Not being Flow Chart Design literate, may I suggest a similar flow chart to help people negotiate the Splits, Splinters and Slivers? I would suggest it continue from "You Should Be Jewish" or in the case of leaving the COGs completely and not happy with Grace Community International, you begin with "You Should Just be a Boring Generic Christian Then" and go on to find a stable Christian denomination that suits fits one's needs..
Should one end up "Atheist" perhaps an additional couple of boxes to indicate a preference for being thrown in the Lake of fire alive or dead or "Eternal Punishment" vs "Eternal Punishing"?
OR...
“And above all, you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling…the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness there? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to move to this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike for this particular door-keeper?”
49 comments:
"Is my reluctance to move to this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike for this particular door-keeper?” "
CSLewis had a way of putting things that so clearly stated the truth. I think he'll be an easy convert in the resurrection.
from what I've read on this blog through the years, his above statement is very relevant here...so many on this blog see HWA as the door-keeper, and so reject the truth of the bible.
Thanks Dennis for an amusing post to start the day with.
LOL
Good one!
If eternal punishment is not the same as eternal punishing, does that mean that eternal life is not the same thing as eternal living?
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
I distrust those people who know so well that God has not told us what to do, because I notice they fear that it would get in the way of their own desires.
Do you believe in God?
No --> You have no meaning and no hope.
Yes --> You have a shot at a meaningful life and at eternal life.
Anonymous said...
If eternal punishment is not the same as eternal punishing, does that mean that eternal life is not the same thing as eternal living?
Eternal Punishment is the term used to describe the doctrine of annihilation (burned up) in Hell as opposed to Eternal Punishing which is the ever burning and never able to die in Hell concept.
"Eternal Punishment is the term used to describe ... "
I know, but my question at 4:29 is about the meaning of eternal life.
Anonymous said...
Do you believe in God?
No --> You have no meaning and no hope.
Yes --> You have a shot at a meaningful life and at eternal life."
or...
Do you not believe in God?
No--you have a shot at a meaningful life based on the life you actually have now based on your own talents and interests and the realization that it is from stardust you have come and to stardust you shall return. Plus you can stay home weekends and save 10,20 or even 30%.
Yes--You risk assiging meaning to things that were never meant to mean that, live an inauthentic life you did not have to live, put your trust in the substance of what you hope is true based on absolutely no evidence that it is true and trust the ancients that the voices they heard in their heads were actually God and not ego or mental illness.
Perspective...it's all perspective
Eternal punishing means that you suffer an infinite consequence for a finite sin.
Eternal punishment means that you suffer an infinite consequence for a finite sin.
Unless you want to veer off into the Roman Catholic concept of venial vs. mortal sin, Christianity teaches that the murderer who rapes and kills 100 pre-teens is equally deserving of punishment as the kid who steals a candy bar from the supermarket. Each receives the same consequence for the fact of being a sinner.
5:42
Dennis, you are confusing Armstrongism with a simple belief in God. Go look up what a straw-man argument is.
An answer to DD no and yes.
A belief in God is not a risk. If a person is depending on their own talent and interests and they and do not believe in God they miss the whole point of what life is. If you think that life is star dust you are talking a bunch of nonsence. You cannot explain how star dust or dirt can build itself into a walking and talking human being without declaring a source that can be defined, If you think a belief in God kept you from staying home on weekends and saved you a bunch of money I feel sorry for you. I have lived 87 + years that started with parents who believed in God and have spent all of those years that was started by my parents in childhood believing in the God revealed in the Christian bible. I made a personal commitment to live my life committed to God and Jesus Christ as Lord at age 27 and will continue until my physical life is ended. In all of those years God has never failed to carry me through the thick and thin of a human existence. I would not trade one day of my life to have your whole life as you have revealed here on this Blog site. I cannot boast about being a great intelligent person with a lot of talent, but I will say that the religious activities and relationships of my life have been and are still being blessed by the God that has been and still is the focus of my life. ASB
DennisCDiehl said...
Do you not believe in God?
No--you have a shot at a meaningful life based on the life you actually have now based on your own talents and interests and the realization that it is from stardust you have come and to stardust you shall return. Plus you can stay home weekends and save 10,20 or even 30%.
***************************
Dennis, I hope you don't mind my tweaking your statement.
Wait, is that not a double negative? ;-)
"Do you not believe in God? No--"??? Not believe? No!
Let's go with:
Do you believe in God?
Yes--you have a shot at a meaningful life based on the life you actually have now based on your own talents and interests and the realization that it is from stardust you have come and to stardust you shall return. Plus you can stay home weekends and save 10,20 or even 30%.
I believe in God yet that statement can reflect my life as well.
Actually I have a meaningful life, as mentioned before. I also realize that being mortal, I came from stardust and to stardust my body will return. God created that stardust though. Plus, I can still stay home on weekends and save 30%. Hell, I can go to church occasionally on the weekends and still save 30%.
What's the problem my friend? š
Kev
ps You'd have to be inside her. That's an """ INSIDE""" joke for others reading this.
Eternal punishment vs. Eternal life?
Apples and oranges.
How about Eternal death vs. Eternal life.
Kevin McMillen
Also, is death really a punishment per se for sinning?
Or is death just the end of a mortal life?
God created us mortal. We eventually die.
Adam only had a chance at immortality as long as he could eat of the Tree of Life, whatever that tree really was, literal or figural who cares.
Death is merely the end consequence of living a mortal life without any intervention from God.
Me thinks "religion" has complicated too many things.
Kevin McMillen
We can't explain how nothing can become something, big bang and evolution.
Nor can we explain God. If we can't come from nothing then how can God eternally exist?
The arguing and debating over something we don't know or understand is futile.
Both require FAITH whether one wants to admit it or not.
http://reasonsforjesus.com/how-evolutionary-virologist-molecular-biologist-karma-carrier-converted-to-christianity/
My daughter is a Virologist, a field of Microbiology, and her research has increased her faith in God.I
Whether atheists want to admit it or not, a belief in God doesn't make one ignorant.
That's why the word "belief" is used. Why "faith" is used.
Anyone that claims they know what happened millions or billions of years ago is merely fooling themselves.
Kevin
Mormonism is no more of a radical deviation than was Pauline Theology (what we call Christianity): Both men claimed visions to justify their deviation from the prevailing orthodoxy.
And sorry Christians, you have to accept all that contradictory Pauline stuff because it's part of your holy book's canon. Even Torah oriented cults like HWA/Tkach were forced to finally capitulate to Pauline Antinomianism!
One of my ideas that I never got around to doing anything with is a "Which COG is right for you?" chart.
Kevin wrote:
My daughter is a Virologist, a field of Microbiology, and her research has increased her faith in God
Nothing in virology indicates whether Allah, or YHVH, or Thor, or Krishna, is God. If your daughter's research has shown her that the idea of a superior intelligence or Creator God is logical and plausible, then she is no doubt a thoughtful person. However, there are Muslim virologists who are sure that their research proves Allah as God, just as there are Hindu virologists whose research leads them to Krishna.
Faith, of course, is "the evidence of things unseen." The things your daughter sees in virology are thus not the things of faith. Faith is the leap she takes between virology and Jesus.
Anonymous said...
Mormonism is no more of a radical deviation than was Pauline Theology (what we call Christianity): Both men claimed visions to justify their deviation from the prevailing orthodoxy.
And sorry Christians, you have to accept all that contradictory Pauline stuff because it's part of your holy book's canon. Even Torah oriented cults like HWA/Tkach were forced to finally capitulate to Pauline Antinomianism!
Very nicely put. I thought I was the only one on Banned who understood you can't have Paul in the same camp as Peter, James and John. Paul was his own authority and shunned that of the Jerusalem Apostles (Galatians 1-2) His Jesus was hallucinatory. He never read or heard of a Gospel Jesus because he lived, wrote and died long before they were written. His genuine letters should come first in the NT.
Anyway, have over stated this reality on Banned so will spare us, but you got it right. Thanks for the comment
In the last analysis, one must take responsibility for ones reaction to the Bible. The fact that you can get other people to adopt your viewpoint or that your voice is the loudest in the crowd does not amount to a bean hill.
The Bible is an incarnational document - it bears the marks of human hands. This does not negate it as principle. Even Bart Ehrman, who was swallowed whole by his personal expectation that the bible should read like a carefully parsed physics test, admits that Christ got it right. He understands that the principles are there - Bart just can't get beyond the details.
When one approaches the Bible at the level of principle and acknowledges the use of literary (not literal) devices, the Bible is breathtakingly consistent. Paul, James and John co-reside comfortably in the same philosophical range. The difference between Paul and James is typically greatly overstated by various theological partisans for self-interested purposes.
Everyone who opens their mouth about the Bible speaks their own interpretation. To some extent, the Bible is a Rorshach inkblot. What Dennis has written, for example, tells us more about Dennis than it does about the Bible. And the same with me.
Oh brother, how some people love to get bogged down in the minutiae.
I don't recall saying that my daughter's research has increased her faith in "Christianity"!
Some people are just so............
Kevin
Paul was only anti-nomian to the extent that the law saves.
Anyone who thinks that Paul wrote against the Sabbath or Feasts, or clean meats, have fallen for the lying misunderstood explanations of Rom. 14, Col. 2, all of Galatians but especially chapter 3 and 4:10 and 1 Tim. 4.
To Dennis, while I plan on getting Ehrman's Forged: could you please tell me where to find Ehrman's proof that Paul wrote before the gospels.
Since we only have copies of copies, just how does he "know" that Paul wrote first? Or is that just his "educated" guess?
I love it how some are so sure of what happened 2000 years ago, 200,000 years ago or 2 billion years ago.
I respect ya Dennis but I know that you don't know for sure. š
Kevin
"Anonymous 6:02am wrote
However, there are Muslim virologists who are sure that their research proves Allah as God, just as there are Hindu virologists whose research leads them to Krishna. """
************************
I just caught this inconsistency in 6:02's post or I'd have mentioned it in my first response to him.
The assumptions in your thinking is hilarious.
First you assume that I said my daughter's research increased her faith in Christianity's God, to which you try to "inform" me that that's not possible because she would have no clue who the creator was. I didn't even get into any of that in my original post except to say that belief and faith are the working aspects of any religion.
But, you try to teach me about something that I never even said, and then you write this hilarious statement:
"""However, there are Muslim virologists who are sure that their research proves Allah as God, just as there are Hindu virologists whose research leads them to Krishna. """
I thought that you just said, and I agree, that the things seen in research might convince a researcher that there had to be a creator, but the research doesn't reveal who that creator is/was.
But then you try to tell me that a Muslim researcher through their research is sure Allah is God? Or a Hindu researcher is lead to Krishna as God?
Oh the inconsistencies!!!!!!!I
Kevin McMillen
The goal of Dennis and his ilk seems to be to flood the Web with rubbish.
A fool like Dennis can ask more questions than 100 wise men can answer. And he is not really interested in the answers, just in creating havoc.
Dennis has figured out that arguments are not won by truth but by a massive media assault. He is on a campaign to kill religion.
He keeps ignoring perfectly reasonable answers and then, another article or two later, repeats the same twisted allegations based on the same logical fallacies and half-truths.
Kevin asked:
To Dennis, while I plan on getting Ehrman's Forged: could you please tell me where to find Ehrman's proof that Paul wrote before the gospels.
Since we only have copies of copies, just how does he "know" that Paul wrote first?"
It is well understood that Paul died no later than 68 AD. While their are early dates for the four Gospels, it is also generally understood now that Gospels were not known at the earliest in the late first century and not referred to by anyone until the latter half of the Second Century. I won't go into how that is known but the information is readily available.
Another reality is that Paul never quotes any of the Gospel events in Jesus life. He never quotes any Gospel Jesus. The Gospels never heard of this "Pharisee" Saul who was the sharpest pencil in the Jerusalem box according to himself. He was not anyone who persecuted Gospel Jesus.
Also, Paul does not use any quotes of Jesus in the Gospels that would help his cause. He says when we don't know how to pray the HS groans and moans and peeps and utters for us, whatever the hell that means . "Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans." If Paul ever heard of an earthly Jesus or knew what he is said to have said, he never would argued this way. He simply would have done better to quote the Lord's Prayer as we know it and how Jesus taught the disciples to pray. However, he never heard of such a thing.
Paul's Jesus or Christ was not the same as Gospel Jesus. The bringing Jesus to earth stories came after he died. The Gospels also aren't eye witness accounts and don't claim to be. They also did not originally have the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on them as they were anonymous. The order should also be Mark, Matthew, Luke, John or perhaps even , John, (Gnostic belief in Jesus), Mark, Matthew and Luke. Long story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk
Kevin, you do not mention what virological evidence your daughter used to conclude there is a god, nor how she interpreted it. Interesting, though. Reminds me of my position on malaria.
Banned once published an article of mine supporting the conclusion that a god designed the Universe to house the malaria parasite, *Plasmodium falciparum*. Its convoluted life cycle requires certain of its life stages to develop in the blood and organs of human beings, and others in *Aedes* mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are also the vectors that spread the parasite to new hosts. The details are so intricately worked out that only an intelligent designer could have come up with such a system. We view it as a cruel one only because our perspective is limited. When you look at how that system intersects with other parts of the biome, which intersects with the planet as a whole, which is embedded in the solar system, a part of a galaxy connected to billions of others in a widening web of cosmic interaction, you see that everything as far out as we can see is all connected. The inevitable conclusion? The Universe was designed specifically as a home for the malaria parasite. Everything else is infrastructure.
Thanks for your answer Dennis.
Kevin
I've watched many of Bart's you tube videos, and I go to his blog often. Some of his arguments are just plain garbage.
He claims that Jesus telling the disciples to go to Galilee after his resurrection, and also telling them to stay in Jerusalem is a contradiction. But there were almost 40 days separating them.
He also thinks that Herod telling the wise men to go to Bethlehem, and the wise men following the star to where Jesus was in Nazareth is a contradiction.
Neither of those are contradictions, just because Herod told them to go to Bethlehem doesn't mean that's where the star led them.
Those two incidents make me question Bart's honesty.
I plan to continue reading his stuff, but if that kind of reasoning continues (or lack of reasoning) then Bart won't be wasting more of my time.
His problem imo is the mixture of his scholarly studies with his past fundamentalist understanding of the bible.
Honestly, he has no clue who wrote the originals of the gospels. It's impossible to know because we don't have them.
To claim to "KNOW" anything like that is the height of arrogance.
I'm assuming that the statement about Saul not being mentioned in the gospels comes from Ehrman, but the fact is that Tarsus was in south central Turkey, so why would the gospels mention him? Proves absolutely nothing!
Kevin
Dennis - there is an AC BS student from the 70s - Keith Slough who has started his own church and college. He has a series of videos proving the NT was canonized before 100 A.D.
Unfortunately - it takes 15 hours if one was to listen to his 12 videos, so I have no idea if he proves his point. (No desire to listen to 15 hours of speaking.)
Have you heard of him? He is based in NC.
"The Universe was designed specifically as a home for the malaria parasite."
Whatever. The universe does seem to be designed as a home for life forms of many different kinds.
Dennis, what do you mean by:
“Another reality is that Paul never quotes any of the Gospel events in Jesus life” and especially “He never quotes any Gospel Jesus”?
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Lk 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Lk 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Similarity doesn’t count when considering historical writing in antiquity? Or Paul wasn’t the writer of Corinthians?
Noting the inauguration of the new covenant seems a pretty big gospel event; cp. also 1 Cor 15:3-6. I am confused, not unusual though.
Kevin writes:
“but the fact is that Tarsus was in south central Turkey”.
Perhaps Paul was visiting his place of birth during Christ’s ministry.
While Paul was born in Tarsus, he was brought up in Jerusalem, and educated by Gamaliel:
Ac 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up [anatrepho] in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Ac 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
[Ac 7:20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up [anatrepho] in his father's house three months:
Ac 7:21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished [anatrepho] him for her own son].
Retired Prof said...
Kevin, you do not mention what virological evidence your daughter used to conclude there is a god, nor how she interpreted it. Interesting, though. Reminds me of my position on malaria.
****************************
I don't see why I would have to since the reason behind the statement wasn't, "Well if my very intelligent daughter believes in God you all should too".
Also my original statement didn't say that her research proved that there is a God. I said her research "INCREASED HER FAITH IN GOD". Notice that word faith? It does not denote "proof" therefore your question is pointless.
The reason for the statement was that intelligent people do believe in God, so atheists, acting as if you're ignorant if you reject all the science which point to evolution, are merely playing in fallacies.
I have said time and again that belief in God is all about faith, not physical proof.
I can go through a litany of what I consider to be answered prayers, but intellectually I know they could all be coincidence.
Not long ago in a sermon someone claimed that answered prayer proved God, to which I said then does unanswered prayer disprove God?
So retired prof. who for whatever reason inserts "evidence" into a comment about "FAITH", SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!
Kevin McMillen
Morgantown, WV
Calm down Kevin. RT asked a normal question if you
RT not RP
When we were kids in school, we were guaranteed to get some of our test questions wrong, because when we were tested on the materials in our textbooks, we were required to answer in accordance with what “Mr. Armstrong says” (this fell into the realm of “telling the truth) rather than what was in the school curriculum.
Example: Text described milk as the most nearly perfect food. Mr. Armstrong said that wheat was the perfect food. So, because the parents monitored our homework and tests, we answered wheat instead of milk, and got that answer marked wrong. That’s the simplest example. Don’t even get me started on what happened on our Biology tests.
The implications of butts in seats at school conflicted substantially with those of butts in seats at church.
TLA at 5:33: This Dr. Slough founded an “Ambassador Christian College” in NC. Their website describes the college as a place where they “prove all things”.
Perhaps Banned by HWA could research this further and produce an expose.
Anonymous said...
Calm down Kevin. RT asked a normal question if you
January 27, 2019 at 9:24 AM
********************
No he didn't, he asked what proof led my daughter to conclude there is a God, when I clearly stated that what she saw in here research increased her faith in God.
Big difference, but if you and Retired Prof. are too stupid to see the difference then why should I waste my time?
I'm sure you've noticed that I don't play games with fools and I'm not going to start now.
If you refuse to give a name keep your damn opinions to yourself! Cowards!!!!!!!
Kevin
The reason Ambassador Christian College sounds so familiar is that its CEO Dr. Slough is a graduate of Ambassador College Big Sandy. He gradaute in 1978. He has ordained in the Church of God Evangelistic Association in 1983.
I am more interested in his research backing for his conclusions than debunking him.
I am hoping Dennis or someone else has some useful materials on the canonization topic - pro and con.
RP not RT. I'll get it right someday:)
@11:57..........Ever watch a trial in a court of law? “Objection, your honor! Is counsel testifying for the witness? Move to strike!”
Judge: “Upheld, statement will be struck from the record, and the jury is instructed to disregard!”
Problem is, it’s already in the jury’s head. It’s going to be an influence.
The statements and questions of anonymous posters are there and being considered even if one party to the discussion chooses to ignore, and disregard.
The takeaway: You might as well respond. The comments of the anonymi are being considered by everyone else. Why self-sabotage by taking yourself out of the loop?
@ Kevin McMillen who said...
" Paul was only anti-nomian to the extent that the law saves.
Anyone who thinks that Paul wrote against the Sabbath or Feasts, or clean meats, have fallen for the lying misunderstood explanations of Rom. 14, Col. 2, all of Galatians but especially chapter 3 and 4:10 and 1 Tim. 4.
.. tell me where to find .. that Paul wrote before the gospels.
Since we only have copies of copies, just how does he "know" that Paul wrote first? Or is that just his "educated" guess?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin McMillen really needs to catch up on his WIKIPEDIA reading!
WIKIPEDIA has all the answers on actual NT Chronology and Pauline Theology
So Kevin, put down your Herbie Booklets and read the Scholars
Kevin, I'm sorry I touched a raw nerve. The question is interesting enough for me to disregard your demand that I shut the hell up. Let me rephrase: What virological phenomena increased your daughter's faith?
In my defense, Paul's definition of faith does include the word "evidence": "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What things did she not see that increased her faith?
What is the obsession of some commentators with anonymous commentators who choose to post anonymous comments?
I thought the message should be more important than the messenger shouldn't it?
So why are some obsessing about the anonymity of commentators and attempting to "kill" the anonymous messenger simply because s/he chooses to post anonymously?
Attaching a name (real or fake) to your comment doesn't make you morally or intellectually superior than someone who comments anonymously.
So to those who are acting as if it does get over yourself!
8:54
Fair question 8:54.
It helps to establish some kind of relationship or build a mental profile of a petsona, if that person is a regular contributer. It builds rapport and context.
One time contributors can remain anonymous and dissolve in oblivion.
Nck
7:50pm
Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Kevin McMillen
Thanks, Kevin. I have no faith in either the existence or non-existence of any gods. I run my life assuming it is safe to ignore ceremonial rules attributed to the gods, but not the overarching principle that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated.
I am intrigued by speculation on the question, however. If one reads the verses you quoted a certain way, they suggest the Orthodox Jewish view that "g-d" permeates the universe but is not limited to it, is not congruent with it. A profound way to view the Universe.
Those verses also suggest a way to put the dark matter problem into perspective. Scientists have not been able to find any particle, either macro- or microscopic, that explains dark matter. Yet they say it must be there, to explain certain galactic motions. In other words, it is one of the "invisible things. . . clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. . . ." Some speculate it does not consist of particles at all but is some smooth fluid-like substance. If so, could it be "the substance of things hoped for" that Paul spoke of? Or is it, as other scientists speculate, nothing at all--an illusion brought about through some yet unknown quirk in the timing of gravitational interactions?
Fun stuff to ponder. I can't stay serious about it for very long, though. First thing you know, I will be lapsing back into satire.
Post a Comment