer a spirit-filled organization lasts, the less spirit and the more flesh invades that organization. But we can still see the Spirit in the most flesh-filled church organization-- God always seems to leave a witness. So I refuse to write off anyone, but hope and expect the Spirit to work in some.
May the Lord bless you with grace and peace.
Steve K
Well said on most points. Thank you for your response.
I agree with your studied approach to Muslims, by using the Qu'ran to point them to the Bible and from there to Christ. I do, however, disagree with your view that they are believing in the same God. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does the God of Israel (literal or spiritual) refer to Himself as Allah. That was Mohammed's invention. Thus, I can't see any real harmony between the Qu'ran and the Bible once a person has been brought to a true knowledge of the faith. However, if an ex-Muslim were to validate his conversion by confessing Christ as Lord and God truly come in the flesh and resurrected from death to life, I might be persuaded that they "got it".
Regarding dangers in any denomination: how true, since a denomination is a human invention and has no power to save or preserve us. You refer to many dangers, so I'm interested in knowing what particular dangers you are speaking of regarding the Anabaptists. That is, outside of the perfectly natural human tendency toward self-righteousness, separation from the world to the point we are ineffective, and the ever threatening bitter root of rivalry.
What I seek in any fellowship are these principles:
1. Biblical standards that are adhered to, not just mouthed.
2. Authority, leadership, and personal discipline based on the New Testament in whole
3. Gathering together for mutual edification, knowledge and reproof
4. True subservience to God and lack of personal ambition
5. Prayerfulness and irreproachable lifestyles
6. Preaching of God's Word, not man's philosophy
I'm glad to know you don't waste God's time protesting sectarian things of a political or governmental nature. I disagree that Jesus' cleansing of the temple is a proper analogy. It was because his Father's house was being defiled, not a principle being disagreed with.
You give Roman Catholics much more latitude in their religious practice than the Bible does. I believe that the Catholic church is as corrupt, paganistic and worldly as any man made religion could be. As long as a person prays to Mary, confesses to a priest (believing they alone give absolution), worships idols in the form of saints, prays repetitious prayers (rosary beads) and believes the pope is a valid substitute for Christ on earth they are damned (Rev 21:8) and we, as Christians are not to associate with such (1 Cor 5:11).
Again, I am not trying to be contentious with you. I agree with most of what you do, but I draw the line when it comes to opening my arms for anyone who bears a resemblance to a Christian. They either believe solely in Christ for salvation and live a life that reflects that.....or they don't.
Thanks again for your response. It's much appreciated. I believe you are absolutely correct that many will be disappointed in "that day" when Christ tells them he doesn't know them because they simply neglected His other commandments. I sincerely believe we must lose our lives in order to find them, as Christ said. I just don't want to lose my salvation as well by not being vigilant against the snares we are warned about.
In Christ, blessing and truth be with you.
SF
Thank you again for your reply.
As far as the issue with Allah, linguistic research has determined that "Allah" is just the Arabic form of the Hebrew word "Eloyah", one of the common names for Yahweh used in the Hebrew Bible. Certainly, "Allah" was used long before Muhammad. And also, we need to look at not just the root of a word, but how it is used. For the majority of Muslims in the world, "Allah" means a personal being who is spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate and who takes action in our world. Since this is our definition of God as well, then there should be no argument that "Allah" is the same God, even if we disagree about the root of the word.
The main disagreement we have with the Muslims is not who God is, but how he is known to us and how we can be right before Him. We should stick to the main subject, instead of getting off on tangents-- the souls of Muslims depend on it.
As far as Catholics go, many of their practices are Biblical, such as confession to a priest-- John 20:23 and James 5. They believe that a believer, even when dead, are still in fellowship with the believers on earth, and "praying" to them is nothing more than asking another believer to pray for them. I would agree that worship of Mary and statues is idolatry, but most Catholics would say that there is no worship going on there. And, in fact, the "Hail Mary" prayer is made up of passages from Scripture about Mary.
It says no where in Scripture that discussing things with false teachers is a sin before God. So there is nothing wrong with having discussions with them and understanding their point of view. However, it does say that those who judge with a wrong judgment-- that not based on God's word-- will be judged. We are supposed to reproof believers, as you say, but if we are judging based on a misunderstanding of someone else's perspective, or judging based on principles that are not found in Scripture, then we are the ones in danger of going to hell.
The danger to the Anabaptists are twofold, in accordance with the two groups that the Anabaptists have divided into. The first is what I mentioned above-- that of judging other groups as going to hell because they do not agree with their personal interpretation of Scripture, when the other groups are just as sincere in following Jesus as they, just in a different way. Many conservative Anabaptist groups go this way, and I pray that the Lord would deliver many of them from false judging, for I do not want to see my brothers and sisters going to hell for separating themselves from their fellow believers.
The danger to the other main Anabaptist group is the opposite one: welcoming in their midst those who teach false doctrine, especially the doctrine of plurality. The church is supposed to have a basic code of ethics and discipline and reproof, as you mentioned. We cannot accept as a part of the church anyone who says the right words. While we cannot discipline without clear knowledge of wrong-doing, we also cannot ignore the sins done, as if they were not sins at all. Many Anabaptists are accepting homosexuals and others in sexual sin as members of the church. And this is corrupting the church.
Now, I accept everyone in my church. But I do not call them all members or believers. I have homosexuals and drunkards and drug users and profane people in my church. They all come. But they are not ready to be a member because they do not live in accordance with following Jesus. I am working, as an evangelist and discipler, to bring them to that place. And many of them have worked with the Spirit of God to become a true follower of Jesus. But I recognize that this is a process, not always an instant transformation, and I am patient enough to wait and see that transformation happen.
My main point was not that the Anabaptists are going to hell. Rather, it is that most fellowships have those within them who are following Jesus within that context. And they all have those who follow the letter of their cultural paradigm, but do not have the truth of the power of the Spirit and the gospel. The Anabaptist are no different. There is NO "pure" church on earth, because the flesh enters into every human organization. And the longer a spirit-filled organization lasts, the less spirit and the more flesh invades that organization. But we can still see the Spirit in the most flesh-filled church organization-- God always seems to leave a witness. So I refuse to write off anyone, but hope and expect the Spirit to work in some.
May the Lord bless you with grace and peace.
Steve K
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Evolution in Public Schools
In my opinion, evolution must be taught as truth in the classroom. The public school system is there to teach, not the truth, but the sigificant cultural aspects that assists one to live and function in our society. If we send our children to public school, we are saying that it is a priority that they fit in and be adjusted to our society.Evolution is an essential part of the worldview accepted by our society. It would be wrong for the public school system to teach it as anything less than the truth, because it is the culturally accepted truth, and a major foundational truth by which our culture understands the world around it.As Christians, we have a minority viewpoint. We may take an alternative viewpoint on the origin of creation and humanity. We may take an alternative viewpoint on ethics. We may take an alternative viewpoint on metaphysics. But we must recognize and teach our children that it is an alternative viewpoint. We must be able to defend our viewpoint, and maintain our dissent despite the majority viewpoint. If we do not want our children to learn the majority viewpoint, then we have to choice to not send them to public school. We can send them to private school, or homeschool, in order to teach our worldview. And if we want our children to maintain our alternative worldview, then my opinion is that we must do so outside the public school system. Then we can teach evolution from our viewpoint. But if we refuse to do so, let's not expect the public school system to teach a minority viewpoint.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Studying The Bible
There are so many different studys, What works for some of you, I would really like to understand all aspects of the bible Melinda
The most important thing is that you don't stop.
The Bible has 66 books that were written more than two thousand years ago and there is two thousand five hundred years of interpretation of it. It was written in the context of a culture and religion that is different than anything we know of today, although there are some similarities.
To understand the Bible is one of the most complex tasks anyone could ask of a normal follower of Jesus. Yet it is still our responsibility.
The most important thing I have found in Bible study is to read and listen to people who not only share their points of view, but others as well. In this way, you have a better chance of having a more balanced point of view on Scripture, and a better opportunity to allow the Spirit to tell you the truth of what you are reading.
The task of understanding Scripture is so complex that it takes a lifetime to do it. So don't ever be satisfied that you "know" the word. Always be studying, always be working on it, and you will always be amazed at God's truth.
Steve K.
The most important thing is that you don't stop.
The Bible has 66 books that were written more than two thousand years ago and there is two thousand five hundred years of interpretation of it. It was written in the context of a culture and religion that is different than anything we know of today, although there are some similarities.
To understand the Bible is one of the most complex tasks anyone could ask of a normal follower of Jesus. Yet it is still our responsibility.
The most important thing I have found in Bible study is to read and listen to people who not only share their points of view, but others as well. In this way, you have a better chance of having a more balanced point of view on Scripture, and a better opportunity to allow the Spirit to tell you the truth of what you are reading.
The task of understanding Scripture is so complex that it takes a lifetime to do it. So don't ever be satisfied that you "know" the word. Always be studying, always be working on it, and you will always be amazed at God's truth.
Steve K.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Questions About Inclusion
In a message dated 1/4/2007 2:04:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, sfoltz@firstam.com writes:
Dear Mr. Kimes,
I stumbled onto your website while investigating the Mennonite faith, which resulted from my discontent with most churches I have visited in this area (Portland, OR). I am a returned prodigal after many years and am in agreement with your philosophy and theological understanding regarding what should be most important in our lives. I also find the Mennonite confession to be very much in tune with what I expect and hope to find in a fellowship of believers.
However, your website (http://anawim.or.us.mennonite.net) raises some perplexing concerns for me.
First, I agree that the Muslim people are literally hated by most professing Christians (which means they aren't). However, I would not go so far as to call any Muslim a brother or to even insinuate that they are in an acceptable religion, which is what your Apology to Muslims seems to do. I'm curious if you are aware of this implication and, if so, how you justify it.
Second, you seem very ecumenical in your willingness to fellowship with Roman Catholics, a religion of idolatry and many other falsehoods. I believe Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even most "churched" Protestants need real salvation as much as any unpreached heathen in the deepest jungles or deserts.
Third, and last, I sense an active affiliation with anti-war protests and movements, which, for me, are a distraction to be avoided as are politics.
So, in conclusion, I confess I was inspired and inclined toward your take on a Christian's duties to Christ, until these anomalies surfaced. They simply run counter to all your other stated beliefs, in my understanding of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.
I'm afraid this happens far too frequently for me; I get excited about finding a kindred person or group and then I run across a held belief that conflicts with other things they purport to believe in. Or I discover a practice that is unbiblical or patently false. In your case, perhaps you are misunderstood from my perspective. if so, I'd appreciate a thoughtful response.
May God bless your efforts, keep you from idols and from going astray.
Respectfully yours in Christ,
Steve Foltz
Thanks for your considered response to our website.
Allow me to explain certain things:
A. As far as Muslims go, I firmly believe that they believe in the same God that Christians do, however they do not know the correct approach to God. The only way to God is through following Jesus, which the vast majority of them do not do. A few, very few, actually do commit themselves to Jesus, and when Jesus and Muhammad disagree, they remain with Jesus. These Muslims make the statement, "Allah is our God and Jesus is the Messiah". They remain in mosques as a witness to other Muslims. Even so, my letter is primarily evangelistic in nature. I have worked with Muslims in the past and a direct call for them to believe in Jesus just doesn't work. But helping them understand that we are not in opposition to them, but fellow seekers of God, and then speaking to them about how the Qu'ran actually affirms the Messiahship of Jesus is a positive way of approaching them. I placed this letter on my website to show that Christians who participate in persecuting anyone are not real Christians.
B. While there is much that is dangerous in every denomination-- including the Mennonites-- there is also the possibility of following Jesus. This is clearly shown in the Catholic church which has many faithful believers of Jesus in it. There are many protestant groups that I consider dangerous, but I have met faithful believers in those churches as well. My point is not to speak against every minor difference of doctrine, but to coax people into a biblical understanding of following Jesus. And to do this, I will associate with Catholics, pentecostals-- whoever-- as long as they are following Jesus in as much as they can.
C. I personally do not participate in protests, although I see nothing wrong with that. Jesus' casting out of the moneychangers was basically a protest against the idolatrous leadership of the priests of the temple. There is a time for this. However, I believe that as followers of Jesus, our main issue is to win over others who claim Jesus, but are not following Him. This is my primary job. And it will not be accomplished through argument or bitter speech-- I have tried that route, and I gained no success. But after letting people know I am on their side, and then speaking the word of the gospel to them-- that works quite well.
The goal is to have communities of Jesus that actually represent Jesus. And I am hoping that my ministry is one step toward reaching that goal.
Thanks again,
Steve K
Dear Mr. Kimes,
I stumbled onto your website while investigating the Mennonite faith, which resulted from my discontent with most churches I have visited in this area (Portland, OR). I am a returned prodigal after many years and am in agreement with your philosophy and theological understanding regarding what should be most important in our lives. I also find the Mennonite confession to be very much in tune with what I expect and hope to find in a fellowship of believers.
However, your website (http://anawim.or.us.mennonite.net) raises some perplexing concerns for me.
First, I agree that the Muslim people are literally hated by most professing Christians (which means they aren't). However, I would not go so far as to call any Muslim a brother or to even insinuate that they are in an acceptable religion, which is what your Apology to Muslims seems to do. I'm curious if you are aware of this implication and, if so, how you justify it.
Second, you seem very ecumenical in your willingness to fellowship with Roman Catholics, a religion of idolatry and many other falsehoods. I believe Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even most "churched" Protestants need real salvation as much as any unpreached heathen in the deepest jungles or deserts.
Third, and last, I sense an active affiliation with anti-war protests and movements, which, for me, are a distraction to be avoided as are politics.
So, in conclusion, I confess I was inspired and inclined toward your take on a Christian's duties to Christ, until these anomalies surfaced. They simply run counter to all your other stated beliefs, in my understanding of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.
I'm afraid this happens far too frequently for me; I get excited about finding a kindred person or group and then I run across a held belief that conflicts with other things they purport to believe in. Or I discover a practice that is unbiblical or patently false. In your case, perhaps you are misunderstood from my perspective. if so, I'd appreciate a thoughtful response.
May God bless your efforts, keep you from idols and from going astray.
Respectfully yours in Christ,
Steve Foltz
Thanks for your considered response to our website.
Allow me to explain certain things:
A. As far as Muslims go, I firmly believe that they believe in the same God that Christians do, however they do not know the correct approach to God. The only way to God is through following Jesus, which the vast majority of them do not do. A few, very few, actually do commit themselves to Jesus, and when Jesus and Muhammad disagree, they remain with Jesus. These Muslims make the statement, "Allah is our God and Jesus is the Messiah". They remain in mosques as a witness to other Muslims. Even so, my letter is primarily evangelistic in nature. I have worked with Muslims in the past and a direct call for them to believe in Jesus just doesn't work. But helping them understand that we are not in opposition to them, but fellow seekers of God, and then speaking to them about how the Qu'ran actually affirms the Messiahship of Jesus is a positive way of approaching them. I placed this letter on my website to show that Christians who participate in persecuting anyone are not real Christians.
B. While there is much that is dangerous in every denomination-- including the Mennonites-- there is also the possibility of following Jesus. This is clearly shown in the Catholic church which has many faithful believers of Jesus in it. There are many protestant groups that I consider dangerous, but I have met faithful believers in those churches as well. My point is not to speak against every minor difference of doctrine, but to coax people into a biblical understanding of following Jesus. And to do this, I will associate with Catholics, pentecostals-- whoever-- as long as they are following Jesus in as much as they can.
C. I personally do not participate in protests, although I see nothing wrong with that. Jesus' casting out of the moneychangers was basically a protest against the idolatrous leadership of the priests of the temple. There is a time for this. However, I believe that as followers of Jesus, our main issue is to win over others who claim Jesus, but are not following Him. This is my primary job. And it will not be accomplished through argument or bitter speech-- I have tried that route, and I gained no success. But after letting people know I am on their side, and then speaking the word of the gospel to them-- that works quite well.
The goal is to have communities of Jesus that actually represent Jesus. And I am hoping that my ministry is one step toward reaching that goal.
Thanks again,
Steve K
Monday, September 18, 2006
Faith and Reason
All of us begin with beliefs that we have accepted from others. Not necessarily our parents, it could be our friends, our teachers, whatever. Everything that we base our lives on are inherantly irrational. If they were not irrational, we couldn't live. We cannot wait to do any action or believe anything until we are sure it is rational!And so if you believe in God or don't believe in God or are agnostic about God--whatever our first decisions about God were-- they were irrational. However, the distinct separation between reason and faith is also irrational. It was begun by thinkers in the enlightenment who wanted to separate religion out of their lives. Yes, they had some good reasons for that, but their conclusion-- that faith is a "leap" that is beyond reason-- has no basis in truth.Of course faith has reasons. Childhood faith might be irrational-- based on what others told us without checking it out ourselves. But as we grow older, we have doubts and questions and we start investigating what we believe. Perhaps not most people, but many. I believed in Jesus at 13. But when I went to Bible school, I found much of what people claimed about Jesus and the Bible to be irrational-- contradictory. So I had to investigate it myself. In the end, I have a faith that is slightly different from others, but it is a faith based upon reason.How can we know God? Not because we have some great power, but because God reveals himself to us personally. This is a personal experience, but you can't say that it isn't based on reason. Just because I saw the movie "Cars" and you didn't, and you haven't seen any ads for it, is it "reasonable" for you to deny that the movie exists? Or even to say, "There is no way for us to say that the movie exists or not" ? Of course not. I have an experience and you can either say "I'm not interested" or you can say "I'm going to check it out to see if it is true." Then you go on the internet and find out that there really IS a movie called "Cars". If someone says they have enough personal proof that God exists, you can either say "I'm not interested" or you can check it out for youself. Of course, you can't just go on the internet. The best way to find out is to pray and see if God answers. But even if you don't get the answer you are looking for, YOU CANNOT DENY THE RATIONALITY OF SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPERIENCE! To deny someone elses experience because you never had the experience, or you don't recognize their proofs for their experience is the height or irrationality. It smacks of pre-school arguments "No you didn't" "Yes I did"-- to argue about experience can never go beyond this. You can examine someone else's experience, if they are willing, to see if their experience might have another explanation than they thought, but it is their experience, and ultimately the rational response is to throw your hands up in the air and say, "I don't know. I wasn't there."Rationality is examining something after you believe it, and changing it if the new facts show something else. Irrationality is looking at facts and holding our hands over our eyes and ears and screaming, "I'm not listening!" And there is pleanty of both of these in the skepical and in the faith camps.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A Measure of Success
I feel that it is really easy for the majority population, which is able to flex in our increasingly inflexible society, to demand such flexibility in others who may not be able to bend.
I have one gal that I'm working with. She has placed many interviews, has a lot of energy and is highly motivated to get a job. She's got some low-level skills as well. But her ADHD keeps her distracted, and her background with a felony prevents her from obtaining full-time work.
I have another gal who does great in an interview and is freqently hired. But her social skills over time are so low and her depression is so extreme that she is only able to work in any job-- usually entry level-- for a few months before she quits or is just not put on the schedule any more.
I have another guy who is bi-polar and has a history of drug use. It has taken many years, but he has finally gotten to a place where he won't just suddenly break into a sermon in the middle of any-sized gathering. But he has his good days and his bad. On his good days, he can work for hours. On his bad, he is unable to even listen to instructions.
Some folks can flex with our society to meet their standards. But the people I work with can't. It's not an excuse-- trust me, they have tried programs and jobs and other kinds of work. And it's not a matter of laziness or "getting up early in the morning." To have a job and to maintain minimum standards in our society is an increasingly complex group of tasks. You have to be part accountant, part manager, part slave, part techo-geek.
Yet what is our ancestral occupational background-- for all of us, for about 10, 000 years? Rural farmers. And though most of us have the ability and education to be more than that, some of us were born to be rural farmers. But rural farming isn't an option for us in the West anymore. For any of us. Isn't it interesting that in the U.S. today there are more people in prison than there are farmers? When we lost our farmers, where did they go? When we knocked farming out as an occupation, what happened to all those farmer's sons, who really coudn't do anything but work the land, flexing with nature's ebbs and flows, and dealing with only a few people a day, and taking a day off if they really weren't feeling well? They went on the street, they work in day labor, they became seriously mentally ill because they had the shame of being unproductive on top of being mentally unstable.
What I'm saying is that my population-- the "unproductive", bottom of the barrel folks, the folks who the church has truly ignored and called unspiritual out of ignorance, the truly Anawim-- they are the ones who can work, but need their work ethic recognized as equivalent to that of the Constantinian/Calvinist middle class. And the Christian ones, at least, should be given an opportunity by the church to work as they are able. No, they will not be successful in a capitalistic society built upon the premise of Calvinistic human depravity. They will not obtain a middle class standard of living in an economy that exalts the profit margin above all else. AND WHY SHOULD THEY BE? Why can't the church create a separate economy, one of mutual aid and supportive work, and let people do what they can?
This is my measure of success:
To give people honor because they serve God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, even if they are a social and an economic "failure" in the eyes of the world.
To grant people encouragement to love and good deeds, to sell their possessions and give to the poor, to preach the good news to the needy, to surrender all of their possessions to Jesus, even if that means they end the day bankrupt.
To train people in the way of Jesus, even if it means that they are no economic good to the world.
To encourage people to be educated in their work before the Lord, to build up God's kingdom and to love as if their heart would break, even if they never make a salary.
It is time for a new economy-- the economy of the kingdom of God.
Where people are not honored for their annual income as much as for their sincere, humble work before God.
Where people are given an opportunity to work for God in whatever way they are able, rather than what is economically feasible.
Where the full-time pastors, evangelists and bishops are given a piss-poor salary, so that others can work full time for the church at the same salary, acting in areas of service and hospitality.
Where people stop working for themselves and surrender their whole measure of production-- all their strength-- to the kingdom of God.
Where young people go into ministry because it is what God demands of them, rather than the salary they feel they deserve.
I have one gal that I'm working with. She has placed many interviews, has a lot of energy and is highly motivated to get a job. She's got some low-level skills as well. But her ADHD keeps her distracted, and her background with a felony prevents her from obtaining full-time work.
I have another gal who does great in an interview and is freqently hired. But her social skills over time are so low and her depression is so extreme that she is only able to work in any job-- usually entry level-- for a few months before she quits or is just not put on the schedule any more.
I have another guy who is bi-polar and has a history of drug use. It has taken many years, but he has finally gotten to a place where he won't just suddenly break into a sermon in the middle of any-sized gathering. But he has his good days and his bad. On his good days, he can work for hours. On his bad, he is unable to even listen to instructions.
Some folks can flex with our society to meet their standards. But the people I work with can't. It's not an excuse-- trust me, they have tried programs and jobs and other kinds of work. And it's not a matter of laziness or "getting up early in the morning." To have a job and to maintain minimum standards in our society is an increasingly complex group of tasks. You have to be part accountant, part manager, part slave, part techo-geek.
Yet what is our ancestral occupational background-- for all of us, for about 10, 000 years? Rural farmers. And though most of us have the ability and education to be more than that, some of us were born to be rural farmers. But rural farming isn't an option for us in the West anymore. For any of us. Isn't it interesting that in the U.S. today there are more people in prison than there are farmers? When we lost our farmers, where did they go? When we knocked farming out as an occupation, what happened to all those farmer's sons, who really coudn't do anything but work the land, flexing with nature's ebbs and flows, and dealing with only a few people a day, and taking a day off if they really weren't feeling well? They went on the street, they work in day labor, they became seriously mentally ill because they had the shame of being unproductive on top of being mentally unstable.
What I'm saying is that my population-- the "unproductive", bottom of the barrel folks, the folks who the church has truly ignored and called unspiritual out of ignorance, the truly Anawim-- they are the ones who can work, but need their work ethic recognized as equivalent to that of the Constantinian/Calvinist middle class. And the Christian ones, at least, should be given an opportunity by the church to work as they are able. No, they will not be successful in a capitalistic society built upon the premise of Calvinistic human depravity. They will not obtain a middle class standard of living in an economy that exalts the profit margin above all else. AND WHY SHOULD THEY BE? Why can't the church create a separate economy, one of mutual aid and supportive work, and let people do what they can?
This is my measure of success:
To give people honor because they serve God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, even if they are a social and an economic "failure" in the eyes of the world.
To grant people encouragement to love and good deeds, to sell their possessions and give to the poor, to preach the good news to the needy, to surrender all of their possessions to Jesus, even if that means they end the day bankrupt.
To train people in the way of Jesus, even if it means that they are no economic good to the world.
To encourage people to be educated in their work before the Lord, to build up God's kingdom and to love as if their heart would break, even if they never make a salary.
It is time for a new economy-- the economy of the kingdom of God.
Where people are not honored for their annual income as much as for their sincere, humble work before God.
Where people are given an opportunity to work for God in whatever way they are able, rather than what is economically feasible.
Where the full-time pastors, evangelists and bishops are given a piss-poor salary, so that others can work full time for the church at the same salary, acting in areas of service and hospitality.
Where people stop working for themselves and surrender their whole measure of production-- all their strength-- to the kingdom of God.
Where young people go into ministry because it is what God demands of them, rather than the salary they feel they deserve.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Discussion on Rape
Is it possible to love someone who rapes you?
-Hero
Hero, why did you bring up this subject? What was your point?
-Steve
Rape is the strongest way to devour someone. More than murder. It is a very intens topic. Forgivness is stronger than rape though, it lets go of the past and presents us with a new future. A rebirth if you will. This is a Christian group. I wanted to get us to talk about Forgivenss.
-Hero
Okay, that makes sense.But Alex is not a believer. You can't expect her to forgive, or to want to forgive. And I think that if she tried to force herself to forgive, then she could do herself and others harm. Forgiveness isn't natural, it's a gift from God.Also, Jesus speaks of forgiveness in a couple differnt ways.1. Release from bitternessIf we hold bitterness against an event in the past, it does more damage to us than it does to our enemy. If we make the Christian choice to love our enemies, as Jesus commanded believers to, then releasing the bitterness is a minimum, and it is ultimately healthy. I think that's what you're talking about.2. Restoration of relationshipIf someone has sinned against us, and they repented of their sin, then we are required by Jesus to forgive them-- that is, to restore the relationship. But if they do not repent, or just make excuses for the evil they did, we do NOT have to forgive them, according to Jesus. Luke 17:3-4-- "If a brother sins, rebuke him; if he repents, forgive him." Matthew 18:15-17-- "If a brother sins against you, confront such a one privately. If they listen to you, you have won your brother. If they do not listen to you, bring one or two others... if they still do not listen to you, treat such a one as a tax collector." Basically, if they repent, get friendly again. If they don't, then keep away from them.Also, I have one more question. So Hero, why did you recommend to that kid that he retalliate against those who jumped him if you are all for forgiveness?-Steve
The situation is one that is current. He is still in Danger. So is His girfriend. I still belive in self defense. I mentioned that he should not instigate anything, but rather let God give him the strenghth if confronted. I can fight in a boxing ring without hating my opponent. Even if my opponent hates me.
-Hero
I am sorry, but I think you need to be like Jesus consistantly, if you are a Christian.Jesus says that to harm another's life IS to hate them, and that this is the opposite of love-- Mark 3:4. And, as Alex described, when you defend yourself, you don't know what permanent damage you can cause. If we love them, the MINIMUM is to not harm them and to help them in their need.I am glad that Jesus chose not to believe in self-defense. And he told us to do the same:"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.""Whoever wants to save his life must lose it.""Love your enemies, do good to those who harm you, pray for those who despitefully use you.""For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." I Peter 2:20-24If Christians are to be like Jesus, it is specifically in the area of suffering like him and DOING NOTHING IN RETURN but allowing God to enact His justice in His own way.For the non-Christians reading this, Jesus' way is not for you, and I don't expect you to think it makes any sense. But for the Christians, Jesus' way of the cross is what we are all called to live by. Without exception. To live like Jesus in this way is enacting true faith. Anything less is unbelief.-Steve
I hope you don't take this wrong, but then is it your advice, would it be your advice, to some woman close to you, that if a man tries to rape her, not to try to fight back, to not try to stop him, to just lie there and take it?
-Solo sono una diva
Being a Christian isn't being passive. There is a difference between stopping someone and harming them. In our culture of excessively violent movies and television, we are trained that harming people is the only option available to us. There are other options. A good book on this subject--essays written by many people, including Carly Simon-- is What Would You Do? It talks about alternatives to violence when you are being personally threatened with violence.
Also, this is a perspective that cannot be understood without faith. The way of the cross is to lay down one's rights and life in order to allow God to accomplish His justice. It is what Jesus did-- and it is to a certain degree what MLK did. It does work.
The way of the cross is not looked at as an appropriate response to evil, because our society doesn't think that we should sacrifice ourselves for anything. That somehow, evil should be stopped without sacrifice. The whole point of Christianity is to have a group of people who are willingly sacrificing themselves in order that others might be saved. When- and where-ever Christianity loses that aspect, it is no longer the way of Jesus, but the way of the world.
Steve K.
-Hero
Hero, why did you bring up this subject? What was your point?
-Steve
Rape is the strongest way to devour someone. More than murder. It is a very intens topic. Forgivness is stronger than rape though, it lets go of the past and presents us with a new future. A rebirth if you will. This is a Christian group. I wanted to get us to talk about Forgivenss.
-Hero
Okay, that makes sense.But Alex is not a believer. You can't expect her to forgive, or to want to forgive. And I think that if she tried to force herself to forgive, then she could do herself and others harm. Forgiveness isn't natural, it's a gift from God.Also, Jesus speaks of forgiveness in a couple differnt ways.1. Release from bitternessIf we hold bitterness against an event in the past, it does more damage to us than it does to our enemy. If we make the Christian choice to love our enemies, as Jesus commanded believers to, then releasing the bitterness is a minimum, and it is ultimately healthy. I think that's what you're talking about.2. Restoration of relationshipIf someone has sinned against us, and they repented of their sin, then we are required by Jesus to forgive them-- that is, to restore the relationship. But if they do not repent, or just make excuses for the evil they did, we do NOT have to forgive them, according to Jesus. Luke 17:3-4-- "If a brother sins, rebuke him; if he repents, forgive him." Matthew 18:15-17-- "If a brother sins against you, confront such a one privately. If they listen to you, you have won your brother. If they do not listen to you, bring one or two others... if they still do not listen to you, treat such a one as a tax collector." Basically, if they repent, get friendly again. If they don't, then keep away from them.Also, I have one more question. So Hero, why did you recommend to that kid that he retalliate against those who jumped him if you are all for forgiveness?-Steve
The situation is one that is current. He is still in Danger. So is His girfriend. I still belive in self defense. I mentioned that he should not instigate anything, but rather let God give him the strenghth if confronted. I can fight in a boxing ring without hating my opponent. Even if my opponent hates me.
-Hero
I am sorry, but I think you need to be like Jesus consistantly, if you are a Christian.Jesus says that to harm another's life IS to hate them, and that this is the opposite of love-- Mark 3:4. And, as Alex described, when you defend yourself, you don't know what permanent damage you can cause. If we love them, the MINIMUM is to not harm them and to help them in their need.I am glad that Jesus chose not to believe in self-defense. And he told us to do the same:"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.""Whoever wants to save his life must lose it.""Love your enemies, do good to those who harm you, pray for those who despitefully use you.""For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." I Peter 2:20-24If Christians are to be like Jesus, it is specifically in the area of suffering like him and DOING NOTHING IN RETURN but allowing God to enact His justice in His own way.For the non-Christians reading this, Jesus' way is not for you, and I don't expect you to think it makes any sense. But for the Christians, Jesus' way of the cross is what we are all called to live by. Without exception. To live like Jesus in this way is enacting true faith. Anything less is unbelief.-Steve
I hope you don't take this wrong, but then is it your advice, would it be your advice, to some woman close to you, that if a man tries to rape her, not to try to fight back, to not try to stop him, to just lie there and take it?
-Solo sono una diva
Being a Christian isn't being passive. There is a difference between stopping someone and harming them. In our culture of excessively violent movies and television, we are trained that harming people is the only option available to us. There are other options. A good book on this subject--essays written by many people, including Carly Simon-- is What Would You Do? It talks about alternatives to violence when you are being personally threatened with violence.
Also, this is a perspective that cannot be understood without faith. The way of the cross is to lay down one's rights and life in order to allow God to accomplish His justice. It is what Jesus did-- and it is to a certain degree what MLK did. It does work.
The way of the cross is not looked at as an appropriate response to evil, because our society doesn't think that we should sacrifice ourselves for anything. That somehow, evil should be stopped without sacrifice. The whole point of Christianity is to have a group of people who are willingly sacrificing themselves in order that others might be saved. When- and where-ever Christianity loses that aspect, it is no longer the way of Jesus, but the way of the world.
Steve K.
Preaching and Weakness
Knowing everyone is different, if your belief makes you happy, and makes sense to you, doesn't mean that you are right. Preaching is a sign of religious weakness, and also a lack of faith. If you feel you need to preach your beliefs on other people, you fear they would not know about unless they tell you. Shouldn't "god" be visible to people other than word of mouth?
Actions speaks louder than words, but when there is no action, people can only talk. I believe that people fighting about heaven and hell wouldn't exist if people didn't talk about it. All this carries on because out unquestionable presence on this earth.
-Vaerus
First of all, I must confess, I am a preacher.
Nevertheless, I have seen what you mean-- people who are driven to preach at people who are not ready to hear. Frankly, I hate that. Preaching is only good when accomanied by WANTING to hear.
But preaching-- in and of itself-- is not a sign of religious weakness. Rather, I am a preacher despite my natural inclinations. I am frankly nervous to tell people about Jesus unless I am sure that they actually want to hear.
So I started a new church among a new people. This is how I get around your correct complaints:
My church is among the homeless and mentally ill. Our times are at least two and a half hours long. The first half hour to hour is just a meal. We have a meal with every meeting. If people just want to eat and leave, that's fine. But the meal comes first, so no one goes hungry. Then we have the service, which might include singing and might not, but we have a Bible study and prayer. But it is not a monologue. People can interrupt my preaching with comments or questions, if they like. Then people can stay afterwords and talk or hang out. In two of our services, we also offer clothes and showers for those who need them.
In this way, we are a church. And I am preaching. But no one has to listen if they don't want to. And we are not just speaking words, but going out to the people who need help and offering them what we have.
The main reason I preach is because Jesus told me to. He said so in his word and he gave me that calling personally. If I wasn't told to, I wouldn't. It certainly isn't usually culturally appropriate. But what Jesus told me to do is more important than what people tell me not to. This isn't a "religous weakness" on my part. It's religous obedience. And people may not like what I do. But they aren't the ones juding me-- Jesus is.
Actions speaks louder than words, but when there is no action, people can only talk. I believe that people fighting about heaven and hell wouldn't exist if people didn't talk about it. All this carries on because out unquestionable presence on this earth.
-Vaerus
First of all, I must confess, I am a preacher.
Nevertheless, I have seen what you mean-- people who are driven to preach at people who are not ready to hear. Frankly, I hate that. Preaching is only good when accomanied by WANTING to hear.
But preaching-- in and of itself-- is not a sign of religious weakness. Rather, I am a preacher despite my natural inclinations. I am frankly nervous to tell people about Jesus unless I am sure that they actually want to hear.
So I started a new church among a new people. This is how I get around your correct complaints:
My church is among the homeless and mentally ill. Our times are at least two and a half hours long. The first half hour to hour is just a meal. We have a meal with every meeting. If people just want to eat and leave, that's fine. But the meal comes first, so no one goes hungry. Then we have the service, which might include singing and might not, but we have a Bible study and prayer. But it is not a monologue. People can interrupt my preaching with comments or questions, if they like. Then people can stay afterwords and talk or hang out. In two of our services, we also offer clothes and showers for those who need them.
In this way, we are a church. And I am preaching. But no one has to listen if they don't want to. And we are not just speaking words, but going out to the people who need help and offering them what we have.
The main reason I preach is because Jesus told me to. He said so in his word and he gave me that calling personally. If I wasn't told to, I wouldn't. It certainly isn't usually culturally appropriate. But what Jesus told me to do is more important than what people tell me not to. This isn't a "religous weakness" on my part. It's religous obedience. And people may not like what I do. But they aren't the ones juding me-- Jesus is.
Nihilism
Nihilism-- the belief that there is no meaning to life and no spirit world-- is the most logical thing to believe in. Religions are contradictory and they all claim to be the one truth. Nihilism makes sense because it denies all of the contradiction. --Someone who's name I can't remember. This is a REALLY paraphrased summary of a pretty long post.
There are a spectrum of belief systems, and nihilism has the Occom's Razor advantage of being the simplist. It wipes away all the questions people have about a spirit world and about God and about the meaning of life in general-- except personally. In all metaphysical areas-- and frankly almost all ethical ones-- there can be no discussion between people. What anyone says about these subjects is ultimately correct for them, personally. Of course, we will have to throw out most science as well, because studies have shown that most studies are ultimately subjective-- including the original studies that showed that.
Nihilism is simple-- but so simple that no one wants to accept it. Nihilism questions all speculative truth, but without speculative truth there would be no law of gravity, no shuttles in space, no cell phones, etc. We gotta start somewhere, science says, so we begin with a theory that seems reasonable and then we go out and either prove or disprove it. Nihilism, as a belief system, has been around a long time-- not the longest, spiritism has that distinction-- and it has been discussed by people for longer than philosophy has been around. This gives it the distinction of being the most rejected belief system that has ever existed.
Why has Nihilism been rejected to such an amazing degree? First of all, because it doesn't meet people's inner need. Athiestic existentialism is simply giving a needed face lift to nihilism, because if people were going to believe in nothing, they still need to believe in SOMETHING, even if that something is only in their own personal experience. But most people aren't ready to deal with such logical hoops, and they need to believe that their life has some meaning. They need to believe that there really is justice, although they don't see it. They need to believe that there is still a chance for inner peace, although they don't experience it now. They need to believe that somehow there will be a time and a place where they will be secure, even though that doesn't exist now in what they currently experience. Frankly, nihilism doesn't meet most people where they are, it doesn't meet their needs.
Secondly, nihilism's simplicity is at first disarming, but after reflection it is simply unsatisfying. Frankly, the universe and our personal experience is more complex than nihilism will admit. There is much that is unexplained, and there is a universe-- possibly multiple universes-- of knowledge that humanity will never grasp. The human brain is finite, and yet nihilism implicitly claims that human knowledge is all that is significant to humans. Because we cannot "prove" God, therefore God must not be significant. Because we cannot fully grasp a spirit world, it must not exist. Because we cannot, as humanity, decide on a single meaning of life, therefore there must not be any.
It's kind of like the people who saw The Wall on LSD. Just because they couldn't understand any meaning, they assume that the writers and director of the Wall were on acid when they made it. Just because a minority of people cannot grasp any meaning, and others disagree on the meaning, it is a leap of logic to determine that there is NO meaning.
I would understand if someone explored a number of belief systems-- really understood and experienced them-- and then determined that there must not be any meaning after that. At least they explored some of the possibilities. But to say, a priori, "there is no meaning" without actually, honestly, exploring the possibilities of meaning is self-deception. This is not the scientific method. It is not critical analysis. It is just another religion. And it is a greater leap of faith than most religions out there. At least most religions are fairly existentialist-- it is based on a personal experience. But most nihilists are anti-existentialist, it is based on NOT having an experience. It may be trite, but it is true that if you look for nothing, you will certainly find what you were looking for.
There are a spectrum of belief systems, and nihilism has the Occom's Razor advantage of being the simplist. It wipes away all the questions people have about a spirit world and about God and about the meaning of life in general-- except personally. In all metaphysical areas-- and frankly almost all ethical ones-- there can be no discussion between people. What anyone says about these subjects is ultimately correct for them, personally. Of course, we will have to throw out most science as well, because studies have shown that most studies are ultimately subjective-- including the original studies that showed that.
Nihilism is simple-- but so simple that no one wants to accept it. Nihilism questions all speculative truth, but without speculative truth there would be no law of gravity, no shuttles in space, no cell phones, etc. We gotta start somewhere, science says, so we begin with a theory that seems reasonable and then we go out and either prove or disprove it. Nihilism, as a belief system, has been around a long time-- not the longest, spiritism has that distinction-- and it has been discussed by people for longer than philosophy has been around. This gives it the distinction of being the most rejected belief system that has ever existed.
Why has Nihilism been rejected to such an amazing degree? First of all, because it doesn't meet people's inner need. Athiestic existentialism is simply giving a needed face lift to nihilism, because if people were going to believe in nothing, they still need to believe in SOMETHING, even if that something is only in their own personal experience. But most people aren't ready to deal with such logical hoops, and they need to believe that their life has some meaning. They need to believe that there really is justice, although they don't see it. They need to believe that there is still a chance for inner peace, although they don't experience it now. They need to believe that somehow there will be a time and a place where they will be secure, even though that doesn't exist now in what they currently experience. Frankly, nihilism doesn't meet most people where they are, it doesn't meet their needs.
Secondly, nihilism's simplicity is at first disarming, but after reflection it is simply unsatisfying. Frankly, the universe and our personal experience is more complex than nihilism will admit. There is much that is unexplained, and there is a universe-- possibly multiple universes-- of knowledge that humanity will never grasp. The human brain is finite, and yet nihilism implicitly claims that human knowledge is all that is significant to humans. Because we cannot "prove" God, therefore God must not be significant. Because we cannot fully grasp a spirit world, it must not exist. Because we cannot, as humanity, decide on a single meaning of life, therefore there must not be any.
It's kind of like the people who saw The Wall on LSD. Just because they couldn't understand any meaning, they assume that the writers and director of the Wall were on acid when they made it. Just because a minority of people cannot grasp any meaning, and others disagree on the meaning, it is a leap of logic to determine that there is NO meaning.
I would understand if someone explored a number of belief systems-- really understood and experienced them-- and then determined that there must not be any meaning after that. At least they explored some of the possibilities. But to say, a priori, "there is no meaning" without actually, honestly, exploring the possibilities of meaning is self-deception. This is not the scientific method. It is not critical analysis. It is just another religion. And it is a greater leap of faith than most religions out there. At least most religions are fairly existentialist-- it is based on a personal experience. But most nihilists are anti-existentialist, it is based on NOT having an experience. It may be trite, but it is true that if you look for nothing, you will certainly find what you were looking for.
Three Statments
Hey, Ive just started a philosophy course..and could do with some simulating responses, to these quotes...basically, i just want to know if you agree or disagree with them.'Tranquility is the most beautiful thing in the world''Most men are bad' (refering to mankind..not males)and'learn to obey and you will learn to command'give me any opinions!!! have fun thinking :D
-Annie
I hope I'm not helping you cheat at school! :) The first statement is the basic Buddhist precept-- that all of our basic needs are met if we have peace within ourselves. Of course, we can have inner peace all we want, but that doesn't do children raped in Darfur any good. From my understanding, the most beautiful thing in the world is a whole complex of needs and desires in a community which is working together, including inner peace, but also meeting the main physical needs of people, security, joy, social interaction, and respect. As far as the second statement, it depends on what it means. If it means that every human is morally evil (like a Calvinist persepective), I disagree. But every human is born with only self-interest at heart. We have to become mature to learn to live according to other's interests, to treat others on the same level of humanity as ourselves. Most people haven't learned to do this. Does that mean that there are people who don't act in self interest? No. Acting in self interest, in my opinion (Kant disagrees) is not morally wrong. But acting ONLY in self interest, doing acts as if others are actually less significant than ourselves is what is evil. Not everyone does that. But in the end, I guess, we would have to determine what is "bad" or morally evil to determine if that statment is true or not. I also disagree with the third statment. Most slaves learn to obey because it is basic survival to do so. But in that obedience they do not learn to command others. However, for one who is good at commanding others, one of the prerequisites is to learn what it means to obey-- if you don't know how to obey, then you will never give good orders. But the way the statment is made, it is a logical fallacy.
-Annie
I hope I'm not helping you cheat at school! :) The first statement is the basic Buddhist precept-- that all of our basic needs are met if we have peace within ourselves. Of course, we can have inner peace all we want, but that doesn't do children raped in Darfur any good. From my understanding, the most beautiful thing in the world is a whole complex of needs and desires in a community which is working together, including inner peace, but also meeting the main physical needs of people, security, joy, social interaction, and respect. As far as the second statement, it depends on what it means. If it means that every human is morally evil (like a Calvinist persepective), I disagree. But every human is born with only self-interest at heart. We have to become mature to learn to live according to other's interests, to treat others on the same level of humanity as ourselves. Most people haven't learned to do this. Does that mean that there are people who don't act in self interest? No. Acting in self interest, in my opinion (Kant disagrees) is not morally wrong. But acting ONLY in self interest, doing acts as if others are actually less significant than ourselves is what is evil. Not everyone does that. But in the end, I guess, we would have to determine what is "bad" or morally evil to determine if that statment is true or not. I also disagree with the third statment. Most slaves learn to obey because it is basic survival to do so. But in that obedience they do not learn to command others. However, for one who is good at commanding others, one of the prerequisites is to learn what it means to obey-- if you don't know how to obey, then you will never give good orders. But the way the statment is made, it is a logical fallacy.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Turn The Other Cheek?
As young Christians, we were always taught to "turn the other cheek". It is obvious that that may not have been the best advice. That philosophy has led to the removal of God from our schools, abortions as a method of birth control and the advice of the liberal doctrines. Does anyone else feel that as Christians that we are too passive? Thanks for your input.
-Dwight
1. "Turn the other cheek"--The context in which Jesus was speaking is in how to respond to authorities who are persecuting you. He is saying that we are to take the extreme passive response, not only accepting the evil persecution (receiving harm for doing right), but also inviting them to do more. Why? So that God would step in and remove the authority. This is what Jesus did in the cross-- he accepted the priest's and Sanhedrin's death sentence without a word so that they would be removed from power, which they were in 70AD. Jesus never said that we had to remain silent in the face of wrong-- just the opposite, actually. 2. God in schools I am personally pleased that teachers are supposedly no longer allowed to lead prayer in school. Students, according to the law, can lead prayer and pray-- never been a law against that. But when I was in school, I had teachers leading me in new age prayer and spiritual meditation. Of course, they still do that because the students often don't realize that it is "prayer." This is why my children are not in public school. Because I don't trust teachers to do religious, moral or social teaching to my children. And since public school is all about moral and social teaching-- thus religious as well-- then I want my kids to know what they believe and be able to defend it before they are attacked by another side. 3. This country This country (The US) is not, nor ever has been, Christian. If it were a "Christian" country then there would only be one God that people could worship, and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists would be marginalized. If it were a "Christian" country then more than 3 of the ten commandments would be enforced by law. It has always been that the majority of this nation has been Christian-- bad ones, but still superficially Christian-- and so that formed the kinds of things the republic enforced. However, it is becoming less Christian every day.And I'm happy about that, really. Only if the church is attacked will we see who are the hypocrites and who are the true faithful in Jesus. Let's make it clear what is secular and what is truly Christian. The bastardization of Christianity with government and military force that has existed for 1700 years should finally be put at an end. Hopefully, this will allow Christians to remember that their focus should be on following Jesus and not on trying to get the rest of their society to follow their cultural biases.
-Dwight
1. "Turn the other cheek"--The context in which Jesus was speaking is in how to respond to authorities who are persecuting you. He is saying that we are to take the extreme passive response, not only accepting the evil persecution (receiving harm for doing right), but also inviting them to do more. Why? So that God would step in and remove the authority. This is what Jesus did in the cross-- he accepted the priest's and Sanhedrin's death sentence without a word so that they would be removed from power, which they were in 70AD. Jesus never said that we had to remain silent in the face of wrong-- just the opposite, actually. 2. God in schools I am personally pleased that teachers are supposedly no longer allowed to lead prayer in school. Students, according to the law, can lead prayer and pray-- never been a law against that. But when I was in school, I had teachers leading me in new age prayer and spiritual meditation. Of course, they still do that because the students often don't realize that it is "prayer." This is why my children are not in public school. Because I don't trust teachers to do religious, moral or social teaching to my children. And since public school is all about moral and social teaching-- thus religious as well-- then I want my kids to know what they believe and be able to defend it before they are attacked by another side. 3. This country This country (The US) is not, nor ever has been, Christian. If it were a "Christian" country then there would only be one God that people could worship, and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists would be marginalized. If it were a "Christian" country then more than 3 of the ten commandments would be enforced by law. It has always been that the majority of this nation has been Christian-- bad ones, but still superficially Christian-- and so that formed the kinds of things the republic enforced. However, it is becoming less Christian every day.And I'm happy about that, really. Only if the church is attacked will we see who are the hypocrites and who are the true faithful in Jesus. Let's make it clear what is secular and what is truly Christian. The bastardization of Christianity with government and military force that has existed for 1700 years should finally be put at an end. Hopefully, this will allow Christians to remember that their focus should be on following Jesus and not on trying to get the rest of their society to follow their cultural biases.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Jesus-Centered New Testament
It seems to me that Jesus is the truth of God, as said in the gospels, while the rest of the New Testament is just commentary on the gospels. --Theophilos
Really, the gospels are just commentary on Jesus as well.-- Mark
My perspective on this is very similar to Th's but a bit nuanced. First, about the gospels. It is a modern perspective to say that the gospels are commentary on Jesus. Certainly, they have different perspectives and emphases, but are they really offering different Jesus'? The gospel writers were not intending to present "commentaries" on Jesus, but Jesus himself through their eyewitness acocunts. Just because a modern perspective sees the lack of objectivity, a post-modern persective understands that there is NO objective point of view. Every time we talk about something, no matter how thorough we try to present it, we are not presenting the thing itself, but our perspective on that thing. Does that mean that we are just providing commentary? If I collect a group of passages from the Bible about a particular subject, then I am inherently interpreting because I am selecting some scriptures, but not others. But am I commenting? No. A collection of tradition is the tradition, not a commentary on the tradition. Yes, the collection is interpreted just by being collected, but that does not make it any less the tradition. The gospels, as Luke says in his introduction, is a collection of traditions about Jesus. The writers, in their own way, were as objective as their culture required. But let's not put labels on the gospels, such as "commentary". So what about the epistles? They are certainly not attempting to make straightforward communication of the tradition of Jesus. The quotes of Jesus are rare, although they do imply dependence on the Jesus tradition quite often. But I think that different epistles are interacting with the Jesus tradition in different ways. Paul, for instance, is frequently interacting with the Jesus tradition-- interestingly enough, the Matthean tradition more often than the others-- but not only that. Paul makes frequent reference to the personal revelation he has received from Jesus as well. Thus, Paul's point of truth-reference is the apostolic Jesus tradition and his personal revelation, that is probably communicated pretty well by Luke in his three presentations of Jesus' appearance before Paul. But what Paul does in his letters is rarely commentary. Some of his most theological parts are placing the Jesus tradition and his personal revelation in his understanding of Old Testament theology. But most of it is simply applying the tradition to the context of the churches. The eschatalogical sections of Thessalonlians are probably him finishing his discipleship teaching that he was chased away from finishing. James, II Peter, and I John are the best examples of commentary on the Jesus tradition. They are actually sermons, but definately based on the Jesus tradition. Revelation has some commentary on Jesus tradition-- for instance, much of the outline of future events is based on the basic outline of Mark 13-- but it is primarily a "revelation" a communication from Jesus in the spirit world to the churches in Asia Minor in the first century. While it might make reference to the Jesus' tradition, it is clearly supposed to go beyond that tradition. It is more than a commentary. Hebrews would be a theological treatise on Jesus fulfilling the themes of the second temple Judaism cult. It is less a commentary on the Jesus tradition as an attempt to show the superiority of Jesus over ancient Judaism. My perspective on the epistles is that they are representatives of the earliest interpretations of Jesus. While there are some differences, the similarities are more striking. They are most significant because they give us windows on how we might interpret and apply Jesus in our context. Jesus is the center, the foundation, the truth and the life-- not Paul or the writer of Hebrews or John. But these first interpreters help us better understand how Jesus might interpret himself in a variety of contexts, and so they are guides to our understanding and application of Jesus.
Really, the gospels are just commentary on Jesus as well.-- Mark
My perspective on this is very similar to Th's but a bit nuanced. First, about the gospels. It is a modern perspective to say that the gospels are commentary on Jesus. Certainly, they have different perspectives and emphases, but are they really offering different Jesus'? The gospel writers were not intending to present "commentaries" on Jesus, but Jesus himself through their eyewitness acocunts. Just because a modern perspective sees the lack of objectivity, a post-modern persective understands that there is NO objective point of view. Every time we talk about something, no matter how thorough we try to present it, we are not presenting the thing itself, but our perspective on that thing. Does that mean that we are just providing commentary? If I collect a group of passages from the Bible about a particular subject, then I am inherently interpreting because I am selecting some scriptures, but not others. But am I commenting? No. A collection of tradition is the tradition, not a commentary on the tradition. Yes, the collection is interpreted just by being collected, but that does not make it any less the tradition. The gospels, as Luke says in his introduction, is a collection of traditions about Jesus. The writers, in their own way, were as objective as their culture required. But let's not put labels on the gospels, such as "commentary". So what about the epistles? They are certainly not attempting to make straightforward communication of the tradition of Jesus. The quotes of Jesus are rare, although they do imply dependence on the Jesus tradition quite often. But I think that different epistles are interacting with the Jesus tradition in different ways. Paul, for instance, is frequently interacting with the Jesus tradition-- interestingly enough, the Matthean tradition more often than the others-- but not only that. Paul makes frequent reference to the personal revelation he has received from Jesus as well. Thus, Paul's point of truth-reference is the apostolic Jesus tradition and his personal revelation, that is probably communicated pretty well by Luke in his three presentations of Jesus' appearance before Paul. But what Paul does in his letters is rarely commentary. Some of his most theological parts are placing the Jesus tradition and his personal revelation in his understanding of Old Testament theology. But most of it is simply applying the tradition to the context of the churches. The eschatalogical sections of Thessalonlians are probably him finishing his discipleship teaching that he was chased away from finishing. James, II Peter, and I John are the best examples of commentary on the Jesus tradition. They are actually sermons, but definately based on the Jesus tradition. Revelation has some commentary on Jesus tradition-- for instance, much of the outline of future events is based on the basic outline of Mark 13-- but it is primarily a "revelation" a communication from Jesus in the spirit world to the churches in Asia Minor in the first century. While it might make reference to the Jesus' tradition, it is clearly supposed to go beyond that tradition. It is more than a commentary. Hebrews would be a theological treatise on Jesus fulfilling the themes of the second temple Judaism cult. It is less a commentary on the Jesus tradition as an attempt to show the superiority of Jesus over ancient Judaism. My perspective on the epistles is that they are representatives of the earliest interpretations of Jesus. While there are some differences, the similarities are more striking. They are most significant because they give us windows on how we might interpret and apply Jesus in our context. Jesus is the center, the foundation, the truth and the life-- not Paul or the writer of Hebrews or John. But these first interpreters help us better understand how Jesus might interpret himself in a variety of contexts, and so they are guides to our understanding and application of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)