The Great Christian Civil War and Donald Trump.

First off - I know many Pentecostals who are good people. Great people in fact. One of my oldest and best friends is a devout Pentecostal (bless his misguided soul). This however, does not change the fact that "speaking in tongues" is heretical quackery.

Such practices were deemed heretical since the second century AD. Pentacostalism is just a rebranded version of Montanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

There are very good reasons for branding this practice as heretical. The first is that no human speaks for God - which is exactly what those practicing this art are claiming to do. That was the purview of Jesus - (The Logos) - mediator between God and Man.

One of my close relatives is a high ranking member of the protestant clergy. One of the churches under his watch went Pentecostal (although they were not called Pentecostals) - the vast majority of this denomination are not Pentecostal. A division in the church formed. Two people - speaking in tongues- had been given messages (via the holy spirit/God) on the same issue. The problem is that these messages were contradictory.

Logic dictates that at least one of the two messages was false. Big Problem. The Church became divided with infighting .. people taking one of two sides.

I had personally been to this Church on a number of occasions (and to be honest really liked the original Pastor) My relative had to go in and resolve this issue. A few years later I found out that this Church was kicked out of the denomination.

This whole "heresy" thing is then not me giving "My Perspective - although I agree", this is the perspective of the Church at large. Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic. It is what it is.

If you want MY personal perspective, Paul, in many ways, did not well represent the ministry of Christ and (IMO) did it almost as much harm as he did good.

Paul did not know Jesus and did not even convert to Christianity until years after the death of Christ. In addition, Paul was not a member of, and did not much associate with the Church of Jerusalem (Founded by the disciples and led by James -brother of Jesus).

Paul's writings, voluminous as they are, contain almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul does not know any first hand details and, not being part of the "inner circle" does not have second hand details readily available.

Paul clearly embraces the movement but, he makes things up as he goes. Paul's whole "submission to authority" diatribe, while a smart thing to do with regards to making Christianity more acceptable to the powers at be (Romans), clearly has nothing to do with anything inspired by God or Jesus.

To think this is from God is quackery when looked at in retrospect. So Hitler was established by God because there is no authority except which God has established and so rebelling against Hitler is rebelling against God.

Paul's "Salvation by Faith Alone" doctrine was also in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the Church of Jerusalem. James 2 gives specific condemnation of Paul's "faith alone" doctrine calling this doctrine worthless and those who believe in this doctrine fools.

 

When Jesus started losing popularity he flipped out and condemned whole towns to hell fire because they didn't believe in what he was selling. Matthew 11:20-24= https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew11:20-24&version=CEB;TLV;CEV;MSG;NET

If you stop believing in Jesus he will toss you into the fire and burn you up. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 15:6&version=CEB;TLV;CEV;MSG;NET

If people were gullible Jesus used sweet words. If they were doubters he got mean and nasty and used insults and threats.

 

I figured that you would try to twist scripture to fit your agenda, fanatics always do. The fact is that I do know these teachings and I know what they really mean, which is something lay atheists never seem to know.

To begin with, your hair is on fire when you attempt to claim that anybody is going to "threaten physical violence, coercion, fine or imprisonment for acts that are not directly injurious to others". Nobody is doing that, not even in your paranoid fantasies. And contrary to whatever it is you believe, Jesus never said anything about "pot" that we know about, and there really is no prohibition against alcohol that I am aware of, except to not drink too much of it. (Jesus himself made gallons of wine for a wedding). As for the rest of this nonsense, adultery doesn't injure anybody? Tell that to the betrayed. Sodomy doesn't harm anyone? Tell that to the sodomized. Abortion doesn't harm anybody? You've got to be kidding me. Aside from the fact that it snuffs out a life that has cannot cry out to God for justice, that life also has a father and a mother who will be scarred for life because of that decision. Even criminals get a trial before being condemned to death. How would it be if we held a trial before condemning the unborn? The spouse or father could be on the jury, along with the grandparents and the rest of the family. Don't like that idea? Why, because it would at least present the appearance of being fair? Then whoever decides they want this abortion can bring their charges against the accused to explain why the condemned should die. How would that be? This is what you said later on in your post:

Sure, let the person who wants the abortion bring their charges against the unborn who is "harming" them. I really want to hear the part about how they are not culpable in bringing that life into being.

The woman caught in adultery? I believe you have Christians mixed up with another religion who actually does that.

And what does the law say?

No God but Jehovah, don't worship any God but Him, don't take His name in vain, go to Church, don't give your parents jazz, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie or commit perjury, don't covet your neighbor's wife or anything of his.

Really? You just advocated breaking Holy law in your very first sentence (adultery, abortion) and you even bear false witness by telling me that Jesus said it was OK?

I don't think so, Tim, the misunderstanding is yours, but I am used to being called "ignorant" by the ignorant. This sort of scripture twisting and proof texting is typical of the selfish and narcissistic who want to use scripture for their own ends, you are not alone, but I study this stuff so as not to be taken in by it. I am not even going to say "nice try" because it was a rather ugly try.

 

When you "make" someone do something it involves the threat or use of force.

 

You have us confused with someone else.

 

Another quote (probably better) that you might want to reference is Matt 25 - Sheep and Shepherds parable.

The "sheol" in your reference is the Jewish term for - a place where folks went after death. Sheol was not a torturous hell, it was more a dreary place where not much happened.

You will find fire in the verse I referenced. Whether or not this was really what Jesus said is debatable given the author of Matt engaged in considerable artistic license/Pious fraud.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

This is not from some "anti Jesus/christian" website. It is straight out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. To save you some time .. scroll down to the "Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke" section.

Mark is the closest we have and pretty much the only source we have on Jesus. Even this (although the earliest outside of Paul) is written decades after the death of Jesus and not written by a disciple/eyewitness. The author is reputed to have been a disciple of Peter.

Paul gives almost no information on the life of Jesus - which is not surprising because Paul did not even become a Christian until years after the death of Christ and he was not part of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples and led by James - brother of Jesus)

The other synoptics (Matt, Luke, John) are written decades after Mark and all use Mark as source document. Each of the later authors tries to adapt their creation to the dogma of the day and so we see a clear evolution of Jesus. This evolution however, does little but cloud who Jesus actually was and what he taught.

In Mark Jesus is deified at his Baptism. There is no "immaculate conception", no Messianic lineage back to David, and (quite astonishingly) no physical resurrection (Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death). Mark ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder what happened to Jesus.

It is not that the author does not believe in the resurrection - as per the teachings of Jesus- it is just that he gives no evidence other than an empty tomb which is not evidence of much. Clearly if the author would have known of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death he would have included it.

It is interesting that even as late as Clement 1 (first pope near the turn of the century) has no knowledge of any physical resurrection. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

The letter in the link above is long so go to 1 Clem 24. Clearly there is a belief in resurrection after death (common in many religions of the day). Clement in this passage in fact is making a case for the resurrection. He talks about how death and rebirth in nature through the changing of the seasons. He cites an Egyptian story about the Phoenix . He makes OT scriptural references and a reference to scripture with may be OT/NT. Nowhere does he reference the smoking gun.

Either 1) Matt was not yet written (possible as its dating range is 80-100AD), 2) Matt was written by Clement did not know of it, or 3) Matt was written but did not yet contain the physical resurrection story.

As a side note which is consistent with Mark, Paul does not know of any physical resurrection either. He likens the appearances of Jesus after death to his Vision - something akin to seeing the Virgin Mary in the clouds.

So ... at some point we have the author of Matt - or some later editor - adding a Virgin Birth, Messianic lineage and "Physical Resurrection - smoking gun".

Jesus is thus transformed from a man who had a divine relationship of some sort with God ... Son/emissary of God .. given this gift as a 30 yr old man at baptism in Mark to divine right from birth in Matt.

Later on in John Jesus undergoes a further change towards full God Status. In John Jesus is pre-existent with God. John uses the term "Logos" - intentionally mistranslated as "The Word - which makes no sense" in modern Bibles. The "Logos" was understood by Greek thinkers at the time to mean emissary between God and Man.

Christianity was evolving when John was being written ( 90-120 AD). John is a Pauline fusion work that incorporates Hellenistic mysticism. The author is trying to promote Christianity by using ideas and terms with which the average person (Greek in particular) was familiar. "Logos" was such a concept.

After the writing of John it still takes another 200 years for Jesus to attain - God the Father, one true God - status. The debate over the nature of Christ's divinity rages for centuries until the Pagan Emperor Constantine settles the issue for political purposes. Even after Constantine the debate still rages for a few hundred years. Only after centuries of killing and torturing people (for having beliefs that contradict with official Church Doctrine) does the debate subside.

One interesting aspect of this debate was that the vast majority of the early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Pope Dionysius , Origen and so on) believed that Jesus was Subordinate to the Father as opposed to being of the same substance as the Father as per modern Trinity doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

Irenaeus connection to subordinationism can be found here http://articulifidei.blogspot.ca/2008/10/subordinationism-in-st-irenaeus.html

The idea then that "The Trinity" is something that should be blindly accepted is based on a big con job.

 

Someone smoking pot does not harm you directly. The purpose of law is to prohibit something backed up with the threat of physical violence, fine or imprisonment
or even death. Supporting such a law on basis of religious or personal belief is then condoning the use of physical violence to force your beliefs on others.

This is something Jesus preached against.

I never said Jesus said anything about Pot. When Jesus said "Judge not" he did not give specifics.

Jesus did not prohibit alcohol and I did not claim he did. Jesus preached against forcing personal beliefs others. Fundamentalist Christians were a large force for Prohibition. Religious leaders were going around giving speeches claiming that alcohol was "the devils brew" and so on in support of laws prohibiting alcohol.

Supporting such law is supporting the use of physical violence to force one's beliefs on others.

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues and love to falsely accuse your opponents of things they did not say "Straw men".

Two gay men having consensual gay sex does not injure you therefor you have no business making a law against such behavior ... forcing your beliefs about Sodomy on others.

Some woman having an abortion does not injure you. Your claim that an abortion inures someone else is based on a religious belief. Have your religious belief, keep it, but keep it to yourself and do not think you have right to make laws on the basis of a religious belief. It is not my, or some woman's fault, that you can not figure out that you can not prove that a single human cell is not a living human.

In the rest responses you either completely misunderstood my post or were completely lost - probably a mixture of both.

You did not seem to know the story where Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning a woman caught in adultery ? "Let ye who is without sin cast first stone" and how this relates to the Golden Rule ... Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

You then blubbered on about OT Laws like murder things such as murder, rape, theft are not part of the topic.

You obviously completely missed the difference between 1 ) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others.

Jesus preached that adultery was a sin. I did not deny this. The whole point about the teaching of Jesus (that which you were blissfully unaware and still completely failing to comprehend) was that he did not condone individuals punishing the adulterer (or moral crimes) = forcing their beliefs on others in relation to moral crimes.

Jesus said "Judge not lest you be judged" Do unto others as you would have them do to you = if you do not want others forcing their personal/religious beliefs on you through Law(physical violence/coercion) then do not force your personal beliefs on others.

I am convinced that your claims to be a member of the clergy are complete BS, at least not via a reputable seminary. I have met numerous members of the clergy and they all were either very intelligent or at least had a basic capacity for logic and reason.

Forgive me but , with you it is just way to painful

- - - Updated - - -

Now you are telling lies about me because you have no material. Lame.

 

When one support a law (moral law such as prohibition of alcohol, or some other vice) it is supporting of the use of physical violence, coercion, fine or imprisonment to force one's religious or personal beliefs on others.

 

And I am convinced that you are a 13 year old. Good bye.

 

Psalms 119:165
"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."

Please don't give up on this discussion though.......

hurting people..... hurt other people........

Many of us who are seriously into Christianity.... .have gone through
times in our lives when we offended and hurt a lot of people......
usually because we did not fully understand the will of Messiah Yeshua - Jesus
for that person...... and that time period..........

One near death experiencer wrote about how he had
had a terrible impression of Christians... previous to his NDE......

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/christian-andreason.html#a08
a. Why would you recommend that someone get to know Christ?

 

Actually... I get the impression that IJM does basically understand this
principle but...... like myself back in 1988........ he has more to learn about this.

It took me about five years to wrap my head around the obvious cognitive dissonance
between what Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong had taught about
what he considered the correct Christian response to the Gay Community.......

with what had been shown to near death experiencer Christian Andreason.

The poll question that I posted on this topic back in 2013 gives a good
idea that many Christians are truly struggling with these questions.......


http://www.christianforums.com/threads/gods-many-plans-for-the-gay-community.7728763/
God's many plans for the Gay community???????

Do you believe that God has Plans for the Gay Community????

Yes, God owns this studio, we are the actors playing out our role!
12 vote(s) 27.3%

No, God would never compromise one millionth of an inch with sin!!!!
12 vote(s) 27.3%

* Yes, deep down we all love God and He has good planned for all of us.
16 vote(s) 36.4%

I have really never considered this idea before???
12 vote(s) 27.3%

I am pretty sure it is over five years since I read the NDE of Mr. Christian Andreason. His NDE account has had a major impact on my life.

As a former follower of Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong and his dad Mr. Herbert Armstong I must admit that these statements put me into some serious cognitive dissonance at first!!!!??


.near-death.com/andreason.html#a11

What about sexually diverse people?

Five or six years later on and finally I feel confident enough to go into specifics as to what I strongly suspect are

 

You worded this very well.........
yes....... few of us Christians fully understand the implications of what Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus taught about this........

IJM seems to have a basic understanding of this principle....... but like myself........
probably has a long way to go to fully grasp how this would alter the approach
that a Christian who feels called into politics.... would tend to be more
libertarian.... than many Christians would feel would be the correct approach....

A near death experiencer actually was somehow shown more details
about that incident where the woman nearly got stoned to death for
adultery........

........

http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html
Thomas Twin page 194:

 

Dennis, do you know that "Judge not" thing people like to throw around? What it means is, if you are going to judge you'd better get it right because you'll be judged by your own standards.

And you do not judge rightly. So before you quote any more "Rabbi Yeshua", you'd better know what you're talking a bout.

 

A 13 year old that knows far more about the teachings of Jesus than one who professes to be of the cloth.

Funny stuff

 

Good one The reason so many Fundamentalists have such a problem with this message is because it strikes at the heart of their core beliefs. They will quickly stick head in sands of denial in a desperate attempt to avoid legitimate discussion if the topic.

We see fundamentalists like "Pizza Guy" try and justify not selling pizza to a gay wedding on the basis of - this is against OT Law. So here is a dude who works on Sunday and sells pork for a living (and consumes it himself) discriminating against a particular group on the basis of a violation of OT law. Talk about the need to take log out of own eye before picking speck out of brothers. The hypocrisy is dripping.

The adultery story points out a major contradiction and/or major issues in modern Christian dogma. God makes it clear that the punishment for Adultery is stoning.

God (in the form of Jesus) then comes along and says that we are not to take punishment into our own hands of people who have committed moral crimes (crimes other than those that cause direct injury to another - murder, rape, theft and so on)

The only way out of this conundrum is to 1) claim that Jesus was not God - violating the trinity doctrine 2) Claim that God change his mind - which is to make God into an entity that is fallible/not omniscient and a bit flippant if not foolish or 3) have a fit of abject denial and refuse to admit that Jesus said what he said.

Number 3 is the most often used tact along with claiming "Jesus made a new covenant which is 2 if one maintains 1.

 

A 13 year old who THINKS he knows more about the teachings of Je s us than an ordained minister. If I ever meet one of you self proclaimed lay theologians who isn't full of themselves I'll shake their hand and buy them a $10 cigar.

 

Taking this back to the OP question. We can see how Satan does not just show up in a red cape and horns

Evil ideologies and "anti-Jesus/anti Christ" doctrines have been gobbled up by the Fundamentalists (and other Christian groups).

The battle line that Jesus was drawing had everything to do with how people treat each other starting with the Golden Rule "Do unto Others" as the foundation on which his message was based.

Killing, Stealing, Rape (acts involving direct harm) are obviously covered. If you do not want someone else killing you or your family then do not kill them or their family. This rule, interestingly enough, is also the basis for the social contract which underlies the basic principles on which the US constitution is supposed to be governed.

Acts which do not involve direct harm to others - Morality or vice - acts one does to oneself or consensual with another , are also covered by the Golden Rule. If you do not want others governing what you do with your body or consensually with others, then do not do the same to others.

Jesus then gives numerous examples "Judge not" "Let ye who is without sin" "Take speck out of own eye". Judge not - in particular we are not to "Litigate - Play Judge and Jury" with respect to acts of others

A theocratic nanny state, where Christians make a bunch of laws to force others (through physical violence, coercion, fine or imprisonment) to comply with moral beliefs was not what Jesus had in mind.

This is the will of the forces of evil. Those who want these (Fundamentalists - Islamic or Christian) are in league with the forces of evil.

 

You had no comment or response to my post on the teachings of Jesus other than to name call because you can not deal with the reality of the teachings of Jesus.

Avoiding discussion of the teachings of Jesus by name calling and other fallacious techniques such as building straw men is not an argument for much.

 

Wow!

Again..... you have done an exceptionally good job of explaining this concept.

Yes...... in the context of the near death experience of Dr. George Ritchie
I would say that the individuals stuck in what George thought of as
hell or purgatory........

many if not even most of these people could have been
exceptionally sincere and dogmatic in their understanding of
their religious beliefs...........

including Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/george-ritchie.html


d. His Description of the Horrors of Hell

 

Your post was so ignorant as to be beneath reproach. And as I recall, it was you who accused me of being an impostor.

Sorry kid, there is not much I can do with someone who is so ignorant he doesn't know how ignorant he is. How would you know if I WAS right?

And Dennis, what little respect I had for you is now gone. Sorry, children, but the only rebellion now possible is orthodoxy.

 

it's just me.... what do you think of the idea of a Muslim.....
who believes in the teaching of the Koran that Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus - Issa.....
was in fact the Jewish Messiah
... having a basically positive near death experience in which they are taken up out of
a hellish environment by Messiah Yeshua - Jesus - Issa..... and
a Christian.... who refuses to forgive others......
has a less than positive experience?

http://www.near-death.com/religion/christianity/emanuel-tuwagirairmana.html

 

The Golden Rule seems simple on the surface - in fact I have never yet met someone who does not agree with the rule at the outset -but, the rule goes deep.

Look at the number of wars and the amount of persecution throughout history caused by violation of this rule. People wanting to control others and violate individual rights, freedoms and liberty of others.

Violation of this rule is not just a function of theocratic groups but, of communism and other secular ideologies such as Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism and - even worse- fallacious utilitarianism is a plague that is spreading over our nation like wildfire.

Utilitarianism is a justification for law that ignores individual rights and freedoms looking only at whether or not a law will increase happiness for the collective.

Right at the get go we can see problems with this ideology (who gets to decide what will increase happiness - one mans poison is another mans pleasure).

The major problem is that it violates the basic principles on which this nation was founded - Individual rights and freedom "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't - by ignoring individual rights and freedoms. In doing so this ideology violates the Golden Rule.

Fallacious Utilitarian arguments are even worse because the are not even good utilitarian arguments (do not increase happiness of the collective)

For example "if it saves one life"/harm reduction as justification for law. We hear such arguments all the time these days in relation to Smoking, Drinking - bar hours, too much sugar - no supersize in NY, and a gazillion other things.

Sounds good on the surface doesn't it ? Who does not want to save one life ? This is what makes such arguments so insidious. Truly the work of evil forces as the raging masses of sheep are easily tricked by this one.

So let's look at what is wrong with this argument. If "if it saves one life"/harm reduction in general was valid justification or law then should we not ban skiing tomorrow - would this not save one life ?

What about boating ? - that is really dangerous as one could drown. In fact one should probably not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

Things get a bit more complicated than this in actual practice but in general, such arguments are Satan dressed up as little red riding hood.

 

I did and do question how one who claims to be of the clergy could be so ignorant of the some of the most basic teachings of Jesus.

I have given numerous quotes in support of my claim that Jesus preached that Christians should not force personal or religious beliefs on others through physical violence, coercion, fine or imprisonment= making or supporting a law enforcing that belief.

You had nothing to say other than name calling and standing on a soap box crying "NO NO NO ... your wrong, your wrong, your wrong".

You are so desperate to avoid discussion of the actual teachings of Jesus that all you can do in response to quotes I gave from Jesus is to cry out - "Ignorance beyond reproach" - without even referring which quote you are talking about or giving any alternative perspective.

 

It's l Ike I said, I know the teachings of Jesus, you're the one who doesn't know. You didn't even understand what I said, you just doubled down on stupid by calling me an impostor. I say you're the impostor.

 

You "claim" to know the teachings of Jesus but run have not managed to respond in any way in this discussions on the teachings of Jesus - which has included many quotes from Jesus posted by me- other than name calling.

Standing on a soapbox crying out "I know the teachings of Jesus ... I know, I know, I know and you don't" is not an argument for much.