Well here. Read the post and replies first and that will give a better sense of what is going on. Note in the comments following the article I am the one at the bottom going under the name of "twinbeech".
Also my comments will be in italics
Here is the reply I received from the guy who is trying to save my soul.
"I've struggled with this same issue. "
But, take a look at the quote: (Here comes the Christian two-step)
"no man comes to the Father, but by me"
It doesn't say "You must believe I'm the son of God to get to heaven"
What is says is Jesus has the power to make the decision of who gets to heaven. (How can I trust this guy. He made a horrible decision concerning a fig tree)
He can make that decision any way he wants. (like when he stole the two horses) He isn't limiting himself in that quote.
If he wants to admit the Jewish doctor or a Hindu or whatever, it's his decision. (Ahhh, I see!)
That's the way I read the above quote.
I have never taken it upon myself to make statements about who is saved and going to heaven and who is not. (Well, that's mighty big of you. Thanks!!)
That decision is above my pay grade.
4 feedback comments:
Ben: FWIW, I construe the above passage the same as you. -- vf-James
never thought of it that way. i wonder what it's like in greek. -- vf-rbw (tongue firmly in cheek this guy sides with me)
Correctamundo: <<>> -- vf-CMElec
May I have the next dance? -- vf-twinbeech
So I followed up with this post:
O. K.
One more time. (I'm beginning to feel like Sysyphus)
First, let me reassure believers that it is o.k. to use your brain; your critical thinking skills. (You really do have them, they are just undeveloped.) Trust me on this one. God won’t strike you dead or give you cancer for using your brain. After all, he was the one who designed your brain, right?
This has to do with punishment.
What is the purpose of punishment? Think hard. What is the purpose of punishment?
O.K. Most of you have gotten the answer already but for those on the “uncomfortable” side of the bell curve I will provide the answer in order to move the conversation along. Be assured it is not a sin to be a little “slow. “ You no doubt have skills I could never master. Like playing a banjo. I love banjo music. I grew up with it. Banjo music is in my blood. Ooops, sorry, I digress.
The purpose of punishment is to affect a change in behavior. Let’s explore that. I think I can even squeeze a little “free choice” into the argument.
Say for example you are a typical American family with 2 ½ kids and four of you are having dinner when Susy complains that Johnnie is kicking her under the table. Dad warns Johnnie to stop. Susy complains again. For the second time, Dad warns Johnnie to stop. Again Johnnie kicks Susy and this time Dad lays down the law. He says, “Johnnie, stop that or ….or…wait for it…here comes the free choice part…. you will have to go to your room. Johnnie now has free choice. He can either stop kicking Susie or he will have to go to his room. (Don’t get too far ahead of me here. I know you know what is going to happen next but there is a lot more to it) So, sure enough Johnnie kicks Susie again and Dad escorts Johnnie off to his room, shuts his door and locks it.
AND NEVER GOES BACK AGAIN.
In less than two weeks, Johnnie dies of thirst and starvation.
Clearly, Johnnie’s punishment has nothing to do with attempting to change his behavior. Instead his punishment is all about pointless, cruel and merciless revenge with a lot of rage thrown in. Johnnie is never given the chance to demonstrate whether he is capable of a behavior change.
I invite believers to another dance. How is the behavior of Johnnie’s dad, any different from the behavior of Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild?
Stay tuned. We may discover a new contestant for Dancing With the Stars.
I especially love that ending! Were I more compassionate, I'd probably be troubled about Johnnie's demise. Hey! If god will damn me forever for just not knowing if he existed, by all reasonable standards, I wreak of compassion! The further I get from the church, the more horrified I am at what I was when I was there. I must say, a lot of my stupid mistakes were brought about by my figuring I wasn't good enough for god anyway. Reminds me of my earthly father and I: he would tell my mother I was doing xyz. It ended up giving me an excuse of "what the hell! I might as well do it if they think I am anyway."
ReplyDeleteI make light but how much hate in the world starts at the altar of religion? Supposedly, god is love. As sarah would say, "How's that wurkin' for ya!" Evangelicals, especially, seem to believe that once they are "saved" they have a very specific license to kill others of a different persuasion with god's blessing. Whatever is up with that?
Thanks Charlie. As always, you provoke thought. I appreciate it!
CA gal
Charlie, allow me to give a Jewish Rabbi's opinion on this subject. It is titled WHAT JEWS BELIEVE. Jesus was a Jew, so it is likely he would have a similar opinion. Christianity comes from a very Greek thinking Paul and a Roman Emperor not a Jewish thinking Yeshua (our aka Jesus).
ReplyDelete1.
Jews believe that one person cannot die for the sins of another person.
2.
Jews believe that we do not need a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
3.
Jews believe that Jesus was not the messiah.
4.
Jews believe that God hates human sacrifices. Who died on the cross? Was it Jesus-the-god, or was it Jesus-the-human? If it was Jesus-the-god, Jews don't believe that God can die. If it was Jesus-the-human, then all Christians have in the death of Jesus was a human death, a human sacrifice. Jews believe that God hates the very idea of human sacrifice.
5.
Jews believe that one is born into the world with original purity, and not with original sin. Jews do not believe in original sin.
6.
Jews believe that God is one and indivisible. Jews do not believe in a trinity.
7.
Jews believe in The Satan, but not in a devil. There is a difference between The Satan and the devil.
8.
Jews believe that God is God, and humans are humans. God does not become human nor do humans become God.
9.
Jews believe that "Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews," and "Hebrew Christians" are no longer Jews, even if they were once Jews.
10.
The "Jewish roots" of Christianity? There are no Jewish roots!
Jim
A highly respected Jewish scholar has this to say about the Apostle Paul.
ReplyDelete"Some passages in Paul's Epistles have been thought to be typically Pharisaic simply because their argument has a legalistic air. When these passages are critically examined, however, the superficiality of the legal coloring soon appears, and it is apparent that the use of illustrations from law is merely a vague, rhetorical device, without any real legal precision, such as is found in the Pharisaic writings even when the legal style is used for homiletic biblical exegesis. An example from Romans is the following:
You cannot be unaware, my friends -- I am speaking to those who have some knowledge of law -- that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer. For example, a married woman is by law bound to her husband while he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the obligations of the marriage-law. If, therefore, in her husband's lifetime she consorts with another man, she will incur the charge of adultery; but if her husband dies she is free of the law, and she does not commit adultery by consorting with another man. So you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ, and accordingly you have found another husband in him who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God. While we lived on the level of our lower nature, the sinful passions evoked by the law worked in our bodies, to bear fruit for death. But now, having died to that which held us bound, we are discharged from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code. (Romans 7: 1-6)
The above passage is remarkably muddle-headed. Paul is trying to compare the abrogation of the Torah and the advent of the new covenant of Christianity with a second marriage contracted by a widow. But he is unable to keep clear in his mind who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband -- or even who is supposed to have died, the husband or the wife. It seems that the correspondence intended is the following: the wife is the Church; the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband to marry a new husband; this should read, therefore, in the comparison, that the Church was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife-Church that dies ('you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ') and there is even some play with the idea that the new husband, Christ, has died. The only term in the comparison that is not mentioned as having died is the Torah; yet this is the only thing that would make the comparison valid.
On the other hand, there is also present in the passage an entirely different idea: that a person becomes free of legal obligations after his or her own death. This indeed seems to be the theme first announced: 'that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer.' The theme of the widow being free to marry after the death of her first husband is quite incompatible with this; yet Paul confuses the two themes throughout."
Charlie, if you can figure out what Paul is really saying, let me know.
Jim
Charlie, if you can figure out what Paul is really saying, let me know.
ReplyDeleteJust forget that comment. 2nd.Peter explains it.
14 Wherefore, beloved, as you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless before him in peace,
15 and regard the longsuffering of our Lord salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom that is given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which things are some hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteady wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
There it is in the Bible. It is "HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND UNLEARNED (ignorant) and UNSTEADY WREST (whatever that means) AS THEY DO OTHER SCRIPTURES." Towards the end of the 1st. century, they were still trying to figure out just what Paul was really saying. So today, we just make it say what we want it to say. Do I hear an AMEN?
Jim
Amen (and I'll even add "Brother!)
ReplyDeleteI challenged a guy on Value Forum with what I thought was the voice of reason. (It was my old favorite concerning Uzza found in 1 Chron.)
His response seemed like he was pulling stuff out of his...err...let me rephrase that..out of thin air.
Since you are the undisputed expert on the Bible and it's history, I would like to sic you on to him. I'll get you up to speed in another post. Of course if you agree with him that's o.k. too. I just want to keep him straight.
Actually, "pulling stuff out of his...err" is a more accurate place. I get this all the time, but I nail them with a bible quote (can't argue with god). After class yesterday morning (my conservative son teaches it) a young man told said. "I always enjoy your comments. You always have the facts. I hope you don't mind my saying this, but you gotta be really smart." I always ignore those compliments since if he is correct (which is just an opinion) my agreeing with him would really show my ignorance. Intelligent (smart) people should know that we are always ignorant about something. This keeps you always wanting to learn. He asked me what I thought about a young earth "expert" who goes around the country fighting against evolution. I won't mention his name since I have mentioned this guy to you before. I can't talk about him without calling him a phony who is making a good living by reinforcing the ignorance of fundamentalists. This is exactly what I told him. His reply, "Really, we really like him". I told him I had done extensive research on this guy and his organization and had strong evidence he used false stories and various well established hoaxes to prove a young earth. I went on to explain should our church ever have him speak again, I would not attend because I would publicly expose him in the middle of his phony presentation. He didn't know what to say. I didn't care even though telling him something like this would be like telling it to the National Inquirer. I continue to attend church, but don't expect me to compromise my integrity for the truth. Anyone who takes offense can easily keep me quiet by proving me wrong. So far, that hasn't been done. They just get mad!
ReplyDeleteJim
You have just underscored the problem with dogmatic belief systems.
ReplyDeleteIf this were two scientists talking, the one who was obviously wrong would have been delighted with your input. This is why scientists have "theories". Theories leave room for new information. Dogma is closed to new ideas and thought.
When I interrupt (the only way I'm accorded the opportunity to comment) when our preacher is teaching a class he will reluctantly respond with, " And you are going just give the facts!" I respond, "You got that right. That's the only thing we should accept!" I then say more than anyone wants to hear, but no one has offered "facts" to prove me wrong. So, why do I keep going back? The same reason my brother Bob and I would invite friends to go with us when we would swat the red wasp nests in our grapes. He and I would never run. We would just fall flat on the ground and allow the angry wasps to sting our friends who would run. After they got stung we would put a little spit on some tobacco and rub it on the sting after removing the stinger. We then explained what had just happened. No one ever got mad at us and they learned a valuable lesson. So you see, I'm not the one hurting after the exchange. I still have my integrity and the truth and they are in doubt having lost their "stinger"
ReplyDeleteJim
"I still have my integrity and the truth and they are in doubt having lost their "stinger".
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work Jim. Its difficult for hard-heads like me to see we can sometimes accomplish more from the inside. If you can lead only one person to think critically, then your efforts will not have been in vain.
It is surprising just how many people who do say they appreciate my comments. A 93 year old woman ( a democrat) is one of my best supporters. She confided in me that she had just finished a 900 page book ( about Bill Clinton). I told her to keep reading. She was a good friend of my wife's mother who died in 1978. I love people like that.
ReplyDeleteJim