Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 8:27:31 GMT -5
Zd, a few things occurred to me this morning. One is that losing a child is about the worst agony this planet has to deal out to a woman, so it's no surprise your mother would seek some sort of comforting existential thought as she did. This actually exemplifies why the deck is stacked against insight, which is what I took robertk to be referring to. Also, from the outside looking in, the Southern Baptist faith is notable to me for it's passion and energy. People cluster in their groups, this is just the way it is. Community provides a sort of nonphysical shelter, and the White Southern experience is a unique one that seems to me is often unfairly maligned by the wider American culture, which only serves to reinforce the division. No argument about that, but the force of conformity, judgmentalness, and the power of beliefs in such a community is amazing. Sometimes there is no openess at all. On the morning that we learned about my brother's death, we rushed to my parent's home, where many people from the church were already gathered in support. I attempted to hug my mother, but she was as cold as ice and as rigid as a statue, so much so that I was shocked (because both of my parents were very sentimental and often cried during sad movies). My father also appeared to be in a zombie state. I later learned that my mother had told my father not to show any sadness in order to show other people the power of their faith. IOW, they were exercising enormous willpower not to allow their emotions to show because of the crazy idea that any show of emotion might betray a weakness in their faith. You can't make this stuff up! Later, my mother actually had "friends" in the church who implied that my brother was not going to make it into heaven because of his wild lifestyle and departure from the church and its belief system. My mother defended her position by relying upon the "once saved always saved" idea. I fully understand why all of this went down in the way that it did, but it illustrates the idiocy of such ideas. If you can't allow yourself to feel ordinary human grief and sadness when a child dies, what does that say about the humanity of the belief system? I would say your mother had the right idea about Christianity. Yes, accordingly Christianity, Once saved always saved. People who are being saved has been destined so the way they walk afterwards also has been destined. It goes like that. But I don't know why your mother failed to allow the grief and sadness, I don't think how expressing grief defies her belief system.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2019 14:36:30 GMT -5
No argument about that, but the force of conformity, judgmentalness, and the power of beliefs in such a community is amazing. Sometimes there is no openess at all. On the morning that we learned about my brother's death, we rushed to my parent's home, where many people from the church were already gathered in support. I attempted to hug my mother, but she was as cold as ice and as rigid as a statue, so much so that I was shocked (because both of my parents were very sentimental and often cried during sad movies). My father also appeared to be in a zombie state. I later learned that my mother had told my father not to show any sadness in order to show other people the power of their faith. IOW, they were exercising enormous willpower not to allow their emotions to show because of the crazy idea that any show of emotion might betray a weakness in their faith. You can't make this stuff up! Later, my mother actually had "friends" in the church who implied that my brother was not going to make it into heaven because of his wild lifestyle and departure from the church and its belief system. My mother defended her position by relying upon the "once saved always saved" idea. I fully understand why all of this went down in the way that it did, but it illustrates the idiocy of such ideas. If you can't allow yourself to feel ordinary human grief and sadness when a child dies, what does that say about the humanity of the belief system? I would say your mother had the right idea about Christianity. Yes, accordingly Christianity, Once saved always saved. People who are being saved has been destined so the way they walk afterwards also has been destined. It goes like that. But I don't know why your mother failed to allow the grief and sadness, I don't think how expressing grief defies her belief system. It depends upon the branch of Christianity. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if they are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They have a more accurate view of the process of salvation, *who* it is that is saved. Reference the words of Jesus. He who seeks to save himself will lose himself...but he who seeks to lose himself will save himself. Paul goes into this in Ephesians and Colossians and I Corinthians (or maybe II ?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 7:48:34 GMT -5
I would say your mother had the right idea about Christianity. Yes, accordingly Christianity, Once saved always saved. People who are being saved has been destined so the way they walk afterwards also has been destined. It goes like that. But I don't know why your mother failed to allow the grief and sadness, I don't think how expressing grief defies her belief system. It depends upon the branch of Christianity. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if they are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They have a more accurate view of the process of salvation, *who* it is that is saved. Reference the words of Jesus. He who seeks to save himself will lose himself...but he who seeks to lose himself will save himself. Paul goes into this in Ephesians and Colossians and I Corinthians (or maybe II ?) I agreed. Yes, it depends upon the branch of Christianity. But most of the branch are created not because how the salvation happens, it depends upon what kind of belief you have as to who Jesus is.
According to Paul, Salvation has already been destined, you can't choose. The role of Jesus and the role of Judas Iscariot has been destined by God The Father himself.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2019 8:06:54 GMT -5
It depends upon the branch of Christianity. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if they are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They have a more accurate view of the process of salvation, *who* it is that is saved. Reference the words of Jesus. He who seeks to save himself will lose himself...but he who seeks to lose himself will save himself. Paul goes into this in Ephesians and Colossians and I Corinthians (or maybe II ?) I agreed. Yes, it depends upon the branch of Christianity. But most of the branch are created not because how the salvation happens, it depends upon what kind of belief you have as to who Jesus is.
According to Paul, Salvation has already been destined, you can't choose. The role of Jesus and the role of Judas Iscariot has been destined by God The Father himself.
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility (because most people don't exercise this choice) of free will is God's Prime Directive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 8:15:20 GMT -5
I agreed. Yes, it depends upon the branch of Christianity. But most of the branch are created not because how the salvation happens, it depends upon what kind of belief you have as to who Jesus is.
According to Paul, Salvation has already been destined, you can't choose. The role of Jesus and the role of Judas Iscariot has been destined by God The Father himself.
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility of free will is God's Prime Directive. www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.php
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 9:33:16 GMT -5
I agreed. Yes, it depends upon the branch of Christianity. But most of the branch are created not because how the salvation happens, it depends upon what kind of belief you have as to who Jesus is.
According to Paul, Salvation has already been destined, you can't choose. The role of Jesus and the role of Judas Iscariot has been destined by God The Father himself.
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility (because most people don't exercise this choice) of free will is God's Prime Directive. I don't try to prove predestination by foreknowledge of God. Bible says
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 9:36:32 GMT -5
I agreed. Yes, it depends upon the branch of Christianity. But most of the branch are created not because how the salvation happens, it depends upon what kind of belief you have as to who Jesus is.
According to Paul, Salvation has already been destined, you can't choose. The role of Jesus and the role of Judas Iscariot has been destined by God The Father himself.
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility (because most people don't exercise this choice) of free will is God's Prime Directive. God knows what women will choose? What's the point?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2019 13:37:41 GMT -5
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility (because most people don't exercise this choice) of free will is God's Prime Directive. God knows what women will choose? What's the point? This, for me, is just a theoretical game. From Bible and some other sources. I don't know, that God foreknows everything. I am a proponent of Open Theism (the future is open), and that the Bible demonstrates it in many places.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2019 13:48:58 GMT -5
No...foreknowledge does not mean destined. Foreknowledge does not negate free will. "God knows beforehand, yet man chooses". Rabbi Akiva, 1st century You ever watch Star Trek? Possibility of free will is God's Prime Directive. www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.phpI read part of the article. I don't think you can apply the ST PD to God. I merely said God's PD is to not violate man's free will. It would take a lot to unfold that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 19:01:41 GMT -5
God knows what women will choose? What's the point? This, for me, is just a theoretical game. From Bible and some other sources. I don't know, that God foreknows everything. I am a proponent of Open Theism (the future is open), and that the Bible demonstrates it in many places. Not according to paul who is actually the creator of today's Christianity who has brought the new idea(Salvation) to the event of Jesus Crucifixion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 7:10:02 GMT -5
This, for me, is just a theoretical game. From Bible and some other sources. I don't know, that God foreknows everything. I am a proponent of Open Theism (the future is open), and that the Bible demonstrates it in many places. Not according to paul who is actually the creator of today's Christianity who has brought the new idea(Salvation) to the event of Jesus Crucifixion. I used to call myself a Christian, until I read "The Dark Side of God" and realized Christians are followers of Paul, as you write. Now I no longer consider myself a Christian, though inextricably I am a follower of Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 8:11:51 GMT -5
Not according to paul who is actually the creator of today's Christianity who has brought the new idea(Salvation) to the event of Jesus Crucifixion. I used to call myself a Christian, until I read "The Dark Side of God" and realized Christians are followers of Paul, as you write. Now I no longer consider myself a Christian, though inextricably I am a follower of Jesus. If you are a follower of Jesus, then obviously you have to be christian. Jesus briefly said what Paul detailed it. Salvation comes through Jesus Crucifixion that Jesus certainly believed. More than that he completely believed that God ordained that to happen for human salvation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2019 9:41:52 GMT -5
I used to call myself a Christian, until I read "The Dark Side of God" and realized Christians are followers of Paul, as you write. Now I no longer consider myself a Christian, though inextricably I am a follower of Jesus. If you are a follower of Jesus, then obviously you have to be christian. Jesus briefly said what Paul detailed it. Salvation comes through Jesus Crucifixion that Jesus certainly believed. More than that he completely believed that God ordained that to happen for human salvation. What Jesus said and did not say is open for debate. If you study the process of how the new testament was put together you'll understand why this is a contentious issue. I can recommend a few books if you are interested. Paul's view of Jesus, btw he never met Jesus in the flesh, was clearly at odds with many of Jesus followers, including James, Jesus' brother.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 15, 2019 10:51:43 GMT -5
I used to call myself a Christian, until I read "The Dark Side of God" and realized Christians are followers of Paul, as you write. Now I no longer consider myself a Christian, though inextricably I am a follower of Jesus. If you are a follower of Jesus, then obviously you have to be christian. Jesus briefly said what Paul detailed it. Salvation comes through Jesus Crucifixion that Jesus certainly believed. More than that he completely believed that God ordained that to happen for human salvation. Even if you take just the words of Jesus in the NT, they are at odds with modern day Christianity (the western church, more specifically Protestantism). The western church doesn't really teach transformation, which is what Jesus was all about. And I think Jesus taught a form of spiritual practice which he called watching. Now I think this got corrupted in the years following, and by the time the Gospels were written this turned into watching for the second coming. Do I have any basis for this? Yes. If you look at the Philokalia, some of which reaches back to the 4th century (volume 1 of 5, the 5th not yet published in English except some excerpts in Early Fathers from the Philokalia, rare to find), you find this kind of meditation explicitly discussed. So I surmise a link between Jesus and these writings, his teaching passed down in an oral tradition teacher to disciple for a couple hundred years. If you look at certain parables of Jesus he specifically taught against mere belief (the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins, the wedding guest who didn't have a wedding garment, the man given one talent who buried it). The western Protestant is all about belief/faith (but yes, faith is more than mere belief). I would advise any Christian who wants to know more about Christianity just to read the red, the words of Jesus. Paul created a perfect "myth". (Explaining that Jewish Passover {the history and what followed} was all about the Messiah, Jesus/Yeshua). I can't believe that how things turned out (Paul coming along to explain what Jesus was all about) was God's perfect plan. Something seems amiss to me...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 22:35:21 GMT -5
If you are a follower of Jesus, then obviously you have to be christian. Jesus briefly said what Paul detailed it. Salvation comes through Jesus Crucifixion that Jesus certainly believed. More than that he completely believed that God ordained that to happen for human salvation. What Jesus said and did not say is open for debate. If you study the process of how the new testament was put together you'll understand why this is a contentious issue. I can recommend a few books if you are interested. Paul's view of Jesus, btw he never met Jesus in the flesh, was clearly at odds with many of Jesus followers, including James, Jesus' brother. I am well aware of that. Perhaps you may add if I have missed out something.
Jesus was crucified around 30 AD, at 48 AD Paul started writing his epistles and he completed all of his work 52 AD. 7 of the books are authenticated out of 11. And then around 70 AD Mark was written immediately after the destruction of Jewish temple. Around 80 AD Matthew and Luke was written and then around 90 - 120 AD John was written. Unfortunately Matthew,Mark,Luke books were anonymous writings, names were given around 110 AD. So the very first books which were written are Paul's writing. Paul is the first one who brings the meaning to the event of Jesus Crucifixion. He brought the theory as to how Jesus crucifixion is related to Jewish animal sacrification and how this human sacrificiation(Father yield his son on the cross as a random) brings the salvation to all the people.
|
|