Complainign about Beck, Maher, Rush, Franken, etc.

[middletree]

http://middletree.blogspot.com/2009/10/cleaning-your-own-house.html

I recently heard a liberal who I like saying some things about how mean and ridiculous Glenn Beck is. I’m not defending Beck. I don’t have cable so have never heard him say anything, the sole exception being except a youtube clip where he misinformed about the cars.gov site. However, the comment about him, similar to what I have heard about Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, and other commentators from the Right, all have one thing in common: they come from people on the Left.

It’s my view-–and this is a view I cannot support with Scripture or anything else–-that people should be more prone to cleaning their own house that the house of others. In other words, liberals should be slamming the rude people who are in line with them politically before they go off on conservatives who draw their ire. And conservatives should do the same.

It’s incumbent upon us on the Right to let Rush, Beck, Coulter, etc. know that their tactics are unacceptable, and it’s up to those of you on the Left to concentrate on communicating the same message to Al Franken, Jeanine Garafolo, Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, and Jimmy Carter. All in that list have said things as uncalled-for as anything Beck has ever said.

For instance, why did I not hear anyone on the Left bashing Carter for his statement equating disagreement with Obama’s policies with racism? That accusation is revolting, extreme, inflammatory, and untrue. But it wouldn't surprise Carter or his supporters to hear any conservatives point this out. However, if a liberal, or several of them, said something, it would carry some weight. To his credit, Obama did publicly disagree with the statement somewhat. It would have been nice if other voices from the Left joined in.

It’s easy to slam the guy you don’t agree with; it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Be different. Do the brave thing. This world would be a better place if we concentrated our complaining to those those with whom we are more closely aligned politically.

Would Beck listen to his own party members if they spoke up about this? If enough people said something, the answer is yes. (Note: if the answer is no, then what good does it do for anyone, including the ones on the Left, to complain about him?)

[Evanescence]

I agree...and boycott and speak out against ALL political bias and the pundit eels that divide us....

but, Carter was right on the money....and if you cant see it...you must be living under a rock. Racism among conservatives is so unbelieably blatant and obvious...its sad. In fact, even among so-called Christians...

THAT should be spoken out against....

[VerbumReale]

but, Carter was right on the money....and if you cant see it...you must be living under a rock. Racism among conservatives is so unbelieably blatant and obvious...its sad. In fact, even among so-called Christians...

THAT should be spoken out against....

Carter was right only in the sense that there is a fringe racist element among the consevratives who disagree with Obama. But, in typical Carter fashion, he took that fringe element and tried to make it look like all conservatives are racist, which is wrong and you are wrong if you buy into it.

So is JC Watts a racist? Is Armstrong Williams a racist?? Is Michael Steele a racist??

So you agree with Speaker Pelosi that anyone who disagrees with Pres Obama's policies and speaks out against them should be equated with nazis?? Hmmm, I guess you're not quite the rebel-noncomformist that you try to portray yourself as.

[Evanescence]

No, Carter hit the nail on the head..and did explain it was a separate group of people. And, i think its a much bigger problem than you either realize or want to say. Just like the liberal Dem blacks that hate whites....racism is alive and well in this country.

Nope, I dont agree with Pelosi either...

[VerbumReale]

.racism is alive and well in this country.



Where did I deny that racism was alive and well?? That's right I didn't. But Carter blew the element of racism among conservatives out of proportion, and it was clearly a diversionary tactic. And by the way he didn't explain that he supposedly meant only a few people until a few days later. In other words, probably after a phone call from someone from Pres Obama's staff. If Carter is dead on about racism then why didn't he say something about the Democratic African-Amercians who say hateful things about white people who you yourself refer to?? Why didn't he say something about Jeremiah Wright??

[Evanescence]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QMr3pMYVM

OK...so, he didnt say "small fringe group"...

In fact he did say "OVERWHELMING amount of anomosity toward Obama is becuase he is black.."

While that is an overexgerration...it certianly isnt far off. I know the backwoods mentality well...I deal with it daily in the Hunting/Fishing/Trapping industry I serve. Its everywhere...

..and then, there's the south...

So, he didnt choose his words well...but wasnt far off...IMO...

J. Wright is a kook....no need to comment...

[VerbumReale]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QMr3pMYVM

OK...so, he didnt say "small fringe group"...

In fact he did say "OVERWHELMING amount of anomosity toward Obama is becuase he is black.."

While that is an overexgerration...it certianly isnt far off. I know the backwoods mentality well...I deal with it daily in the Hunting/Fishing/Trapping industry I serve. Its everywhere...

..and then, there's the south...

So, he didnt choose his words well...but wasnt far off...IMO...

J. Wright is a kook....no need to comment...


Actaully I disagree. I think it is far-off. Way far-off. He is suggesting that the overwhelming majority of people who express dissaproval of Pres Obama do so simply because he is black. No, that is way off, and frankly betrays a certain prejudice on Pres Carter's part.

But again I am not talking so much about racism in general, but in the political arena. Racism in general is alive and well. I deal with a lot of people in the hunting and fisihing culture myself and some of them do tend to harbor some prejudices and often those prejudices might be racially motivated. But I've often found that I had prejudices toward people in that hunting and fishing culture and then after talking to them realize that many of my pre-conceived notions about them were wrong. With all due respect, I think your comments about people in that culture betray some prejudices on your part against them.

[middletree]

OK...so, he didnt say "small fringe group"...

In fact he did say "OVERWHELMING amount of anomosity toward Obama is becuase he is black.."

While that is an overexgerration...it certianly isnt far off.


It's very far off, and it's never OK to judge a man's heart if you don't know him. And Carter judged y heart, my motives, when he said I must be a racist if I disagree with Obama's policies.

Not only was it a false accusation, it's a dangerous one. It perpetuates a victim mentality.



..and then, there's the south...


Oh please. You can make false accusations against a group of people and dare call others racist?

[middletree]

Ok, my post here was not about carter. It was how I am so preoccupied with being offended at something Dowd or Maher said that I am failing in keeping my own party's spokespeople in check. By my silence, I am coming across as endorsing Coulter and Rush and Beck. That's a problem.

[Evanescence]

Oh please. You can make false accusations against a group of people and dare call others racist?


Yes, because I have been to the south...I travel..and do a lot of it. they never got over the Civil war.....in a lot of places down there...

[Evanescence]

It's very far off, and it's never OK to judge a man's heart if you don't know him. And Carter judged y heart, my motives, when he said I must be a racist if I disagree with Obama's policies.



He didnt say that.....he said a LOT of anomosity....not ALL....

He should be applauded for having the cahones' to say what no one dares to say or hear...

Since O was nominated, racial jokes and the like have been everywhere....again, mainly from the far right.

Beck and Coulter-- Maher and Maddow are all eels....

[HumanityisSaved]

Beck is calling for house-cleaning on both sides of the aisle. Do you listen to him? He is trying to help you see that what is going on now in congress is a distraction- it is corruption in Washington by BOTH parties that is the real issue. GO GLENN BECK!!

[Evanescence]

Yeh....but his racist remarks along with Rush...make it hard to swallow...

They're all making a ton of dough off of political spin....all of them.

[VerbumReale]

Yes, because I have been to the south...I travel..and do a lot of it. they never got over the Civil war.....in a lot of places down there...

Oh please!! You've been to the South and that gives you license to make a gross generalization about people in the south? I lived in the south for two years and I wouldn't even begin to suggest that gives me authority to make anywhere near the baseless generalization that you did. I can tell you from the two years that I lived in the South that you are being extremely unfair to them and quite frankly displaying the very bahavior that you are condemning. Yes there is still racism in the south but that racism should not and does not define the south.

How do you not see your own hypocrisy?? You come on here suggesting that the overwhelming majority of people who don't support President Obama are racist, and thus guilty of prejudice, while making extremely prejudicial statements about people. Oh wait that's right, you've been to the south so it's ok to portray them all klansmen. Gimme a break!!

[VerbumReale]

He didnt say that.....he said a LOT of anomosity....not ALL....

He should be applauded for having the cahones' to say what no one dares to say or hear...
.

Wait a minute. He's from the south. Doesn't that mean he's racist??

[Valpo]

This is hilarious. "I've been to the south." I have family in the "south" and there is not a racist bone in any of their bodies. It's a ridiculous ASSertion to make that the south is synonymous with racism. There are loads and loads of people from the north who are racist as well. And given the population demographics of this country one could probably count the number of racists in the north compared to the south and come out with many many more racists living in the north.

That being said it is obvious racism is a problem in this country. Instead of letting blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh be our voice we as Christians ought to let Christ speak for us. In Him there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female. For all the swinging away at Christians for being racist please note it was the church that led the anti-slavery and civil rights movements in this country.

[cheewiee]

I live in the south... born and raised in the south actually... I do believe that there is racisim in the south... you see, Jimmy Carter to open up his mouth and say that if a white person disagree's with Obama's policies its motivated by race... well that's just racist in my opinion... It says that the only motiviation for a white person to disagree with Obama's policies would be racially motivated... that's making a huge generalization over a large swath of people.

Let me tell you, I disagree with MANY of Obama's policies... none of them have to do with the fact that the guy happens to have dark skin.

Carter is a blabbering idiot, who seems to blabber more and more the older he gets...

[Jesuslove]

Yes, because I have been to the south...I travel..and do a lot of it. they never got over the Civil war.....in a lot of places down there...

I agree. I have been in every southern state except Arkansas, and I find that racism is alive and well there, and many southerners have not gotten over the war - or mischaracterize the purpose of the civil war.

[Jesuslove]

This is hilarious. "I've been to the south." I have family in the "south" and there is not a racist bone in any of their bodies. It's a ridiculous ASSertion to make that the south is synonymous with racism. There are loads and loads of people from the north who are racist as well. And given the population demographics of this country one could probably count the number of racists in the north compared to the south and come out with many many more racists living in the north.

I don't think E was saying EVERYONE in the south is racist. He's saying it is more prevanent there. I agree. Having traveled the country, I find that racism is more visible in the south, still. But by no means are the racists in the majority, thankfully

That being said it is obvious racism is a problem in this country. Instead of letting blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh be our voice we as Christians ought to let Christ speak for us.
I'm surprised you'd actually characterize Limbaugh as a Christian voice. He's been married and divorced 3x, he makes racist comments, he makes homophobic comments, etc. I've never heard him testify to knowing Christ. In my opinion, I would never associate Rush Limbaugh (or even Glen Beck) wth Christianity.

[HumanityisSaved]

Yeh....but his racist remarks along with Rush...make it hard to swallow...

They're all making a ton of dough off of political spin....all of them.

What racist remarks?

[Jesuslove]

I live in the south... born and raised in the south actually... I do believe that there is racisim in the south... you see, Jimmy Carter to open up his mouth and say that if a white person disagree's with Obama's policies its motivated by race... well that's just racist in my opinion... It says that the only motiviation for a white person to disagree with Obama's policies would be racially motivated... that's making a huge generalization over a large swath of people.

Let me tell you, I disagree with MANY of Obama's policies... none of them have to do with the fact that the guy happens to have dark skin.

Carter is a blabbering idiot, who seems to blabber more and more the older he gets...

I think one can disagree with Obama's policies and not be racist, but I feel there are many in America who dislike Obama because of his race.

Of all the American presidents, I think Jimmy Carter (whether you like him or not), is an upstanding Christian man.

[Jesuslove]

If you want to learn about Glen Beck, watch this Youtube video when Beck was on the View.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uHCxcHT_dk

He's quite the liar, and unapologeticly so. Also don't mistake Beck for a journalist or a reporter. He's a commentator.

[HumanityisSaved]

If you want to learn about Glen Beck, watch this Youtube video when Beck was on the View.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uHCxcHT_dk

He's quite the liar, and unapologeticly so. Also don't mistake Beck for a journalist or a reporter. He's a commentator.

Are you serious with this? This is a character assasination. Beck never said what they said he said and they lied about him and bush-whacked him in this appearance. Beck was a fool to think he'd be fairly treated on this show as they did not even stick to the topics he was supposed to prepare for. They'd never have done this to a libbie.

Beck is telling the truth and the libbies can't stand it.

[HumanityisSaved]

I think one can disagree with Obama's policies and not be racist, but I feel there are many in America who dislike Obama because of his race.

Of all the American presidents, I think Jimmy Carter (whether you like him or not), is an upstanding Christian man.

Sure he is. But he is a sorry excuse for a diplomat and politician and was the worst prez to ever leave office until GWB.

[HumanityisSaved]

Yeh....but his racist remarks along with Rush...make it hard to swallow...

They're all making a ton of dough off of political spin....all of them.

What racist remarks?

[Jesuslove]

Are you serious with this? This is a character assasination. Beck never said what they said he said and they lied about him and bush-whacked him in this appearance. Beck was a fool to think he'd be fairly treated on this show as they did not even stick to the topics he was supposed to prepare for. They'd never have done this to a libbie.

Beck is telling the truth and the libbies can't stand it.

Beck is a liar and he admitted he lied on the show. Furthermore, he freely admits he's not a reporter. What's to read into any of this?

[Valpo]

I'm surprised you'd actually characterize Limbaugh as a Christian voice.


I didn't. I was speaking as "conservative Christians." Many "conservative Christians" identify with Rush Limbaugh. I am saying we let Christ be our speaker, not blowhards.

[cheewiee]

Sure he is. But he is a sorry excuse for a diplomat and politician and was the worst prez to ever leave office until GWB.

I have to disagree with you on that last statement.. Carter was worse than GWB..

[HumanityisSaved]

Beck is a liar and he admitted he lied on the show. Furthermore, he freely admits he's not a reporter. What's to read into any of this?

He misspoke. I mean for crying out loud the media has been (for a week) reporting a "quote" from Rush Limbaugh that is a vicious lie. At least Beck agreed that he misspoke. He remembered the event wrong. They made a big deal over nothing. Whoopie in the segment admitted that she had a bias against Beck and gave him a dirty look when she saw him on the train. Then they go on to suggest a "fact check" when they have repeated the lies and false quotes about Rush themselves.

Notice that Whoopie did not want to talk about the issues of politics because she's incapable of thinking through the issues.

If this is the best anecdotal criticism one may find then it’s irrelevant at best and pathetic at worst.

[HumanityisSaved]

By RUSH LIMBAUGH
David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Rush Limbaugh
.Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "

Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?

The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.

When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.

Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.

As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.

These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.

[Jesuslove]

I didn't. I was speaking as "conservative Christians." Many "conservative Christians" identify with Rush Limbaugh. I am saying we let Christ be our speaker, not blowhards.

Oh...... gotcha. I agree.

[Jesuslove]

He misspoke. I mean for crying out loud the media has been (for a week) reporting a "quote" from Rush Limbaugh that is a vicious lie. At least Beck agreed that he misspoke. He remembered the event wrong. They made a big deal over nothing. Whoopie in the segment admitted that she had a bias against Beck and gave him a dirty look when she saw him on the train. Then they go on to suggest a "fact check" when they have repeated the lies and false quotes about Rush themselves.

Notice that Whoopie did not want to talk about the issues of politics because she's incapable of thinking through the issues.

If this is the best anecdotal criticism one may find then it’s irrelevant at best and pathetic at worst.

He misspoke? He flat out lied! Whoopi didn't know Beck before meeting him on the train. After the first segment, Beck came back and talked about issues. But what bothers me most is that Beck portrays himself as a journalist. At least he was honest enough on the show to admit he's a commentator, and his dogma isn't backed by fact.

[HumanityisSaved]

He misspoke? He flat out lied! Whoopi didn't know Beck before meeting him on the train. After the first segment, Beck came back and talked about issues. But what bothers me most is that Beck portrays himself as a journalist. At least he was honest enough on the show to admit he's a commentator, and his dogma isn't backed by fact.

Whoopie said she already did not like his views. AND what dogma of his is not backed by fact. You can't jsut make a general statement and not back it up. So put your money where your mouth is and back up YOUR dogma with facts.

[Jesuslove]

Whoopie said she already did not like his views. AND what dogma of his is not backed by fact. You can't jsut make a general statement and not back it up. So put your money where your mouth is and back up YOUR dogma with facts.

Did you watch the clip? He was caught in lies and admitted he's nothing more than a commentator. He's not a reporter or journalist.

[HumanityisSaved]

Did you watch the clip? He was caught in lies and admitted he's nothing more than a commentator. He's not a reporter or journalist.

Yeah I caught that so anyway... you said that his dogma is not backed by fact so I asked you to put your money where your mouth is and back your dogma with facts. Give me specific examples of how his dogma is not backed with facts.

[Evanescence]

Oh please!! You've been to the South and that gives you license to make a gross generalization about people in the south? I lived in the south for two years and I wouldn't even begin to suggest that gives me authority to make anywhere near the baseless generalization that you did. I can tell you from the two years that I lived in the South that you are being extremely unfair to them and quite frankly displaying the very bahavior that you are condemning. Yes there is still racism in the south but that racism should not and does not define the south.

How do you not see your own hypocrisy?? You come on here suggesting that the overwhelming majority of people who don't support President Obama are racist, and thus guilty of prejudice, while making extremely prejudicial statements about people. Oh wait that's right, you've been to the south so it's ok to portray them all klansmen. Gimme a break!!

I didnt say that people who dont support Obama are racist..or anything close. But A LOT of it is. Just like blacks who voted FOR Obama..and women who voted for Hillary and Palin have BIAS and PREJUDICE.

You're just POd 'cause your prescious GOP is being called out ALL THE TIME by loons like Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly...and others inclusing people who made racist cartoons like watermelons on the lawn of the WH.

And yes...I travel....I have darn near 1 million miles logged and have been to every corner of this country. I never said EVERYONE....but there is a higher level of racism in the south than other places. The same with OH and IN.

You think there's not racism in Harlem, Dteroit or Chicago? LA?

Walk down the street at midnight with a sign that reads" White and proud of it"...and see how long you last. Its not hypocrisy...its fact. Racism exists....whomever is at fault needs to knock it off. Blacks and whites...

[Evanescence]

It's a ridiculous ASSertion to make that the south is synonymous with racism.

Valpo, thats the most hilarious thing i ever heard. Are you serious?

Do you know ANYTHING about our nations history?

The civil war? Civil rights in the 60s?

I know a lot of people from the south..and love the south. But they need to clean up their act....just like the blacks in the cities do. The racism I have been seeing is open...wide open and for all to see. Thats why it cannot be denied. Obama just brought it to light when elected.

[Evanescence]

Here's an email I got 3 days ago...circulated by a buddy of mine and his gun-nut, hunter friends.

Now, before ANYONE looks this stuff up...you tell me what you think of this at first glance. Then, i will provide the true info about it...

-------------------------------

when you see something like this you know our congress is DEAD!!!, SICK!!! and UNRELIABLE!!! Share this will all your friends and PRAY for our Country.

Let us all stand up for America , by NOT purchasing this stamp

USPS New 42-Cent Stamp!!! Celebrates Muslim holiday.

If there is only ONE thing you forward today.... let it be this!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !

REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!


Now President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a new commemorative 42 Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp..

REMEMBER to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, when you are purchasing your stamps at the post office.

All you have to say is "No thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my letters!"


To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.

REMEMBER ~
pass this along to every Patriotic AMERICAN that you know and lets get the word out !!!

Here is something to chew on...


They (MUSLIMS) don't even believe in Christ, & they're getting their own Christmas stamp! BUT, don't dare to dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property! This is truly UNBELIEVABLE !!!

[cheewiee]

My Pastor (a former muslim) posted this (on Facebook) tonight from the race tonight in Charlotte...

Naeem Fazal I think I'm the only non white person here -avoiding eye contact and praying to baby Jesus

I thought it was funny...

[Valpo]

Valpo, thats the most hilarious thing i ever heard. Are you serious?

Do you know ANYTHING about our nations history?

The civil war? Civil rights in the 60s?

I know a lot of people from the south..and love the south. But they need to clean up their act....just like the blacks in the cities do. The racism I have been seeing is open...wide open and for all to see. Thats why it cannot be denied. Obama just brought it to light when elected.

Yes, but it's clear that you don't. You just proved it by not clarifying your statement. You really think the south=racism. That's a reckless comment to make. But nothing really surprises me coming from you anymore. Race riots were all over the nation, especially in NYC and Chicago. Last I checked, those were northern cities. Your general assumption makes an *** outta yourself.

[VerbumReale]

I didnt say that people who dont support Obama are racist..or anything close. But A LOT of it is. Just like blacks who voted FOR Obama..and women who voted for Hillary and Palin have BIAS and PREJUDICE.

You're just POd 'cause your prescious GOP is being called out ALL THE TIME by loons like Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly...and others inclusing people who made racist cartoons like watermelons on the lawn of the WH.

And yes...I travel....I have darn near 1 million miles logged and have been to every corner of this country. I never said EVERYONE....but there is a higher level of racism in the south than other places. The same with OH and IN.

You think there's not racism in Harlem, Dteroit or Chicago? LA?

Walk down the street at midnight with a sign that reads" White and proud of it"...and see how long you last. Its not hypocrisy...its fact. Racism exists....whomever is at fault needs to knock it off. Blacks and whites...


Yet another false asumption on your part. I am not a Republican. But I do have some serious concerns about Pres Obama's policies and that is why I took offense to Pres Carter's absurd assertion that the overwhelming majority of people who don't support Obama's policies are simply racist. He wasn't just talking about Republicans, he was talking about anyone who disagrees with Pres Obama. I don't care how many miles you've traveled. Guess what you're not the only one who has traveled on these boards. It never ceases to amaze me at how you seem to think that you are the only person on the boards who pays attention to whats going on in the world, and who has been exposed to cultures other than the one they live in.

And traveling somewhere hardly gives you great insight into their culture. Let's see I recently spent time in Chicago, Madison, Indianapolis and Fargo. Well that must make me an expert on every one of those towns.

And again, I am not denying that there is racism in the US. From my first response to you I made it clear that I absolutely acknowledge that there is racism in the US. Forgive the bold font but you seem to ignore my repeated acknowledgments that racism is very much alive and well in the US.

Finally if you don't want to be accused of making baseless generalizations than maybe you shouldn't say things like

I know the backwoods mentality well...I deal with it daily in the Hunting/Fishing/Trapping industry I serve. Its everywhere...

..and then, there's the south...

That right there sounds a lot like you were generalizing those in the hunting/fishing/trapping industry and the south as racist. I know you weren't saying all people in those cultures but you certainly seemed to be suggesting that racism was so rampant in those cultures that it was ok to define them as racist.

[Evanescence]

Yes, but it's clear that you don't. You just proved it by not clarifying your statement. You really think the south=racism. That's a reckless comment to make. But nothing really surprises me coming from you anymore. Race riots were all over the nation, especially in NYC and Chicago. Last I checked, those were northern cities. Your general assumption makes an *** outta yourself.

They were more prebelant in the south. You know NOTHING about our history...as that is evident. I made it clear that not EVERYONE in the south was racist...but a lot of it is. I also stated that it is very prevelant in IN and OH....

How many states have you been in Valpo? I have been in 45....over the past 25 years. You?

[mcgreen311]

Ok, my post here was not about carter. It was how I am so preoccupied with being offended at something Dowd or Maher said that I am failing in keeping my own party's spokespeople in check. By my silence, I am coming across as endorsing Coulter and Rush and Beck. That's a problem.

Though I would not consider myself far-right or fundamentalist (in the negative connotation), I did grow up in that sort of milieu. Because of that, I think I have predisposition to criticizing those camps when I think they go astray. I'm less likely to criticize someone in the athiest or liberal camp. The former irks me more, and I think it is similar to be being embarrassed by one's parents.

[mcgreen311]

And I'm also from the south (lower case s). Just wanted to throw that out there. :)

[Valpo]

E, I fail to see how many states I've "been to" is relevant at all to this discussion. What are you some learned sage because you've traveled around the USA? Give me a break. Is that why you think the things you spout off are credible because you state travel? Yikes...

And BTW, go back and read your posts, you equated the south as a whole with racism. And I still fail to see how it is "more prevalent" in the south. There is plenty of racism in the north and no one could really prove scientifically which area of the country is "more prevalent" to having racism. Good try though. Must be how you buy into all these conspiracy theories, you "hear" things and then believe them sans any scientific facts or common sense. Thanks for clearing that up for the entire board!

[Valpo]

And I'm also from the south (lower case s). Just wanted to throw that out there. :)

Good chance you are a racist. And if you're not your family is racist. And if not then you guys are just so weird down there because the south is "more prevalent" to having racism than anywhere else in the world.

[VerbumReale]

E, I fail to see how many states I've "been to" is relevant at all to this discussion. What are you some learned sage because you've traveled around the USA? Give me a break. Is that why you think the things you spout off are credible because you state travel? Yikes...



Exactly!! It's not traveling through a particular part of the country that gives one insight into the particular culture, it's living there. I've lived in the Midwest for 8 years now (mostly in Minnesota) and still would not claim to be an expert on Midwestern culture. But I do know that I have more insight into Minnesota culture than someone who just travels through the Twin Cities a couple times a year. I know that, even though Minnesota is a "blue" state, it's a different sort of "blue" than what you might encounter in LA, New York or Chicago, especially anywhere in Minnesota outside of the Twin Cities. I know that conservatives in Minnesota refer to St Paul (the capitol) as "Moscow on the Mississippi." I know that in any given rural Minnesota town, no matter how small, you can be assured to find two things; a bar and a Lutheran church. I know that, although many of the rural towns are predominately white, it need not be assumed that they are racist as, in many small Minnesota towns, Latino and Asian communities have migrated to live there because of work available in food-processing plants, and have been welcomed. I am not saying they haven't encountered racism. Of course they have. But overall, from what I have seen, these Asian and Latino communities have been embraced and welcomed. And there is much more that I could say. But as much insight as I have gained in 8 years, it pales in comparison to the insight my wife, who grew up in Minnesota, has. So again, you don't gain insight into a community or culture by traveling through there. You gain insight by living there.

[Evanescence]

I was contemplating a borderline rude and enflamed response. But I am trying not to do that anymore...

So...

Perhaps I am wrong....and I hate blanket statements...and even making them. But I feel that carter was partially right...and that a lot...not all....but a lot, of backwoods conservatives hate/dislike blacks. I have seen this through my many travels.

The south has a history...a long history of segregation, slavery and the like. Google - Black Codes and read up on that.

So, IMO....and from personal experience....the south probably has more racial hatred/dislike towards blacks...and Obama than other places. Like I said...IN and OH are two others...

That's all I can say....sorry if you dont agree and if I come off as a know it all or cynic. Thanks for putting up with me...

[Evanescence]

By the way. This fine propaganda piece, circulated by radical minded reps...is nothing but lies.

Obama had NOTHING to do with this decision...it was decided 8 yrs ago. The EID isnt a religious/christmas holiday either...

Its all Obama, anti-muslim crap....

..and people drink it up...

------------------------------------

when you see something like this you know our congress is DEAD!!!, SICK!!! and UNRELIABLE!!! Share this will all your friends and PRAY for our Country.

Let us all stand up for America , by NOT purchasing this stamp

USPS New 42-Cent Stamp!!! Celebrates Muslim holiday.

If there is only ONE thing you forward today.... let it be this!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !

REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!


Now President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a new commemorative 42 Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp..

REMEMBER to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, when you are purchasing your stamps at the post office.

All you have to say is "No thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my letters!"


To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.

REMEMBER ~
pass this along to every Patriotic AMERICAN that you know and lets get the word out !!!

Here is something to chew on...


They (MUSLIMS) don't even believe in Christ, & they're getting their own Christmas stamp! BUT, don't dare to dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property! This is truly UNBELIEVABLE !!!

[Grank]

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !

REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!




that part seems pretty spot on though...

Southern Ohio is pretty racist... and by pretty racist i mean less than 1% of the population... and by racist i mean anti anything nonwhite... most people are racist to some extent though. even i am... and i have all kinds of friends of multiple ethnicities. i think of myself more leaning to a cultural and religious prejudice.

[HumanityisSaved]

The EID isnt a religious/christmas holiday either...

I think its ironic that a Muslim holiday would be made up of the letters IED!:eek: Regardless Islam is an evil religion.

This screenshot is from Snopes.com

[Evanescence]

that part seems pretty spot on though...

Southern Ohio is pretty racist... and by pretty racist i mean less than 1% of the population... and by racist i mean anti anything nonwhite... most people are racist to some extent though. even i am... and i have all kinds of friends of multiple ethnicities. i think of myself more leaning to a cultural and religious prejudice.


No its not...not even close.

Its propaganda meant to create an emotional response...

..and it does...

Muslim radicals did those things...

Not Muslims....

Its clear programming...and the sheeple eat it up and aloow their emotions to run amuck...

[HumanityisSaved]

No its not...not even close.

Its propaganda meant to create an emotional response...

..and it does...

Muslim radicals did those things...

Not Muslims....

Its clear programming...and the sheeple eat it up and aloow their emotions to run amuck...

"Muslim people are not evil their religion is"

[Evanescence]

The same could be said of Christianity..and our past.

[HumanityisSaved]

The same could be said of Christianity..and our past.

No! You may say that Christians have done evil in the name of Christianity and God but you may not say that Christianity itself is evil. I am saying that the religion of Islam is evil.

[Evanescence]

So, you're saying that YOUR opinion of Christianity and the Muslim religion is 100% right?

Now, who is painting with a broad stroke?

All of it is opinion and belief...

[HumanityisSaved]

So, you're saying that YOUR opinion of Christianity and the Muslim religion is 100% right?

Now, who is painting with a broad stroke?

All of it is opinion and belief...

E I like you. I am a libertarian-minded person and I hunt and fish. I'd love to get on some big PA Whitetails sometime so let me say that I am not trying to disrespect you so let me paint this (as an amateur theologian)

These are the points behind my statement: Islam is an evil religion

1. God exists as the Trinity- Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father fully man, fully God. Human and Divine together in anhypostatic and enhypostatic union.
3. Islam teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God- not divine
4. Did the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob author a religion that teaches Jesus is not His only begotten (not made) Son?
5. No way did Islam originate in the heart of the Father it must have come from the fallen mind of men or worse from the influence of the Evil One.

That is the basis upon which I make my statement. It matters not to me that Islamic Extremests kill people. Athiests kill people.
The Islamic rejection of Jesus as the God-Man is what makes it an evil religion.

I do agree with you that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity. George Bush anyone? it was reported that in a meeting with Palestinian leaders that Bush said that God told him to go to war.

[middletree]

Islam is evil in that it will send a person to hell. I can't believe I have to explain this.

[cheewiee]

Islam is evil in that it will send a person to hell. I can't believe I have to explain this.

Yea... I don't necessarly get it either...

(you should watch the "if you can't afford it don't buy it" video on YouTube... Its an old SNL skit....

[middletree]

Yea... I don't necessarly get it either...

(you should watch the "if you can't afford it don't buy it" video on YouTube... Its an old SNL skit....

With Steve Martin? That's greatness!

[Jason]

Getting back to the original thread ...

I'm very conservative and I think Beck and Limbaugh are idiots.

[cheewiee]

Getting back to the original thread ...

I'm very conservative and I think Beck and Limbaugh are idiots.

Anyone who screams their message at people, instead of talking to people about their message is an idiot.

Beck and Limbaugh, along with Coulter, and Orielley are idiots. But you can't forget Moore, Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, Al Franken, either...

[Jason]

But you can't forget Moore, Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, Al Franken, either...

Yes, but keeping with middletree's point, I just picked on the conservatives.

[VerbumReale]

Anyone who screams their message at people, instead of talking to people about their message is an idiot.

Beck and Limbaugh, along with Coulter, and Orielley are idiots. But you can't forget Moore, Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, Al Franken, either...

I have to disagree. You may not like some of the things that some of them say. And believe me I can relate, I can't watch Keith Olbermann for 5 minutes without wanting to throw the remote at the tv (I don't but you get what I am saying), at least in his post-ESPN incarnation or when he's not doing Sunday Night Football.

But these guys are pundits. They are supposed to be over-the-top. They are supposed to be abrasive. They are supposed to ruffle people's feathers. The fact that the White House has targeted Fox News just shows that the pundits on Fox (and not everyone on Fox is a pundit) are doing their jobs effectively. And for you and Jason to call these guys idiots just shows they are doing their jobs effectively.

How do you think faithful watchers of Fox news react to the White House singling them out?? It just makes them believe Fox more because it perpetuates what they hear from Hannity, Oreilly and Beck. Even David Gergen said that it's a mistake for the White House to single out any news source.

You may not like what these guys say, but they are not idiots. Far from it. They know how to do their jobs very well. I'll admit I watch Hannity and O'Reilly sometime, but I watch them with about the same level of seriousness that I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. That said, I believe that a lot of the attacks on them are over-blown as well. When I watch them, certainly I have to filter some things and take them with a grain of salt, but they do talk about whats going on, so as long as one can figure out the bias then it is possible to watch them and get something.

On the other hand, some of their most vocal opponents are the women on the View (except Elisabeth of course). I have yet to see any socially redeeming value to that cluck-fest.

[HumanityisSaved]

Anyone who screams their message at people, instead of talking to people about their message is an idiot.

Beck and Limbaugh, along with Coulter, and Orielley are idiots. But you can't forget Moore, Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, Al Franken, either...

One may not prefer Beck and Limbaugh's delivery but if one is honestly paying attention much of what they say is accurate and well worth a listen.

[cheewiee]

I have to disagree. You may not like some of the things that some of them say. And believe me I can relate, I can't watch Keith Olbermann for 5 minutes without wanting to throw the remote at the tv (I don't but you get what I am saying), at least in his post-ESPN incarnation or when he's not doing Sunday Night Football.

But these guys are pundits. They are supposed to be over-the-top. They are supposed to be abrasive. They are supposed to ruffle people's feathers. The fact that the White House has targeted Fox News just shows that the pundits on Fox (and not everyone on Fox is a pundit) are doing their jobs effectively. And for you and Jason to call these guys idiots just shows they are doing their jobs effectively.

How do you think faithful watchers of Fox news react to the White House singling them out?? It just makes them believe Fox more because it perpetuates what they hear from Hannity, Oreilly and Beck. Even David Gergen said that it's a mistake for the White House to single out any news source.

You may not like what these guys say, but they are not idiots. Far from it. They know how to do their jobs very well. I'll admit I watch Hannity and O'Reilly sometime, but I watch them with about the same level of seriousness that I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. That said, I believe that a lot of the attacks on them are over-blown as well. When I watch them, certainly I have to filter some things and take them with a grain of salt, but they do talk about whats going on, so as long as one can figure out the bias then it is possible to watch them and get something.

On the other hand, some of their most vocal opponents are the women on the View (except Elisabeth of course). I have yet to see any socially redeeming value to that cluck-fest.

I get what you are saying about Pundantry.. and There should be some degree of that, I suppose... and perhaps some of the talking heads I didn't list, like hannity or even Boortz, and Randy Rhodes do fill that niche.. but Olberman is WAY over the top... Coulter is WAY over the top...

[Evanescence]

Anyone who screams their message at people, instead of talking to people about their message is an idiot.

Beck and Limbaugh, along with Coulter, and Orielley are idiots. But you can't forget Moore, Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, Al Franken, either...

I agree...

.and I know Pouye compared me to Rush...but at least i dont scream...and am nicer looking...:P

[Evanescence]

On the other hand, some of their most vocal opponents are the women on the View (except Elisabeth of course). I have yet to see any socially redeeming value to that cluck-fest.


Elizabeth V is smoking hot...


...so is Rachel Maddow... :cool:

[Jason]

Another reason why Beck is truthfully an idiot ...

He chose as an adult to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. He wasn't raised in that nonsense. He willingly converted to it.

[middletree]

I have to disagree. You may not like some of the things that some of them say. And believe me I can relate, I can't watch Keith Olbermann for 5 minutes without wanting to throw the remote at the tv (I don't but you get what I am saying), at least in his post-ESPN incarnation or when he's not doing Sunday Night Football.

But these guys are pundits. They are supposed to be over-the-top. They are supposed to be abrasive. They are supposed to ruffle people's feathers. The fact that the White House has targeted Fox News just shows that the pundits on Fox (and not everyone on Fox is a pundit) are doing their jobs effectively. And for you and Jason to call these guys idiots just shows they are doing their jobs effectively.

How do you think faithful watchers of Fox news react to the White House singling them out?? It just makes them believe Fox more because it perpetuates what they hear from Hannity, Oreilly and Beck. Even David Gergen said that it's a mistake for the White House to single out any news source.

You may not like what these guys say, but they are not idiots. Far from it. They know how to do their jobs very well. I'll admit I watch Hannity and O'Reilly sometime, but I watch them with about the same level of seriousness that I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. That said, I believe that a lot of the attacks on them are over-blown as well. When I watch them, certainly I have to filter some things and take them with a grain of salt, but they do talk about whats going on, so as long as one can figure out the bias then it is possible to watch them and get something.




I disagree with this entire post (except the part I left out,about the View having no value.)

[middletree]

So where did the Islam thread go? Did I go over the top by saying that little thing about heaven and hell? Is that not allowed here?

[VerbumReale]

Another reason why Beck is truthfully an idiot ...

He chose as an adult to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. He wasn't raised in that nonsense. He willingly converted to it.

Two things. First, that Beck is a Mormon is sad, but that is a whole other issue, and calling him an idiot because he is Mormon isn't exacly letting the light of Christ shine in your words and deeds. Second, when speaking of Mormons or any other apostate group I think we would all do well to remember, there but for the grace of God go any of us.

[VerbumReale]

I disagree with this entire post (except the part I left out,about the View having no value.)

Care to expand?? Or are you just going to say you disagree??

Do you disagree that pundits are expected, at least to a certain degree, to be over-the-top or abrasive??

Do you disagree that by singling Fox News out, the White House is actually only re-affirming for the faithful Fox News watcher what Fox says??

I just don't think you can measure these pundits the same way you do jornalists who are actually expected to be "objective."

And honestly I find this tendency to simply dismiss them as idiots to be indicative of some of the same type of behavior that many find objectionable about these pundits.

[Jason]

Two things. First, that Beck is a Mormon is sad, but that is a whole other issue, and calling him an idiot because he is Mormon isn't exacly letting the light of Christ shine in your words and deeds. Second, when speaking of Mormons or any other apostate group I think we would all do well to remember, there but for the grace of God go any of us.

It's just one of many reasons he's an idiot.

[VerbumReale]

It's just one of many reasons he's an idiot.


So you think that you are incapable of being deceived by the devil's lies??

[Jason]

So you think that you are incapable of being deceived by the devil's lies??

I was and I was an idiot.

[VerbumReale]

I was and I was an idiot.

So, like I said There but for the grace of God go any of us. Since you admit that, like Beck you were deceived by the devil, then what grounds do you have to call him an idiot for being deceived by the devil??

Perhaps you should just pray that the veil of deception be removed from his eyes.

Some of the wisest advice I have ever been given was to pray daily for at least one person I dsagree with or even find morally reprehensible in someway. It really goes a long way to keep one aware that, when it really comes right down to it, none of us really have any grounds to call anyone else an idiot.

[Evanescence]

...and so now we're sure that Mormon's arent saved? And are decieved?

[Jason]

...and so now we're sure that Mormon's arent saved? And are decieved?

Yes we're sure.

[middletree]

...and so now we're sure that Mormon's arent saved? And are decieved?

I'm sure of the latter. It's possible some are saved if they truly trust in Jesus for their salvation and don't buy into every bit of doctrine which twists who Jesus is.

I will say that most Mormons are not saved.

[Jason]

I'm sure of the latter. It's possible some are saved if they truly trust in Jesus for their salvation and don't buy into every bit of doctrine which twists who Jesus is.

I will say that most Mormons are not saved.

Better said than my post.

[middletree]

I just don't think you can measure these pundits the same way you do jornalists who are actually expected to be "objective."

.
I agree with that, and never said otherwise.

That just means, however, that libs have no right to complain about OReilly and Rush being biased. They are entitled to be biased, as they aren't reporters.

Where I have a problem with the above-named people (all of them) is the yelling. The divisiveness. The rudeness. The mean-spirited way they have of demonizing those who disagree with them. Mean people suck.

[middletree]

So, like I said There but for the grace of God go any of us. Since you admit that, like Beck you were deceived by the devil, then what grounds do you have to call him an idiot for being deceived by the devil??


See, I just don't get this. If Jason was once deceived, how does that disqualify him from saying that someone else is deceived? I stole money once when I was a kid, and that doesn't mean I can't call someone else a thief if they do the same. The fact that God has delivered us from deception does not mean we can't point out when someone else is deceived.

Having said that, I want to re-establish my point that my problem with Beck and others like him is the way they present their views. He'd be just as wrong if he were not a Mormon.

[Jason]

See, I just don't get this. If Jason was once deceived, how does that disqualify him from saying that someone else is deceived? I stole money once when I was a kid, and that doesn't mean I can't call someone else a thief if they do the same. The fact that God has delivered us from deception does not mean we can't point out when someone else is deceived.


I think he's saying that I can call him deceived, but not an idiot.

[VerbumReale]

...and so now we're sure that Mormon's arent saved? And are decieved?


Yep.

I have to ask you. What exactly do you believe?? I mean you claim to be Christian and I am not questioning that. But you seem to take offense at anyone even remotely suggesting that the Bible can be relied upon as the authoratative Word of God. Do you believe the Bible or not?? If you believe it then it shouldn't bother you at all when people show certainty in their faith. If you don't believe it then, with all due respect, why call yourself a Christian??

I mean do you consider the Bible a reliable witness?? And yes, I know, people read the Bible differently and come up with different interpretations and their own ideas. That just shows that people are sinful. That is not what I am talking about. I am asking you do you believe in the reliability of the Bible?? You don't seem to. Are you aware that among ancient documents, the manuscript support for the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is unparalleled?? Are you aware of vast amount of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible?? And that is really the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence, particularly archaelogical, to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. When I say that I believe Mormons have been deceived, I am not saying it to exalt myself above Mormons. I am saying it because I have tested the claims of Mormonism.

So, why do you get so bothered when someone shows certainty in their faith? You seem to assume that they are just trying to self-righteously exalt themselves above others who don't agree with them. And that happens undeniably. But that doesn't mean that is always the case and that doesn't mean that certainty of faith is not possible. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God and a means through which the Holy Spirit testifies of Christ to us, then why shouldn't someone have certainty?

[VerbumReale]

Where I have a problem with the above-named people (all of them) is the yelling. The divisiveness. The rudeness. The mean-spirited way they have of demonizing those who disagree with them. Mean people suck.

Understand. I am not defending that by any means. I am just saying it's what they do and part of their job. I do think some are worse than others. The ones who I can't stomach I just don't watch. But I don't really feel any compulsion or obligation to do anything beyond that.

[HumanityisSaved]

So you think that you are incapable of being deceived by the devil's lies??

Good point a lot of "Good Christians" believe in child abuse... er um I mean penal substitution.

[middletree]

Understand. I am not defending that by any means. I am just saying it's what they do and part of their job.

"Calling it your job, hoss, sure don't make it right.
But if you want me to, I'll say a prayer
for your soul tonight."

--"Rain on the Scarecrow" -- John Mellencamp, 1985

Drug dealers are just doing their job, too, Steve.
I draw that comparison on purpose, you know. Drug dealers are slimeballs, but they wouldn't have employment if it weren't for the fact that millions of people use illegal drugs. Likewise, enough Americans have said "yes" to the tactics of Olbermann, Coulter, Maher, Beck, Franken, Rush, etc. They have bought their books. They have rated their radio shows highly. They have said they are OK with the rudeness. And that's sad. And that's why I wrote my blog post which started this thread. I was urging people--regular people--to stop endorsing and patronizing those pundits who they agree with politically, but who are bambastic in their delivery.

[VerbumReale]

See, I just don't get this. If Jason was once deceived, how does that disqualify him from saying that someone else is deceived? I stole money once when I was a kid, and that doesn't mean I can't call someone else a thief if they do the same. The fact that God has delivered us from deception does not mean we can't point out when someone else is deceived.

Having said that, I want to re-establish my point that my problem with Beck and others like him is the way they present their views. He'd be just as wrong if he were not a Mormon.

I am not saying that it disqualifies him from acknowledging that Beck was deceived. I just didn't like that Jason would say that Beck's converting to Mormonism was a justification to call him an idiot since, basically, it's only by the grace of God that any of us come to the truth and are saved from deception. To which Jason admitted that at one time he was deceived and was an "idiot." I guess my point is, if Beck is an idiot for being deceived by the devil, then we're all idiots.

Really, I don't think the word "idiot" should even be in any Christian's vocabulary. And I say this fully acknowledging that I have said things on here and elsewhere that have offended people. And I have used the word "idiot" myself, but I was wrong to.

[VerbumReale]

"Calling it your job, hoss, sure don't make it right.
But if you want me to, I'll say a prayer
for your soul tonight."

--"Rain on the Scarecrow" -- John Mellencamp, 1985

Drug dealers are just doing their job, too, Steve.
I draw that comparison on purpose, you know. Drug dealers are slimeballs, but they wouldn't have employment if it weren't for the fact that millions of people use illegal drugs. Likewise, enough Americans have said "yes" to the tactics of Olbermann, Coulter, Maher, Beck, Franken, Rush, etc. They have bought their books. They have rated their radio shows highly. They have said they are OK with the rudeness. And that's sad. And that's why I wrote my blog post which started this thread. I was urging people--regular people--to stop endorsing and patronizing those pundits who they agree with politically, but who are bambastic in their delivery.


Well, I understand why you make the comparison, but c'mon pundits and drug-dealers?? That's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and car-bombs. And who decides who is bombastic and who isn't? I really think a lot of these guys get bad raps. I am uncomfortable with some of the things these guys say sometime, but clearly I don't see them as problematic as you. Heck I even enjoy O'Reilly sometimes and find him insightful sometimes. Hannity is obviously a little more over the top, but even sometimes is insightful. And earlier someone posted a clip of Beck on the View where he was confronted (ambushed) for a mischaracterization of Barbara Walters. He very humbly apologized. Of course they continued attacking him, and he apologized a few more times. I don't watch Beck, but I don't put him in the same ballpark as drug-dealers. Does that make me an enabler of evil?? Don't get me wrong. I would never buy an Ann Coulter book and I really have no use for Rush Limbaugh. But c'mon, these guys aren't even in the same neighborhood as drug dealers. You're better than that. I don't have any Coulter books, but come to think of it I do have a Laura Ingraham book. (Which I quite enjoyed BTW) Should I send it to that Baptist church in North Carolina so they can burn it??

Look, I get your point and I appreciate the spirit in which it is intended. But I just think we make too big a deal out of these folks. I mean, am I the only who finds it absurd that the same league that let Michael Vick back in (A decision which I support BTW) made a big deal over Rush Limbaugh wanting to invest in one of their teams, and thus led to the group he was going to invest with severing their ties with him (As far as buying the Rams went). Serioulsly, am I supposed to take the objections to Rush Limbaugh of Robert Irsay, the guy who cowardly took the Colts out of Baltimore under the cover of night seriously? If you're offended by them, be they liberal or conservative, then don't watch or listen to their show or buy their books. But I just don't see the need for some clarion call for anyone who calls themselves conservative to "clean their own house" of these guys.

[Evanescence]

I have to ask you. What exactly do you believe?? I mean you claim to be Christian and I am not questioning that. But you seem to take offense at anyone even remotely suggesting that the Bible can be relied upon as the authoratative Word of God. Do you believe the Bible or not?? If you believe it then it shouldn't bother you at all when people show certainty in their faith. If you don't believe it then, with all due respect, why call yourself a Christian??


Sure you are...you just wont come out and say it.

No, I do not think the Bible can be relied upon to as the "perfect Word of God" etc etc.

I have my reasons....many of which I will take to my grave...not even my darling wife will be privi to what i have studied and carefully researched.

That being said, I believe the Bible is God inspired and fairly accurate....and that jesus lived and died etc etc...salvation story yada, yada. BUT...I also know that trusting in the Bible isnt a qualification for salvation.

I mean do you consider the Bible a reliable witness?? And yes, I know, people read the Bible differently and come up with different interpretations and their own ideas. That just shows that people are sinful. That is not what I am talking about. I am asking you do you believe in the reliability of the Bible?? You don't seem to. Are you aware that among ancient documents, the manuscript support for the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is unparalleled?? Are you aware of vast amount of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible?? And that is really the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence, particularly archaelogical, to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. When I say that I believe Mormons have been deceived, I am not saying it to exalt myself above Mormons. I am saying it because I have tested the claims of Mormonism.


So, one man's intepretation is sinful? What, except yours?

There's thousands of denominations in Christianity....probably hundreds of intepretations and ideas based on said intepreatiations. So, they're sinners becuase they inpret things differently? Before I call you a fool..I'll give you the opportunity to explain and I hope i am wrong in what I think you mean.

I am a writer and researcher....I am the only man to sit down and pick the brains of over 150 pastors and document their ideas and beliefs. You know what the answer was to this question:

"How accurate do you feel the Bible is historically, scientifically and through the translations?"

Well over 50% expressed some or a lot of doubt on the three particulars of the questions. menaing, 50% of pastors did not feelt he Bible is 100% accurate.

yep..i know of the history and back story of the Bible and science and archiology etc etc. Its intriguing and convicing on some levels...but not ALL. So, i too am skeptical...VERY skeptical of the Bibles many claims.

You are preaching to he choir....

But, it has nothing to do with mormonism...

So, why do you get so bothered when someone shows certainty in their faith? You seem to assume that they are just trying to self-righteously exalt themselves above others who don't agree with them. And that happens undeniably. But that doesn't mean that is always the case and that doesn't mean that certainty of faith is not possible. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God and a means through which the Holy Spirit testifies of Christ to us, then why shouldn't someone have certainty?


Christians have a bad habit of thinking they have the corner market on God....and each denomination as well. That simply isnt true. Mormons do not deny Christ...they deny the trinity. The trinity is not Biblical...MAN decided that in 325 AD. Fact.

I am not God....so Mormonism is just another part of Christianity to me....as is Jehovahs witnesses and a pile of others. If the do not deny Christ....they are Christian in my book. The rest is up to God.

Mormon's are as bad as some Christians. They think they have it all figured out...people are decieved and even going to hell becuase they dont go to their church. Its all BS...kooky and loony. When we die...all answers will be revealed..and I am sure its going to be far different than we think....

[middletree]

Well, I understand why you make the comparison, but c'mon pundits and drug-dealers?? That's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and car-bombs. .
Guess we'll have to disagree on this one, Steve. Divisiveness is a big issue with me. I hate it. And the guys and gals listed above are, to promote themselves or book sales or ratings, drawing a line between "us' and "them". IMO, it does much damage to our national character. It creates hatefulness in people. It makes chips on shoulders, then builds them into boulders. I think it's very damaging. Maybe not as much as drugs, maybe more.

[middletree]

E, the trinity is in Genesis 1:26, which was written way before 325 ad.

I agree with you that denominations are proof of the divisiveness in Christians, but don't agree with your other conclusions.

Do you believe that the God who created the Universe, who can turn water into wine, could somehow preserve His written word throughout a 3000-year period and keep it from getting corrupted? I think He can. If He can't, then He's weak; He's less than God.

And Christians saying that Jesus is the only Way aren't saying they have a corner on the right way. We are quoting Jesus. HE said it first. You got a problem with that, take it up with Him.

[Jason]

The trinity is not Biblical...MAN decided that in 325 AD. Fact.

Not fact. E, you're a researcher. Go read The Forgotten Trinity by James White:
http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Trinity-James-White/dp/1556617259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256011153&sr=8-1

[Jason]

I am a writer and researcher....I am the only man to sit down and pick the brains of over 150 pastors and document their ideas and beliefs. You know what the answer was to this question:

"How accurate do you feel the Bible is historically, scientifically and through the translations?"

Well over 50% expressed some or a lot of doubt on the three particulars of the questions. menaing, 50% of pastors did not feelt he Bible is 100% accurate.



Which only proves one thing ...

We need to weep and pray that this nation gets better pastors.

[VerbumReale]

Sure you are...you just wont come out and say it.....

So now you can read my mind???



So, one man's intepretation is sinful? What, except yours?.....

I said it wasn't about different interpretations.


There's thousands of denominations in Christianity....probably hundreds of intepretations and ideas based on said intepreatiations. So, they're sinners becuase they inpret things differently? Before I call you a fool..I'll give you the opportunity to explain and I hope i am wrong in what I think you mean.

Don't hold back on my account. If you want to call me a fool go ahead. I can take it. I get the impression you think I am one anyway. You seem to think that when I mention sinners that I am not including myself, but I assure you, I am. What I meant was, the fact that there are different interpretations just verifies that we, being sinners ( And let me make it clear again in case I wasn't clear before, I include myself as a sinner) will put our own human biases in our reading of God's Word.

But the fact that there are so many different interpretations, for me actually just verifies the authority of the divine biblical Word of God, because the Bible itself speaks of such things. This was even the reality in Paul's day. So what do you do in the midst of this, you go to the Bible. You discern the spirits with God's Word. I know it sounds arrogant to you when I say this, but there is false teaching and true teaching. Now I don't claim to know the full truth of God. Scripture makes it clear that there are some things of God that are just unknowable for humans. But Hebrews tells us that Christ is the fullest revelation of God's being, and so we read scripture with that understanding. Scripture provides us with the insight and wisdom we need to discern true and false teaching and true and false interpretations. And so, no it's not about my interpretation, it's about God's revelation in scripture. It is only by relying on the revealed Word of God in scripture that I have been able to discern true teaching from false. I am not saying I have never been deceived. I am not saying I don't still get deceived sometime.


I am a writer and researcher....I am the only man to sit down and pick the brains of over 150 pastors and document their ideas and beliefs. You know what the answer was to this question:

"How accurate do you feel the Bible is historically, scientifically and through the translations?"

Well over 50% expressed some or a lot of doubt on the three particulars of the questions. menaing, 50% of pastors did not feelt he Bible is 100% accurate..

I hate to break it to you, but no you're not. In fact I am pretty sure I have picked the brains of at least that many pastors. And no I am not talking about casual conversations, I am talking about deep in-depth thelogical conversations. And I would wager that I could name several authors who have picked the brains of far more than that. 150 pastors is nothing. It's far from representative of all of Christendom.

Jason is right on here. All this shows is that we need to pray that the church gets better pastors if there are some that have such little regard for the authority of God's Word. That said, I don't doubt it at all. I know pastors like this myself. They drive me crazy. I just want to say to them "What in the world are you doing trying to call youself a pastor if you don't even believe in the Word of God?"

It's no wonder that you came up with so many different interpretations when well over half of the pastors you interviewed appear to have no regard for the authority of scripture. If that's the case then most of their theology is not coming from the Bible, but from themselves. Most of them probably don't hold to biblical beliefs but some sort of enthusiasm.

I challenge you to interview 150 pastors whom you know to recognize the full authority of scripture. I guarantee you that among them there will be a core consistency of their theology, doctrine and beliefs. There may be some disagreement on certain elements of baptism or predestination or election, but when it comes to the core elements of the faith, they will be united. And that will not be because they are arrogant but because they submit themselves to the Word of God. What's arrogant is to use the Word of God to proof-text your own enthusiasm, which is sadly what a lot of pastors do.



Christians have a bad habit of thinking they have the corner market on God....and each denomination as well. That simply isnt true. Mormons do not deny Christ...they deny the trinity. The trinity is not Biblical...MAN decided that in 325 AD. Fact.....

I certainly can't deny the existence of self-righteous denominations. But Jesus did say that nobody gets to the Father but through Him. When a Christian says that, the world hears it as self-righteousness, but it's not. It's simply recognizing that in Christ God has chosen to reveal the exact representation of His being, as it says in Hebrews. The world doesn't want to hear it because inevitably it tells them they are wrong if they don't believe upon Christ. There is nothing arrogant about saying that Christ is the only way to forgiveness and salvation. Quite to the contrary it is acknowledging that you can't do it.

And Jason and Tree have already established that the Trinity is in fact biblical. I would just tell you to read John 1. Just because the word Trinity is not in there does not mean the concept isn't.


I am not God....so Mormonism is just another part of Christianity to me....as is Jehovahs witnesses and a pile of others. If the do not deny Christ....they are Christian in my book. The rest is up to God.

Mormons don't deny Christ only in the sense that they acknowledge that He lived. But they don't believe His death on the cross accomplished anything, and they assign as much authority to the Book of Mormon as they do to the Bible.


Its all BS...kooky and loony. When we die...all answers will be revealed..and I am sure its going to be far different than we think....

So why is it arrogant for me to say Mormons have been deceived but not arrogant for you to say "It's all BS....kooky and loony." ?

I am not trying to come across as harsh. And in spite of your insinuation otherwise, I really am not questioning your Christianity. You say you believe in the death and resurrection of Christ. Good. But I do think you are denying yourself a great degree of certainty and the gift of growing in God's Word. I am not assuming you don't read the Bible, I am sure you do. But when you recognize the Bible as authoratative and read it in that light then you really grow in your understanding of God and His Word, and your faith is really strengthened. You read it as a Word that makes a claim on you, and not just a book of information and advice.

Take this for what you will. Dismiss me as a fundy kook or take some of my advice. But I really was just trying to challenge you to grow in your faith.

[Pouye]

Which only proves one thing ...

We need to weep and pray that this nation gets better pastors.

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons..."
1 Timothy 4:1-

Some people say that this is not talking about now, but the "later times" was then, too. But the same apostasy is talked about here:

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for [the Day of the Lord] will not come unless the *apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above *every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."
2 Thessalonians 2:3-

The "man of lawlessness" has not yet been revealed, nor has the Day of the Lord happened yet. So the apostasy spoken about in these prophecies will happen not long before these two events. We could be seeing the Great Apostasy happening right before our eyes:

"You should also know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control; they will be cruel and have no interest in what is good. They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. They will act as if they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly...." 2 Timothy 3:1-

I know there is debate about when the "later times" really is, and that some consider the "later times" any time after Jesus rose from the dead. However, I find it interesting that in these verses, the apostles saw this time as a future event that would be near the timing of "the Day of the Lord" (which I know they thought they might see in their lifetime).

Rock

[HumanityisSaved]

Not fact. E, you're a researcher. Go read The Forgotten Trinity by James White:
http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Trinity-James-White/dp/1556617259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256011153&sr=8-1

read T.F. Torrance and his brother J.B. They are the world's premier Trinitarian Theologians of the 20th century.

Read from Thomas F. Torrance: The hristian Doctrine of God- One Being Three Persons, The Mediation of Christ, Space, Time, and Incarnation, Space Time and Resurrection, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church

Read from James B. Torrance: Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace, Where Science and Faith Meet, Jon Duns Scotus in a Nutshell

Also read by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger: God is FOR Us, The Great Dance, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, and Across All Worlds

The word trinity is not in the bible but the doctrine is. Just look at the baptism formula. Jesus prayed to the Father while in his earthly ministry. If we take the belief of Sebalius (modalism) then Jesus is schizophrenic. Its one thing to talk to yourself by thinking outloud its quite another to believe you are talking to another person. The ontological statement made by John: God is Love- implies more than one since the verb used is active not static. Love is in action from one toward another. Genesis: Let us make man in our image. The Hebrew word "One" found in the song over Israel: "Hear O Israel the Lord your God is One" is no the same numeric used to indicate singularity but rather a word used to describe oneness or unity.

The baptism formula of Matt 2819-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” It is of significant import to note that "Go" or "as you go" is the only verb in that passage. Make, baptize, and teach are all modifiers of the verb poreuomia.

The Holy Spirit is in us "crying Abba Father" The Holy Spirit can be grieved. The Holy Spirit gives gifts.

So E you are correct the word Trinity (Trinitas) is not found anywehre in scripture. Tertullian of Carthage is credited with coining the term long before the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325 since he died in 220 just 5 years after Clement.

Jesus is the divine Son of the Father. If he is not we are in serious trouble up a very famous creek without a paddle.

"If Jesus is not God then it is not God that has saved us, If Jesus is not man then it is not man that has been saved."

Remember, it is against the Creeds that the NT was measured and finally cannonized in 451.

Holy (1) Holy (2) Holy (3) is the Lord.

[middletree]

Remember, it is against the Creeds that the NT was measured and finally cannonized in 451.



I was with you until this. I want to emphasize that you had a great post before this; full of excellent points. But the New Testament wasn't verified in 425. It was long, long before that. The various books and letters of the New Testament were understood by Christians to be Scripture long before any Council met. Even 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

The Council of Nicea served to re-affirm what real Christians already knew, and had known, for centuries.

[Evanescence]

I didnt say i did not believe in the Trinity....I was poitning out that the Mormons don't...and why I do not think it is a big deal.

What kind of God demands a perfect faith?

I didnt spell out what i said about the 150 pastors. It was poorly worded. I wrote 2 books on the life of pastors....to which i interviewed 150 pastors...

..and asked that question, as well as other important questions...

Tree, you cant prove that any of the things you mentioned....turning water to wine, walking on water etc etc....actually happened. You believe they did...but that's not a good argument for a "perfect word"...

I believe in a supreme creator...God....call him what you will. But, other than that, there are questions...

Verb, your comments were certianly condescending...

...as are mine at times...

Please prey for me...

[Evanescence]

I was with you until this. I want to emphasize that you had a great post before this; full of excellent points. But the New Testament wasn't verified in 425. It was long, long before that. The various books and letters of the New Testament were understood by Christians to be Scripture long before any Council met. Even 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

The Council of Nicea served to re-affirm what real Christians already knew, and had known, for centuries.

The council of Nicea created the creeds and argued for the trinity. The final choosing of the books of the Bible were decided many yrs later...in the 2nd or 3rd coucil-- 385 AD, I believe.

..and there were several....perhaps as many as 12+ texts that were also used at that time. Many came very close to being included, The Apocolypse of Peter is one...

[HumanityisSaved]

I was with you until this. I want to emphasize that you had a great post before this; full of excellent points. But the New Testament wasn't verified in 425. It was long, long before that. The various books and letters of the New Testament were understood by Christians to be Scripture long before any Council met. Even 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

The Council of Nicea served to re-affirm what real Christians already knew, and had known, for centuries.

Notice I used the word Canonized. I know that the oral preaching about the Word was written down and circulated. Paul’s alludes to this in Colossians (although he never went there Epaphras traveled to Rome (where Paul was imprisoned at the time) to ask him to write the letter to refute the Gnostic teachings that were working their way into the Church there in Colossi and in that letter Paul speaks of his letters being circulated among the churches.

It is true, as you say, that the books Canonized had gained recognized and accepted prominence among the early churches by the Council's convening but not all of those books were canonized. Remember too that the Apostles Creed is an ante-Nicene statement of faith, which I might add played a prominent roll at Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas was accepted in the Asian provinces and it was not canonized. The non-negotiables agreed upon in 325 and later expanded in 381 were the litmus test for books canonized. Further evidence for this is the Easter Letter written by the Great Athanasius in 365 or 7 (can't remember) in which he penned the first known list of the books of the NT as we have them today. Worth noting is that the Great Athanasius was present at the 1st Ecumenical Council and was the pen behind the Creed. I do not disagree with what you are saying but neither do I capitulate my previous statement. I believe we agree on semantics and perhaps differ on syntax.
I take your point and you are correct. I did not intend to imply Ecclesiastical dominance over the understanding of the Early Church by the Councils.

I absolutely LOVE Incarnational/Trinitarian Theology. On a personal note. Prior to coming to see the great implications of first thinking of God as the Triune God in eternal relationship I had read about 15 books in my entire life. Since 2006 I have read over 100 and have nearly 30 more waiting for me on my book shelf. All from Barth, John McLeod Campbell, Thomas Erskine, John Knox, Calvin, Luther, The Torrances, George Wishart, Fenton J.A. Hort, Ray Anderson, Baxter Kruger, Andrew Purves, Peter Toon, Darrel johnson, NT Wright, Elmer Colyer, Michael jinkins, Volf, Seamands, John Owen, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, Mike Feazell, Bert Gary, Robert Capon, Alister McGrath, Gary Deddo, Ignatius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and my the WHOLE NT again! It has literally lit me on fire! Go ahead Jesus!

[middletree]

I didnt say i did not believe in the Trinity....I was poitning out that the Mormons don't...and why I do not think it is a big deal.

You're right. The Mormon's biggest problem is believing they will one day be God (the men, anyway), which is buying into the lie that the serpent told Eve.


Tree, you cant prove that any of the things you mentioned....turning water to wine, walking on water etc etc....actually happened.


I never said I could prove they happened. I can't prove anything. I can't prove you exist. I can't prove tires are made of rubber. At some point, you believe. And my point in saying those things was that your belief, that God somehow failed to preserve His written word over the years, is indefensible to me.

Please prey for me...

You mean pray, not prey.
I think. ;)

[Jesuslove]

Verb, your comments were certianly condescending...



E,
Don't take it personal. That's the way he operates. Those who don't see eye to eye with him are obviously wrong. :rolleyes:

[VerbumReale]

Verb, your comments were certianly condescending...
.


I sincerely did not mean them to come across that way and apologize if they did. But I am just saying that I believe that certainty in the Biblical witness of Christ can be found. You yourself believe in the resurrection of Christ and the Trinity and that shows that you have found some of that certainty, and for that I praise God. But when one believes in the resurrection of Christ then there really is no reason to question anything else in scripture. Jesus Himself says that all scripture testifies of Him. That right there tells me that scripture is reliable.

Yes there is going to be different interpretation and doctrines and theologies. And , I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. But even in the midst of all the diversity of different doctrines there is unity of faith, and yes there is a way that we can discern right teaching from wrong. I am guessing that every one of these 150 pastors you interviewed holds to the ecumenical creeds. That right there shows that even among the diversity of thought that you experienced in your interviews that there was unity in the essentials. And I am guessing that most if not all of those pastors would say that to deviate from the essentials that are expressed in the creeds is to at least run the risk of delving into false teaching.

Again, I did not mean to come acros as arrogant or haughty. That I am able to believe even one word of scripture is purely the result of God's grace. I really am just trying to offer some advice. Take it for what you will.

[Jason]

E,
Don't take it personal. That's the way he operates. Those who don't see eye to eye with him are obviously wrong. :rolleyes:

This statement was uncalled for.

The discussion was between John and VerbumReale, not you.

Jason
Moderator

[Evanescence]

You're right. The Mormon's biggest problem is believing they will one day be God (the men, anyway), which is buying into the lie that the serpent told Eve.



I have heard of this...

I am sure if you scratch around in the Bible, you can find some parable or confusing words to say just about anything, including that.

They may get that from the Joe Smith book...

[Jason]

Christians have a bad habit of thinking they have the corner market on God....and each denomination as well. That simply isnt true. Mormons do not deny Christ...they deny the trinity. The trinity is not Biblical...MAN decided that in 325 AD. Fact.

E, this is the statement which led people to assume that you don't believe in the trinity.

[Grank]

I have heard of this...

I am sure if you scratch around in the Bible, you can find some parable or confusing words to say just about anything, including that.

They may get that from the Joe Smith book...

God's not the author of confusion...

my mom used to tell me that one all the time. thanks mom

each man is allotted a certain amount of faith right? so i guess it's not this threads fault there are some barren patches, i guess...

[Grank]

No its not...not even close.

Its propaganda meant to create an emotional response...

..and it does...

Muslim radicals did those things...

Not Muslims....

Its clear programming...and the sheeple eat it up and aloow their emotions to run amuck...

because muslim radicals aren't muslim... just like squares aren't rectangles...

[Evanescence]

E, this is the statement which led people to assume that you don't believe in the trinity.


Yes..and I am only baout 99% convincedd on the trinity. But I do not think it matters....following Christ's teaching does...and submission to his plan of salvation.

[HumanityisSaved]

it is impossible to know oneself accurately and entirely without knowing God

[Musicdude]

What kind of God demands a perfect faith?


A perfect God.

It doesn't mean He'll disown you because of a misinterpretation. But He does expect (no demand) you to learn the truth in His word, and if you will truly put aside preconcieved ideas and biases, and just objectively let the Holy Spirit teach you from the word of God, you will get the truth. I don't have to say it, but I will anyway. Of course, none of us get this right all the time. But that doesn't make it less of a requirement of God.


Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
Eph 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
Eph 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

[Musicdude]

Yes..and I am only baout 99% convincedd on the trinity. But I do not think it matters....following Christ's teaching does...and submission to his plan of salvation.

Christ teaches the trinity.

Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

That one verse makes it clear that Jesus believed Himself that there was a Father and a Holy Spirit aside from Himself.
He also makes it clear that He and the Father are one.

Joh 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

[HumanityisSaved]

But He does expect (no demand) you to learn the truth in His word,

Or perhaps wants you to know THE Truth (Jesus) who is also THE Word

Matt 11:27

[Jason]

Yes..and I am only baout 99% convincedd on the trinity. But I do not think it matters....following Christ's teaching does...and submission to his plan of salvation.

Does it matter to your initial salvation? Probably not. But God desires that you know Him more and more each day. Part of that knowing is knowing His true nature, which includes that He's a triune God.

[HumanityisSaved]

Does it matter to your initial salvation? Probably not. But God desires that you know Him more and more each day. Part of that knowing is knowing His true nature, which includes that He's a triune God.

It matters in all matters. Why are we here? How did we fall? Did God change in the fall? What is his plan for us? and on and on it goes.
It is essential to all soteriology in that we may know the one who saves and why.

Believing in the Trinity does not change any objective truths but most surely affects the subjective/ personal experience of THE Truth.

We are called to know the Great I-AM who only knows and will be known as the Great I-Am that he is.

[Valpo]

It matters because the Divine Name by which God has been revealed is a name that language buffs like me like to argue means "The One who causes to be." YHWH is the One who causes all to be. So I agree with humanity that it matters and it matters for salvation. Absolutely. Undeniably. Jesus, the Son, identifies Himself in this way (Ego Eimi). And the Holy Spirit proceeds forth.

Who is God? What has God done? Those two questions matter for salvation. If the Trinity doesn't necessarily matter for salvation than who are we to say Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses aren't Christian? They "believe in Jesus" too.

[HumanityisSaved]

It matters because the Divine Name by which God has been revealed is a name that language buffs like me like to argue means "The One who causes to be." YHWH is the One who causes all to be. So I agree with humanity that it matters and it matters for salvation. Absolutely. Undeniably. Jesus, the Son, identifies Himself in this way (Ego Eimi). And the Holy Spirit proceeds forth.

Who is God? What has God done? Those two questions matter for salvation. If the Trinity doesn't necessarily matter for salvation than who are we to say Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses aren't Christian? They "believe in Jesus" too.

I agree Valpo- that is why Christian Theology is corollary to personal ontology and so each of us must to some degree apprehend the Ontological Trinity in order to grasp the Economic Trinity. As you say, Who is this God and what is He doing?
That is why "Who is Jesus?" should be the basis for every theological question. For example on these boards we read threads with such titles as "Are we bound to the Ten Commandments?" For me the first theological question regarding the Ten C's is not whether we are bound to them but rather; "Who is this God that first spoke the Ten C's to Israel?"

To speak the name of Jesus is to say Holy Trinity and not just Holy Trinity but Trinity and Humanity in union through the anhypostatic and enhypostatic union of the God/Man- Toward us God showers total assymetrical love. Which as Barth says commands a response from the beloved albeit perceived to be insufficient our response is being made for us by the Vicarious Man Jesus so it is in effect perfect reciprocation of the Triune Life shared with all humanity. Trinitarian Theology (mind you not just a doctrine of the Trinity) is the most beautiful thing I have ever pondered.

Go ahead Jesus!

[Valpo]

I agree Valpo- that is why Christian Theology is corollary to personal ontology and so each of us must to some degree apprehend the Ontological Trinity in order to grasp the Economic Trinity. As you say, Who is this God and what is He doing?
That is why "Who is Jesus?" should be the basis for every theological question. For example on these boards we read threads with such titles as "Are we bound to the Ten Commandments?" For me the first theological question regarding the Ten C's is not whether we are bound to them but rather; "Who is this God that first spoke the Ten C's to Israel?"

To speak the name of Jesus is to say Holy Trinity and not just Holy Trinity but Trinity and Humanity in union through the anhypostatic and enhypostatic union of the God/Man- Toward us God showers total assymetrical love. Which as Barth says commands a response from the beloved albeit perceived to be insufficient our response is being made for us by the Vicarious Man Jesus so it is in effect perfect reciprocation of the Triune Life shared with all humanity. Trinitarian Theology (mind you not just a doctrine of the Trinity) is the most beautiful thing I have ever pondered.

Go ahead Jesus!

To flesh this language thing out a bit more...there is this tense in Hebrew called the Hifil which carries with it a meaning of causation. We know from the word Hallelujah that the first syllable of the divine name is "Yah." If we are to believe that when God tells Moses, "I Am who I Am" that the "I Am" there is the same verb from where we get YHWH (Rock and Sam back me up or admonish me, I say they are the same verbs because we know wav and yod to be interchangeable letters in Hebrew due to the evolution of the language). So anyway, we can deduce from the I Am statement and knowing "Yah" is the first syllable how the rest of the verb/Name lines up and how it is marked with the vowels. I contend, along with others, that YHWH is a hifil verb/Name because of the vowel markings we could deduce from a full reading.

What does this all mean? Just a bunch of words to re-iterate what I said before, that the Divine Name, the Name of this God we worship means that He causes everything to be. Not only is it just that but we know this God is sacramental, in that He comes directly to His people and gives them their needs. This God is incarnational, dwelling amongst His people and even remaining with His people to this very day. This is why it matters.

I too rejoice with you, Humanity. I can't claim to know how God is triune, but I trust that God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

[Jason]

Humanity and Valpo, I totally agree with all the theology you presented. But here's what I'm struggling with ... what do we need to know to be saved?

Paul tells us:

NIV Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where's the part that says "you must know God is a triune God"? The word "Lord" is kurios which has the primary definition of "master." So we need to say that Jesus is master of our lives and believe in the resurrection to be saved, right? What more is needed for our justification?

Of course, justification is the first step to entire salvation (including sanctification and glorification). But if we are justified and then immediately die, will we not the enter the loving arms of our Savior?

[Valpo]

Humanity and Valpo, I totally agree with all the theology you presented. But here's what I'm struggling with ... what do we need to know to be saved?

Paul tells us:

NIV Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where's the part that says "you must know God is a triune God"? The word "Lord" is kurios which has the primary definition of "master." So we need to say that Jesus is master of our lives and believe in the resurrection to be saved, right? What more is needed for our justification?

Of course, justification is the first step to entire salvation (including sanctification and glorification). But if we are justified and then immediately die, will we not the enter the loving arms of our Savior?

Jason, I hear you on the struggle. One thing to keep in mind when the NT authors speak of Jesus as kurios, Lord, it is not in the sense of some master, but Jesus is being equated to LORD-YHWH. Now, this is where Oneness folks trip up because they can see the Jesus=LORD connection, but what they miss are the scriptures calling Jesus Son of the Father as well. And our Third member, the helper, the friend, the Spirit which came.

It goes back to that question, "Who is Jesus?" Again I can't at all begin to explain the trinity, but I know it's real. But then again I take Jesus at his word when he says, "This is my body...This is my blood" so I'm weird I guess.

[HumanityisSaved]

Humanity and Valpo, I totally agree with all the theology you presented. But here's what I'm struggling with ... what do we need to know to be saved?

Paul tells us:

NIV Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where's the part that says "you must know God is a triune God"? The word "Lord" is kurios which has the primary definition of "master." So we need to say that Jesus is master of our lives and believe in the resurrection to be saved, right? What more is needed for our justification?

Of course, justification is the first step to entire salvation (including sanctification and glorification). But if we are justified and then immediately die, will we not the enter the loving arms of our Savior?

Jason, in Trinitarian Theology (mind you not just a doctrine of the Trinity) it is recognized that salvation is spoken of in the NT witness in three tenses: past, present, and future so that we may see salvation as not just an event but a process ongoing. I tell people I WAS saved by Jesus in his Incarnation, I am BEING saved now, and at some future time I WILL be saved. I think we stumble over Paul's rhetoric and also we have trouble in our Greek-minded dualism with the word "be". Paul uses this word in many places where it seems to make no sense. Take II Cor 5. Paul says we ARE reconciled and so reconciled that we have even been given the ministry of reconciliation, yet he goes on to say so therefore BE reconciled. Is he mad? Quite the opposite Paul is speaking of the objective/ subjective truths here and what we do in the West is that we immediately translate "be" into "become". If some said to me "be a man" they are not demanding that I somehow obtain a y chromosome or grow facial hair and otherwise take on the anatomy of a male- no indeed they are imploring me to act like (subjectively) that which I already am (objectively). The same is true with confessing Jesus as lord and believing he was raised from the dead. Of course anyone who confesses those tenants of the Christian faith will begin to behave as one who is saved and start experiencing the freedom of the Father's love in which they were embraced in the person of Jesus.
Jesus is the Savior of the World and He is the Lord of the Cosmos (Kosmos) I do not make him my Savior or my Lord in the objective sense but I must receive His salvation and submit to His Lordship in the subjective/ personal sense. Or one might prefer to say in order to experience that salvation. Paul said all things had been reconciled to the Father things whether in heaven or on earth. Not all will partake in their salvation and reconciliation after all Jesus ends the tale of the Prodigal with the older brother still outside refusing to come in to the celebration. Of note though, the story ends with the Father outside with the older brother still entreating him to join the party.
I Tim. 4:10 Jesus is the Savior of ALL mankind, especially those who believe. Now that is real good news!

[Evanescence]

"I am what I am...and that's what I am..." Popeye

[Jason]

Jason, in Trinitarian Theology (mind you not just a doctrine of the Trinity) it is recognized that salvation is spoken of in the NT witness in three tenses: past, present, and future so that we may see salvation as not just an event but a process ongoing. I tell people I WAS saved by Jesus in his Incarnation, I am BEING saved now, and at some future time I WILL be saved. I think we stumble over Paul's rhetoric and also we have trouble in our Greek-minded dualism with the word "be". Paul uses this word in many places where it seems to make no sense. Take II Cor 5. Paul says we ARE reconciled and so reconciled that we have even been given the ministry of reconciliation, yet he goes on to say so therefore BE reconciled. Is he mad? Quite the opposite Paul is speaking of the objective/ subjective truths here and what we do in the West is that we immediately translate "be" into "become". If some said to me "be a man" they are not demanding that I somehow obtain a y chromosome or grow facial hair and otherwise take on the anatomy of a male- no indeed they are imploring me to act like (subjectively) that which I already am (objectively). The same is true with confessing Jesus as lord and believing he was raised from the dead. Of course anyone who confesses those tenants of the Christian faith will begin to behave as one who is saved and start experiencing the freedom of the Father's love in which they were embraced in the person of Jesus.
Jesus is the Savior of the World and He is the Lord of the Cosmos (Kosmos) I do not make him my Savior or my Lord in the objective sense but I must receive His salvation and submit to His Lordship in the subjective/ personal sense. Or one might prefer to say in order to experience that salvation. Paul said all things had been reconciled to the Father things whether in heaven or on earth. Not all will partake in their salvation and reconciliation after all Jesus ends the tale of the Prodigal with the older brother still outside refusing to come in to the celebration. Of note though, the story ends with the Father outside with the older brother still entreating him to join the party.
I Tim. 4:10 Jesus is the Savior of ALL mankind, especially those who believe. Now that is real good news!

Thanks but you didn't really answer my questions.

[HumanityisSaved]

Thanks but you didn't really answer my questions.

You need know nothing to be saved in the objective sense. You are saved in the finished work of the Last Adam.

In the subjective sense you need to know that you are saved and who Jesus is to really know who you are and to be (experience) your salvation- to live and play in the freedom of the Father's embrace within the Divine relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit into which you were adopted long ago along with all humanity.

[Jason]

You need know nothing to be saved in the objective sense. You are saved in the finished work of the Last Adam.

In the subjective sense you need to know that you are saved and who Jesus is to really know who you are and to be (experience) your salvation- to live and play in the freedom of the Father's embrace within the Divine relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit into which you were adopted long ago along with all humanity.

All humanity was adopted into God's family?

[HumanityisSaved]

All humanity was adopted into God's family?

What implications do the first Adam have for all of humanity?
Is Jesus not the Last Adam.

Is not Jesus "the Savior of all mankind especially those who believe"?

Did not the Father "reconcile ALL things to himself through the blood of Jesus' cross"?

Did not Paul say that it is "IN Jesus that we live and move and have our being"?

Is it not the eternal purpose of God to adopt us as sons and daughters?

Is not the objective work of Christ "finished"

Did not ALL die when Jesus die?

One may be adopted and not know it or want to participate in the family as it were so there is again an objective/ subjective side to this.

"No syntax contains its own semantics, realities come before words and not the other way 'round" T.F. Torrance to James Barr.

[Jason]

What implications do the first Adam have for all of humanity?
Is Jesus not the Last Adam.

Is not Jesus "the Savior of all mankind especially those who believe"?

Did not the Father "reconcile ALL things to himself through the blood of Jesus' cross"?

Did not Paul say that it is "IN Jesus that we live and move and have our being"?

Is it not the eternal purpose of God to adopt us as sons and daughters?

Is not the objective work of Christ "finished"

Did not ALL die when Jesus die?

One may be adopted and not know it or want to participate in the family as it were so there is again an objective/ subjective side to this.

"No syntax contains its own semantics, realities come before words and not the other way 'round" T.F. Torrance to James Barr.

I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are confusing.

[HumanityisSaved]

I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are confusing.

I am sorry. I suppose it is more than I may hastily write on a MB. Get a copy of "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam" by Dr. C.Baxter Kruger and that will light your Christology up! I promise. If you don't like the book I'll buy it from you myself.

[middletree]

It is my view that the only people in the post-Jesus era who can be described as God's children are Christians. Jesus was God's only begotten Son, and we are adopted into His family when we become saved.

[Jason]

It is my view that the only people in the post-Jesus era who can be described as God's children are Christians. Jesus was God's only begotten Son, and we are adopted into His family when we become saved.

Yes, thus why I'm confused by ...

you were adopted long ago along with all humanity.

(emphasis mine)

[Grank]

hmmm... terminology difference??? we all agree that the path for our salvation was paved long ago when Jesus died... it's the accepting part that our salvation hinges on

[Valpo]

I think I am following Humanity here:

Objectively: Since Jesus is the lone savior of the world and since he came and died for all, then objectively the world/creation/all things were justified/restored by his death and resurrection.

Subjectively: The moment of coming to faith (or baptism) when the individual person is saved/justified/redeemed on account of what Jesus accomplished objectively for the sake of the world.

[HumanityisSaved]

I think I am following Humanity here:

Objectively: Since Jesus is the lone savior of the world and since he came and died for all, then objectively the world/creation/all things were justified/restored by his death and resurrection.

Subjectively: The moment of coming to faith (or baptism) when the individual person is saved/justified/redeemed on account of what Jesus accomplished objectively for the sake of the world.

That is it and further: in the Incarnation something radical happens to humanity in the anhypostatic AND enhypostatic union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ where humanity is changed and the eternal Triune Life of God is "earthed". Again one of the best books on the planet is "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam".

[Jason]

That is it and further: in the Incarnation something radical happens to humanity in the anhypostatic AND enhypostatic union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ where humanity is changed and the eternal Triune Life of God is "earthed". Again one of the best books on the planet is "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam".

You lose most your audience (or at least me) when you use words like anhypostatic and enhypostatic. And I am, by no means, dumb.

[HumanityisSaved]

You lose most your audience (or at least me) when you use words like anhypostatic and enhypostatic. And I am, by no means, dumb.

Jason, no disrespect but go look it up. Karl Barth said that among Christians there should be no non-theologians.

The hypostatic union of God and Man in the person of Jesus Christ is foundational to Christ-centered theology.

An- means before or original so anhypostatsis means that the man Jesus is a one-off production there was not pre-existing human being that God simply "possessed" in the Incarnation.

en- means "in" enhypostasis refers to the humanity of Jesus having REAL being in Jesus.

The conversation the Patristics had about the Hypostatic Union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was a result of it's wresteling out a ground and grammar for talking about the Incarnation and addressing the heresies that so threatened the Church.

[middletree]

Jason, no disrespect but go look it up. Karl Barth said that among Christians there should be no non-theologians.


Dude, I have two college degrees and have studied Scripture for decades, and you lost me when you said that. I find the above statement (about knowing theology) to be a true one. You can know your theology and still use words that don't cause most readers' eyes to glaze over.

[Pouye]

Dude, I have two college degrees and have studied Scripture for decades, and you lost me when you said that. I find the above statement (about knowing theology) to be a true one. You can know your theology and still use words that don't cause most readers' eyes to glaze over.

I think it is funny, coming from a theologian, that he thinks all Christians should be theologians. That is like an anthropologist believing all Christians should be anthropologists, or a Bible Scholar believing all Christians should be Bible Scholars. What is important to Karl Barth and other theologians can be learned without any of their jargon or even sitting through one class!

It is the Holy Spirit who guides believers into all truth, not theologians or Bible Scholars. There are illiterates who probably know more about theology than Karl Barth. The study of God is both done in the mind and in practice, the latter being the better school. Jesus taught about God in the most basic ways. He taught about service by washing feet, He taught about giving by using examples of generosity, He taught about grace by dispensing it. He was the best teacher in the world -- far better than Karl Barth or any other theologian -- and guess what: He didn't ever use giant words or teach courses at a Seminary. He used real-life lessons. I believe all Christians should become intimate with God and know Him. But to say that intimacy must come from gaining the kind of knowledge that Karl Barth teaches or has studied is false.

Some theologians really think they know a lot about God only to find that in practice they don't know diddly squat about true intimacy with God, and therefore don't know God well at all. I've read the works of several theologians who have very little faith because their theology doesn't allow for it. I was shocked that some theologians think that prayer is just an exercise of obedience, and in reality they do not affect God or the course of events in any way. What a crock of crap!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-theologian. But I wounder just how great a theologian the disciple John or the other disciples were in Karl Barth's world. Did they stack up? Would they have made it through his Seminary courses with high marks, being fishermen of Galilee? I'm not sure they would have. Did they know God? Yes. Did they understand God? To a high degree, yes. Were they theologians? Not like Karl. They were superior to Karl, knowing God not through text books and theories, but through intimacy and practice. Not that Karl doesn't have a good relationship with God, but I can tell you it is inferior to the relationship the disciple Jesus loved had.

Rock

[HumanityisSaved]

I think it is funny, coming from a theologian, that he thinks all Christians should be theologians. That is like an anthropologist believing all Christians should be anthropologists, or a Bible Scholar believing all Christians should be Bible Scholars. What is important to Karl Barth and other theologians can be learned without any of their jargon or even sitting through one class!

It is the Holy Spirit who guides believers into all truth, not theologians or Bible Scholars. There are illiterates who probably know more about theology than Karl Barth. The study of God is both done in the mind and in practice, the latter being the better school. Jesus taught about God in the most basic ways. He taught about service by washing feet, He taught about giving by using examples of generosity, He taught about grace by dispensing it. He was the best teacher in the world -- far better than Karl Barth or any other theologian -- and guess what: He didn't ever use giant words or teach courses at a Seminary. He used real-life lessons. I believe all Christians should become intimate with God and know Him. But to say that intimacy must come from gaining the kind of knowledge that Karl Barth teaches or has studied is false.

Some theologians really think they know a lot about God only to find that in practice they don't know diddly squat about true intimacy with God, and therefore don't know God well at all. I've read the works of several theologians who have very little faith because their theology doesn't allow for it. I was shocked that some theologians think that prayer is just an exercise of obedience, and in reality they do not affect God or the course of events in any way. What a crock of crap!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-theologian. But I wounder just how great a theologian the disciple John or the other disciples were in Karl Barth's world. Did they stack up? Would they have made it through his Seminary courses with high marks, being fishermen of Galilee? I'm not sure they would have. Did they know God? Yes. Did they understand God? To a high degree, yes. Were they theologians? Not like Karl. They were superior to Karl, knowing God not through text books and theories, but through intimacy and practice. Not that Karl doesn't have a good relationship with God, but I can tell you it is inferior to the relationship the disciple Jesus loved had.

Rock

Have you read Karl Barth? Do you even know what it means that among Christians there should be no non-theologians?

Everyone even an athiest has a theology. Having a theology may be stagnant but if we are growing in grace and knowledge then implies a dynamic attitude toward theology and in any case what is that knowledge about?- It is about who God is and who we are as a result (Imago Dei). Theology just means God-Knowledge and if anyone is actively growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ then they are a theologian. Karl Barth is considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century by the way. Trust me when I say that an illiterate will struggle to understand Barth let alone what he understood about the intra-Triune life of God. But its a moot point anyway. If someone wishes to be ignorant they are free in Christ to remain so, if someone chooses to tackle the question before the Church (Who is Jesus?) then more power to them.

[middletree]

I agree that we all have a theology. I don't think that means we have to throw around 50-cent words.

[HumanityisSaved]

I agree that we all have a theology. I don't think that means we have to throw around 50-cent words.

Learning a vocabulary for a discussion about the deeper matters of theology is part of the game if one chooses not to play that is one's choice. But one must leave others to their participation in the discussion and if one desires to go deeper in their "growing in grace and theology" then one benefits from expanding the glossary of terms within one's "God Knowledge" vocabulary.

Why use the term incarnation? Why say Trinity? Why not just take the time to say "that thing where God became man" Or why not say "That thing about God existing in union eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit."?

Why say toilet? Why not just say "that thing in the bathroom where you answer the biological need to expel waste byproducts from the body"

The terms I use are not 50 cent words to me any more because I not only know them I understand their implications and I submit that most in the early church could have run theological circles around us today.

Most of my fellow Christians that I know are so lazy it is pathetic and they say things like "I don't need all that study stuff or I don't like to read" but all the while they are entertaining themselves to death in front of the TV or the PS3. It truly is sad.

All of us need to study. All of us need to read. We need read our Bibles and we need read the Patristics and the other great theologians who have wrestled out a Christ-centered theology.

You can't even know what Paul meant in Eph 5:21-24 with studying theology, Greek, and some history about the time period in which he lived.

I wish more people would realize what an advantageous day in which we live. The early church would have given anything to have as much information and shared writing as have we in the church today and here sit we; idly by complaining about the terminology that the early church spent their lives developing without computers, internet, air-travel, email, telephones etc...

Seriously!

[middletree]

Again, I'm all for learning all about Scripture. I disagree with you about the words. You can take the idea to extremes with your toilet example if you want, but it's just proof that you know your point isn't a good one. Most english-speaking people know what you mean when you say toilet, so it's not necessary to use the long definition you helpfully provided. Hypostatic union, however, doesn't fall into the category of words that are commonly known.

Your post seems to indicate that you don't get the distinction between knowing theology (a good thing) and using words which will throw most people off (not helpful).

But hey, if it makes you feel good to know those words, knock yourself out.

[Grank]

are you people so lazy that you can't visit google and type in hypostatic? you can even copy and paste if you feel so inclined (it's what i did).
instead of thanking the man for broadening your vocab you attack him for his use of a term that's been around for quite a long time. it's not his fault you don't know what it means...

if you are too lazy to look it up here is an excerpt from wiki:
"Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις, {"[h]upostasis"}, "hypostasis", translated reality or person)[1][dubious – discuss] is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. It became official at the Council of Ephesus, which stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, "hypostasis") of Christ."

apparently it is also a sedimentary deposit that is found in urine as well... but i don't think that's the meaning you're going for.

[middletree]

Pointing out that his words seem elitist and will throw some readers off does note equate with laziness. We are acknowledging facts. In this case, the fact that most people will see his statements and not want to look anything up, and therefore he will essentially only be speaking to the choir. If you want to say something that will affect change, you should speak their language. See Paul's example at Mars Hill in Acts 17.

[HumanityisSaved]

Pointing out that his words seem elitist and will throw some readers off does note equate with laziness. We are acknowledging facts. In this case, the fact that most people will see his statements and not want to look anything up, and therefore he will essentially only be speaking to the choir. If you want to say something that will affect change, you should speak their language. See Paul's example at Mars Hill in Acts 17.

Can you explain to me what paul means in Acts 17:28? Since you cited that chapter.

[middletree]

Some translations of that verse say we are God's children. Two things to be noted here:

1. The context makes me believe that Paul is referring to people who believe in Jesus, not the nonbelievers he is speaking to; and
2. The Greek word for children there doesn't necessarily mean children. It is G2085 heterodidaskaleo
to instruct differently: - teach other doctrine (-wise).


Contrast that with Romans 8:16:
Romans 8:16 "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God"

In that verse, the word Children is G5043--teknon
From the base of G5098; a child (as produced): - child, daughter, son.

Just as important, in the verses just before that one, Romans 8:14-15, it says very clearly that only believers are children of God:

Romans 8:14 "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."


Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Romans 8:15 "...you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"


So we get to call God "daddy", but only because of adoption. As I don't need to point out, to adopt means to take someone who was originally not part of your family, and bring them into your family.

Conclusion: Not all humans are God's children.

[cheewiee]

Can you explain to me what paul means in Acts 17:28? Since you cited that chapter.

What James, is referring to I believe, was the way Paul presented his message to people using terms and examples that were not tied to Christianity, but to those in Athens.

Hypostatic Union, for example is a word that we don't really see in scripture, but a term coined to explain a mystery. Why do we need such a word? Why must we put terms on the relationship of the Trinity, when clearly its a mystery. Could this itself be creating an image of God?

I don't know... personally I am ok with somethings being left a mystery... like how Three persons can occupy one substance...

[Musicdude]

You can't even know what Paul meant in Eph 5:21-24 with studying theology, Greek, and some history about the time period in which he lived.
Yes you can, because it is not by our intellect that we come to understand the deeper things of God. It is by the Holy Spirit, and to say otherwise is not only false, but arrogant. God didn't inspire and preserve His word only for the Ivory tower residents.

I wish more people would realize what an advantageous day in which we live. The early church would have given anything to have as much information and shared writing as have we in the church today and here sit we; idly by complaining about the terminology that the early church spent their lives developing without computers, internet, air-travel, email, telephones etc...

Seriously!
I doubt that the early church envies us because of the internet or any other technology. They "got" Jesus' metaphores and analogies much easier than we do. The didn't have to study the original languages, they spoke them naturally. They didn't need to make sure and take into account the context of the letters from Paul, they were living the context. They didn't need to study the culture. They were born and raised in the culture.

So I would say it was easier for an illiterate child back then to really get what Jesus was talking about than for the most learned modern-day theologian.



But that's just my opinion and does not reflect the views of the corporation. :cool:




1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no man may boast before God.

This is not a call to be simple. But it is certainly a call to be humble, realizing that the only reason you understand anything about God is because He chooses to reveal certain truthes to you through the Holy Spirit, not because of your own efforts. And because of this humility you would not assume to have a closer relationship with God, or more of God's favor based on your vocabulary or ability to exegete scripture.


And remember, Paul had been in the ivory tower and down in the ditches at the time when he wrote this.
He had spent his life learning the details of the law, only to find out from personal revelation that the message of God to mankind is really quite simple. And God was well-pleased with it's simplicity.

[Jason]

Thank you middletree, Pouye, cheewiee, and Musicdude.

[Jason]

I doubt that the early church envies us because of the internet or any other technology. They "got" Jesus' metaphores and analogies much easier than we do. The didn't have to study the original languages, they spoke them naturally. They didn't need to make sure and take into account the context of the letters from Paul, they were living the context. They didn't need to study the culture. They born and raised in the culture.

So I would say it was easier for an illiterate child back then to really get what Jesus was talking about than for the most learned modern-day theologion.


Amen.

[Musicdude]

Thank you middletree, Pouye, cheewiee, and Musicdude.

Hey, I didn't know what anhypostatic and enhypostatic meant either. I knew what hypostatic meant, but only because the pastor at my old church was big into $0.50 words as well.

None of those words are in my bible though, so I doubt my relationship with God was hindered because I didn't know them.

[HumanityisSaved]

Some translations of that verse say we are God's children. Two things to be noted here:

1. The context makes me believe that Paul is referring to people who believe in Jesus, not the nonbelievers he is speaking to; and
2. The Greek word for children there doesn't necessarily mean children. It is G2085 heterodidaskaleo
to instruct differently: - teach other doctrine (-wise).


Contrast that with Romans 8:16:
Romans 8:16 "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God"

In that verse, the word Children is G5043--teknon
From the base of G5098; a child (as produced): - child, daughter, son.

Just as important, in the verses just before that one, Romans 8:14-15, it says very clearly that only believers are children of God:

Romans 8:14 "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."


Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Romans 8:15 "...you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"


So we get to call God "daddy", but only because of adoption. As I don't need to point out, to adopt means to take someone who was originally not part of your family, and bring them into your family.

Conclusion: Not all humans are God's children.

Paul is talking to pagans in Acts 17 here is how you know that:
--Are believers worshiping an "unknown god?
--Are Christians meeting in the Hellenistic center of the pantheon and pagan philosophy?
--The people there thought his teaching was "strange" Christians would not have thought Paul's teaching to be so odd.
--Some of them BECAME believers.
--In fact most of these Pagans still thought he was crazy at the end of the day.
--He even says "some of your own poets" am I to suppose that some of "their poets" were believers?

Also the word heterodidaskaleo is not present in Acts 17. Genos however is the word translated offspring. Genos race. 1a offspring. 1b family. 1c stock, race, nation. (This according to my English/ Greek Interlinear New Testament.)

A thorough Christ-centered understanding of the Incarnation of the Word will clear all that up. An understanding of Jesus as the Last Adam (vicarious humanity) is key here too. That is why understanding the implications of the God/Man Union (hypostatic union) are so critical to correct our thorough going wrong-headedness in the West. Paul says that when the One died ALL died. Further he says ALL have been reconciled. He says that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind especially those who believe. Paul tells us that from Jews and Gentiles Jesus had made ONE NEW humanity. These issues are all taken up and dealt with in the Patristic mind. We needn't do the spade-work of our Fathers but we may consider and further their work and also we must articulate it to those who have not heard.

This book is a must for every Christian- Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word of God.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.c.htm

[Musicdude]

I wonder if Bill Maher knows what the word anhypostatic means?

[middletree]

Paul is talking to pagans in Acts 17 here is how you know that:

I was very clear, IMO, that I knew he was talking to unbelievers, but that the "we" in his sentence was not including his listeners. I have no idea why you feel the need to educate me on something I already know. Plus, the word for children there doesn't even necessarily mean children, as I already explained. Just like I explained that other NT passages use different words for children.

[HumanityisSaved]

I wonder if Bill Maher knows what the word anhypostatic means?

I dont know but bet he has sense enough to look it up if he cared.

Listen you are comparing apples to oranges. Surely no one would begin a conversation with a nonbeliever with the deeper language of theology however; that appears to be what you think me to have done but I never did that here. Every person involved in this discussion is "a seasoned Christian" (Some even have TWO degrees):D So your complaint is either misplaced or at once a confession of Christian infancy. Please do not take this as a value statement it is merely an observation.

[middletree]

Also the word heterodidaskaleo is not present in Acts 17. Genos however is the word translated offspring. Genos race. 1a offspring. 1b family. 1c stock, race, nation. (This according to my English/ Greek Interlinear New Testament.)

Not according to my Strong's.

A thorough Christ-centered understanding of the Incarnation of the Word will clear all that up.

What you mean is "an understanding of my interpretation will clear it up". Sorry. Not buying it. It is clear all through the NT that there are saved and there are unsaved people.

[HumanityisSaved]

I was very clear, IMO, that I knew he was talking to unbelievers, but that the "we" in his sentence was not including his listeners. I have no idea why you feel the need to educate me on something I already know. Plus, the word for children there doesn't even necessarily mean children, as I already explained. Just like I explained that other NT passages use different words for children.

What suppose you genos/ offspring to mean?

[Jason]

I dont know but bet he has sense enough to look it up if he cared.

Listen you are comparing apples to oranges. Surely no one would begin a conversation with a nonbeliever with the deeper language of theology however; that appears to be what you think me to have done but I never did that here. Every person involved in this discussion is "a seasoned Christian" (Some even have TWO degrees):D So your complaint is either misplaced or at once a confession of Christian infancy. Please do not take this as a value statement it is merely an observation.

We are seasoned Christians, not seasoned owners of theology degrees. Notice I didn't say theologians. I can be a theologian (one who has knowledge of God) without ever knowing what hypostasis means.

[Musicdude]

I dont know but bet he has sense enough to look it up if he cared.

Listen you are comparing apples to oranges. Surely no one would begin a conversation with a nonbeliever with the deeper language of theology however; that appears to be what you think me to have done but I never did that here. Every person involved in this discussion is "a seasoned Christian" (Some even have TWO degrees):D So your complaint is either misplaced or at once a confession of Christian infancy. Please do not take this as a value statement it is merely an observation.

All I am saying is it is possible to idolize the word of God.

A close relationship with the Holy Spirit prevents this.

There are a million opinions about God, some from very intelligent men, and some from men who are clueless.

I want to learn about God from God, not from another man. I did that for years, and I had to unlearn a lot when I finally decided I didn't need someone to tell me what God's word says.

[HumanityisSaved]

Not according to my Strong's.



What you mean is "an understanding of my interpretation will clear it up". Sorry. Not buying it. It is clear all through the NT that there are saved and there are unsaved people.

You are missing the point all together and I don't see this conversation anywhere but mired.

It is not "my interpretation" It is the combined spade-work of the early Fathers: Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post , and later great men such as Anselm, Calvin, Owen, McLeod-Campbell, Wishart, Luther, Knox, MacDonald, Barth, T.F. Torrance, James Torrance, and other modern Trinitarians who are alive and well today.

I did not concoct this in my basement. And my guess is that you would struggle to articulate to me my interpretation of the Incarnation. I am saying that my guess is that you have not read a single book dedicated wholly to the subject. (again not a value statement jsut an observation) This is not personal I want you and everyone else to see that we must read and study for ourselves. It is part of Christian discipleship. "Among Christians there should be no non-Theologians"

[HumanityisSaved]

All I am saying is it is possible to idolize the word of God.

A close relationship with the Holy Spirit prevents this.

There are a million opinions about God, some from very intelligent men, and some from men who are clueless.

I want to learn about God from God, not from another man. I did that for years, and I had to unlearn a lot when I finally decided I didn't need someone to tell me what God's word says.

I actually worship the word of God! If you are not willing to learn from others then why listen to a sermon each week? Why have pastors? I love learning from my pastor- I may not always agree with him but he is in dialoge challenging me.

[middletree]

What suppose you genos/ offspring to mean?

What do you suppose adoption means?

[cheewiee]

All I am saying is it is possible to idolize the word of God.

A close relationship with the Holy Spirit prevents this.

There are a million opinions about God, some from very intelligent men, and some from men who are clueless.

I want to learn about God from God, not from another man. I did that for years, and I had to unlearn a lot when I finally decided I didn't need someone to tell me what God's word says.

J.I. Packer... probibly one of the premier theologians of our time.. (Sorry, but I still can't believe Humanitiy is Saved brought up Barth in a discussion about the importance of right belief)said in the introduction of Knowing God that there is a HUGE difference between knowing God, and knowing about God. and it is very possible to know a great deal about God, but not know God at all.

[middletree]

You are missing the point all together and I don't see this conversation anywhere but mired.

It is not "my interpretation" It is the combined spade-work of the early Fathers: Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post , and later great men such as Anselm, Calvin, Owen, McLeod-Campbell, Wishart, Luther, Knox, MacDonald, Barth, T.F. Torrance, James Torrance, and other modern Trinitarians who are alive and well today.

You're telling me that all the above believe that all humans are saved? Seriously?

[HumanityisSaved]

We are seasoned Christians, not seasoned owners of theology degrees. Notice I didn't say theologians. I can be a theologian (one who has knowledge of God) without ever knowing what hypostasis means.

Sure but the more you know the deeper you understanding goes. I am amazed at what I perceive as a resistance to learning here.

There was a time when I did not even know what the word Incarnation meant. I was thrilled to learn that. Same with the grammar of deeper theology. Besides if one reads widely from Barth, Torrance, McGrath, Anderson, Colyer, Kruger, Deddo, Purves, and others one's vocabulary will naturally increase. This is the last post for me on this thread. Perhaps I joined the wrong message board. I thought there'd be at least a few people on here that could at least tolerate a good theological discussion not rail against such a thing. My mistake.

[Musicdude]

What suppose you genos/ offspring to mean?

Why does my the Textus Receptus use the word"γενος" (genos), and the notes from my other versions refer to the word "ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω" (heterodidaskaleō) ?

[Musicdude]

J.I. Packer... probibly one of the premier theologians of our time.. (Sorry, but I still can't believe Humanitiy is Saved brought up Barth in a discussion about the importance of right belief)said in the introduction of Knowing God that there is a HUGE difference between knowing God, and knowing about God. and it is very possible to know a great deal about God, but not know God at all.

A lot of languages have two different words for those two different types of knowing.

In Spanish it's "conocer" and "saber."

[middletree]

Sure but the more you know the deeper you understanding goes. I am amazed at what I perceive as a resistance to learning here.
Perhaps I joined the wrong message board. I thought there'd be at least a few people on here that could at least tolerate a good theological discussion not rail against such a thing. My mistake.


Thing is, you're misunderstanding what we have been saying. Nobody dislikes theology. I just don't see the point in using uncommon words.

[Musicdude]

I actually worship the word of God! If you are not willing to learn from others then why listen to a sermon each week? Why have pastors? I love learning from my pastor- I may not always agree with him but he is in dialoge challenging me.

A pastor is not primarily a teacher.
There is a gift of pastor, and a gift of teacher. They aren't the same.

I don't go to church every sunday just to listen to sermons. I can do that anytime I want to. In fact I am in charge of putting all of my pastor's sermons on the web, so they are all on my laptop and I can listen to them whever I please. Not to mention there are a vast number of other other pastor's who post their sermons to the web as well. So I don't have to go to church to hear a sermon, and if that's all that happened at my church, I wouldn't go.

[cheewiee]

A pastor is not primarily a teacher.
There is a gift of pastor, and a gift of teacher. They aren't the same.

I don't go to church every sunday just to listen to sermons. I can do that anytime I want to. In fact I am in charge of putting all of my pastor's sermons on the web, so they are all on my laptop and I can listen to them whever I please. Not to mention there are a vast number of other other pastor's who post their sermons to the web as well. So I don't have to go to church to hear a sermon, and if that's all that happened at my church, I wouldn't go.

You have really come a LONG way from our first exchanges on the boards here...

[Musicdude]

Sure but the more you know the deeper you understanding goes. I am amazed at what I perceive as a resistance to learning here.

There was a time when I did not even know what the word Incarnation meant. I was thrilled to learn that. Same with the grammar of deeper theology. Besides if one reads widely from Barth, Torrance, McGrath, Anderson, Colyer, Kruger, Deddo, Purves, and others one's vocabulary will naturally increase. This is the last post for me on this thread. Perhaps I joined the wrong message board. I thought there'd be at least a few people on here that could at least tolerate a good theological discussion not rail against such a thing. My mistake.

You will know them by their fruits, not by their vocabulary.

No one is knocking a good theological discussion. But don't tell me I have to read any book other than the bible to know anything and everything God has revealed to mankind. There is a reason it was written in the common tongue. It was meant for everyone to be able to read it for themselves. Luther understood this quite well. And I'm not even a Lutheran.

[Musicdude]

You have really come a LONG way from our first exchanges on the boards here...

Yeah, I was pretty arrogant back then. I didn't realize it at the time, of course.

[Jason]

Sure but the more you know the deeper you understanding goes. I am amazed at what I perceive as a resistance to learning here.

There was a time when I did not even know what the word Incarnation meant. I was thrilled to learn that. Same with the grammar of deeper theology. Besides if one reads widely from Barth, Torrance, McGrath, Anderson, Colyer, Kruger, Deddo, Purves, and others one's vocabulary will naturally increase. This is the last post for me on this thread. Perhaps I joined the wrong message board. I thought there'd be at least a few people on here that could at least tolerate a good theological discussion not rail against such a thing. My mistake.

I'm amazed at your resistance to wanting to be understood. Theology doesn't need 50-cent words. And I'm truly saddened that this is your last post on this thread.

Not all people choose to read widely from Barth, Torrance, McGrath, Anderson, Colyer, Kruger, Deddo, Purves, and others. Perhaps they choose to read widely from the Bible and John Wesley (for example).

[middletree]

Perhaps I joined the wrong message board. I thought there'd be at least a few people on here that could at least tolerate a good theological discussion not rail against such a thing. My mistake.

What's funny is that this thread contains many posts where you and I discuss the theology of who falls into the category of God's children. We both presented verses, quoted the Greek on a few words, etc. And then you say that nobody is interested in a theological discussion. I guess I don't know what your definition of a theological discussion is.

[Jason]

J.I. Packer... probibly one of the premier theologians of our time.. (Sorry, but I still can't believe Humanitiy is Saved brought up Barth in a discussion about the importance of right belief)said in the introduction of Knowing God that there is a HUGE difference between knowing God, and knowing about God. and it is very possible to know a great deal about God, but not know God at all.

I've written about it also:


Knowing God

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3

Jesus came to earth so that we might have eternal life. But what exactly is eternal life?

Most would say it means we will live forever. While that’s true, eternal life means more than that.

According to Jesus, eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3).

Many people say they know God. But what they often mean is that they know about God. Knowing someone and knowing about someone are completely different ideas.

I can say I know about George W. Bush. I can state all sorts of facts about him. He lives in the White House. He loves baseball. He eats peanut butter and jelly sandwiches without the bread crust. He went to school at Yale.

I know about George W. Bush, but I don’t know him. I may know what he likes to eat for lunch, but I’ve never sat down and shared a lunch with him. I may know what he looks like, but he couldn’t distinguish me from anyone else.

People may know God exists, but many haven’t sat down and shared time with Him. Their Jesus looks good in a picture on the wall, but they haven’t really built a relationship with Him.

Evangelical Christians use the catch-phrase, “It’s not a religion. It’s a relationship.” The reason this phrase became so catchy is that it's true. Religion consists of rules and ceremonies. While Christians do have rules and ceremonies, our focus needs to aim higher. God desires to have a relationship with us. He wants us to spend time with Him. He wants us to share our hopes and dreams with Him. He wants us to run to Him when we’re afraid and call to Him when we need counsel.

Eternal life means knowing God more and more each day.

Do you know God? Or do you know about God?

-From the book Just Passing Through: Notes from a Fellow Traveler by Jason Mitchener

[Valpo]

Jason,

Did I answer your questions? If not, highlight where I did not and I'll do my best to answer them.


BTW pastor AND teacher, not two separate offices there. The Greek has but one article for both words. That is if we are talking about Ephesians 4.

[cheewiee]

Jason,

Did I answer your questions? If not, highlight where I did not and I'll do my best to answer them.


BTW pastor AND teacher, not two separate offices there. The Greek has but one article for both words. That is if we are talking about Ephesians 4.

You can't say that with any certainty.. there are very educated scholars on both sides of the fence on the pastor, teacher and the Pastor-teacher argument...

[Jason]

Humanity and Valpo, I totally agree with all the theology you presented. But here's what I'm struggling with ... what do we need to know to be saved?

Paul tells us:

NIV Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where's the part that says "you must know God is a triune God"? The word "Lord" is kurios which has the primary definition of "master." So we need to say that Jesus is master of our lives and believe in the resurrection to be saved, right? What more is needed for our justification?

Of course, justification is the first step to entire salvation (including sanctification and glorification). But if we are justified and then immediately die, will we not the enter the loving arms of our Savior?

Jason, I hear you on the struggle. One thing to keep in mind when the NT authors speak of Jesus as kurios, Lord, it is not in the sense of some master, but Jesus is being equated to LORD-YHWH. Now, this is where Oneness folks trip up because they can see the Jesus=LORD connection, but what they miss are the scriptures calling Jesus Son of the Father as well. And our Third member, the helper, the friend, the Spirit which came.

It goes back to that question, "Who is Jesus?" Again I can't at all begin to explain the trinity, but I know it's real. But then again I take Jesus at his word when he says, "This is my body...This is my blood" so I'm weird I guess.

Valpo, thanks for your reply. If we agree that kurios equates Jesus with YHWH here, then we're still missing the Holy Spirit in this verse. So is knowing that God is a triune God essential for initial salvation?

[Valpo]

You can't say that with any certainty.. there are very educated scholars on both sides of the fence on the pastor, teacher and the Pastor-teacher argument...

Eh, I feel I can. I'm not holding any person to it strictly though. Just commenting as one who knows the language. Maybe Rock views this differently than I.

I think it necessitates that a pastor is also a teacher/educator of the faith. The Pastor cannot be separated from teaching. There may be Christian teachers, we have them in the Lutheran Church for example, but the pastor is certainly an educator/teacher and I think that is what Paul is saying in this passage. He doesn't seem to be indicating two separate offices in this context.

[Jason]

Eh, I feel I can. I'm not holding any person to it strictly though. Just commenting as one who knows the language. Maybe Rock views this differently than I.

I think it necessitates that a pastor is also a teacher/educator of the faith. The Pastor cannot be separated from teaching. There may be Christian teachers, we have them in the Lutheran Church for example, but the pastor is certainly an educator/teacher and I think that is what Paul is saying in this passage. He doesn't seem to be indicating two separate offices in this context.

So there are separate teachers, but you don't separate a pastor from a pastor/teacher?

[Valpo]

Valpo, thanks for your reply. If we agree that kurios equates Jesus with YHWH here, then we're still missing the Holy Spirit in this verse. So is knowing that God is a triune God essential for initial salvation?

Matthew 28 ought to take care of that issue I would think, Jason. Jesus gives a command to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now oneness people cite Acts and the whole just baptizing in the name of Jesus. But I don't know that Acts is a place where we should necessarily be making doctrinal arguments out of. Plus they are right, you are baptized into the Name of Jesus, but again, who is Jesus? Who is God? Scripture indicates it's more than just the Son. At Jesus' baptism we see/hear from all three persons at the same time. And again at the transfiguration we see the Father interacting with the Son. And Jesus also says He is sending His helper to the church after He ascends.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by initial salvation. But I would argue that yes salvation necessitates a belief in the triune God. We're required to baptize in that way. Jesus gives us a clear command in Matthew 28 as to how baptisms are to be done, in Acts we get a story narrative, not a command to the church.

Plus I've always thought Acts 2:38 was taken out of context by oneness folks because Peter is clearly talking about the Triune God in his whole sermon here. He distinguishes between receiving the Spirit, God's foreknowledge, Jesus' work on the cross. How God raised Jesus. God here is clearly the Father as He is put as the One who raised this Jesus. Peter telling the folks to be baptized in the Name of Jesus just draws the contrast between that baptism and John's baptism. It does not negate the proper way of baptizing in a trinitarian formula. It talks about how this baptism gives its main benefit, the remission of sins, and the Holy Spirit which seems to be this other mysterious person of God. In addition to that even the end of Luke Jesus distinguishes between Himself and the Father. Also distinguishes that He is not a Spirit but flesh and bones. Jesus, the second person is God incarnate in creation. God Himself is a Spirit, not flesh and bones. And the Holy Spirit is this faith bringing thing that sustains the church militant on earth. I would be hesitant to say Luke is contradicting himself in Acts after in the Gospel distinguishing the 3 persons.

The fullness of God is the Triune One. All 3 articles of the creed matter, not just the 2nd one. And I would even be so bold to say the 1st article (I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth) is served by the 2nd article. Jesus' work is about redeeming all of creation, which God is the maker of.

Now whether I believe in the Holy Trinity or whether I understand how this can be are two separate issues. I do not understand how God can be 3 in 1, but scripture testifies to this quite clearly. As does the early church with a 3 part creed, distinguishing the persons. I also believe Jesus' body and blood are truly present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Again there I just go with what scripture testifies to and don't try to rationalize it. There is no explaining that, and there is no explaining the Trinity. If you notice people usually get themselves into trouble (see heresy) when they begin to explain things. Those who try to explain the nature of God fall into that camp.

[Valpo]

So there are separate teachers, but you don't separate a pastor from a pastor/teacher?

Yeah we have parochial schools and do not require one to be ordained in order to teach the faith necessarily. But we do require pastors to also be educators and chief teachers of the faith. This may or may not fly over your head (I'm hoping it doesn't just trying to help you understand how we do what we do), but we (LCMS) see the Office of the Holy Ministry, in which there is a pastor. And then there are extensions of that office, or there are auxiliary offices, under the pastors supervision. So we have evangelists, we have youth leaders, we have teachers, etc., etc. But they are all under the supervision of the pastoral office.

And I'm strictly speaking to the context of Ephesians 4 saying right here St. Paul is not distinguishing between Pastor and teacher, that he is speaking of one thing.

[Jason]

Matthew 28 ought to take care of that issue I would think, Jason. Jesus gives a command to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now oneness people cite Acts and the whole just baptizing in the name of Jesus. But I don't know that Acts is a place where we should necessarily be making doctrinal arguments out of. Plus they are right, you are baptized into the Name of Jesus, but again, who is Jesus? Who is God? Scripture indicates it's more than just the Son. At Jesus' baptism we see/hear from all three persons at the same time. And again at the transfiguration we see the Father interacting with the Son. And Jesus also says He is sending His helper to the church after He ascends.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by initial salvation. But I would argue that yes salvation necessitates a belief in the triune God. We're required to baptize in that way. Jesus gives us a clear command in Matthew 28 as to how baptisms are to be done, in Acts we get a story narrative, not a command to the church.

Plus I've always thought Acts 2:38 was taken out of context by oneness folks because Peter is clearly talking about the Triune God in his whole sermon here. He distinguishes between receiving the Spirit, God's foreknowledge, Jesus' work on the cross. How God raised Jesus. God here is clearly the Father as He is put as the One who raised this Jesus. Peter telling the folks to be baptized in the Name of Jesus just draws the contrast between that baptism and John's baptism. It does not negate the proper way of baptizing in a trinitarian formula. It talks about how this baptism gives its main benefit, the remission of sins, and the Holy Spirit which seems to be this other mysterious person of God. In addition to that even the end of Luke Jesus distinguishes between Himself and the Father. Also distinguishes that He is not a Spirit but flesh and bones. Jesus, the second person is God incarnate in creation. God Himself is a Spirit, not flesh and bones. And the Holy Spirit is this faith bringing thing that sustains the church militant on earth. I would be hesitant to say Luke is contradicting himself in Acts after in the Gospel distinguishing the 3 persons.

The fullness of God is the Triune One. All 3 articles of the creed matter, not just the 2nd one. And I would even be so bold to say the 1st article (I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth) is served by the 2nd article. Jesus' work is about redeeming all of creation, which God is the maker of.

Now whether I believe in the Holy Trinity or whether I understand how this can be are two separate issues. I do not understand how God can be 3 in 1, but scripture testifies to this quite clearly. As does the early church with a 3 part creed, distinguishing the persons. I also believe Jesus' body and blood are truly present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Again there I just go with what scripture testifies to and don't try to rationalize it. There is no explaining that, and there is no explaining the Trinity. If you notice people usually get themselves into trouble (see heresy) when they begin to explain things. Those who try to explain the nature of God fall into that camp.

Thank you. I agree with everything you said here. What I meant by initial salvation is the point at which if said person dies at that moment they would still enter the arms of a loving Savior. The thief on the cross knew very little theology but Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

[Jason]

Yeah we have parochial schools and do not require one to be ordained in order to teach the faith necessarily. But we do require pastors to also be educators and chief teachers of the faith. This may or may not fly over your head (I'm hoping it doesn't just trying to help you understand how we do what we do), but we (LCMS) see the Office of the Holy Ministry, in which there is a pastor. And then there are extensions of that office, or there are auxiliary offices, under the pastors supervision. So we have evangelists, we have youth leaders, we have teachers, etc., etc. But they are all under the supervision of the pastoral office.

And I'm strictly speaking to the context of Ephesians 4 saying right here St. Paul is not distinguishing between Pastor and teacher, that he is speaking of one thing.

I understand. I am a teacher (by gifting not formal recognition by men) but not a pastor.

[Musicdude]

Jason,

Did I answer your questions? If not, highlight where I did not and I'll do my best to answer them.


BTW pastor AND teacher, not two separate offices there. The Greek has but one article for both words. That is if we are talking about Ephesians 4.

I've heard that explanation before. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

Pastors do teach, but that is far from their only responsibility. Also there are those with the gift of teacher who are not called as pastors.


edit: After reading your following posts, I see what you mean, and I agree.
I just know that some pastors make teaching their only responsibility and their flock suffers as a result. So while I'll agree that a pastor is a teacher, I would add that a pastor is not only a teacher, and also a teacher is not necessarily a pastor.

[middletree]

Matthew 28 ought to take care of that issue I would think, Jason. Jesus gives a command to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now oneness people cite Acts and the whole just baptizing in the name of Jesus. But I don't know that Acts is a place where we should necessarily be making doctrinal arguments out of.

The Oneness people say the fact that Matt says the name, not names, of the Father, Son and Spirit, proves their point.

For the record, I am not a Oneness guy, just telling you what they say to that line of reasoning that you brought up.

And for the record, although I am Trinitarian, I see no Scripture which indicates that one must be a Trinitarian to be saved. The Trinity is the correct view of God, but it's not a salvation requirement.

[Valpo]

And for the record, although I am Trinitarian, I see no Scripture which indicates that one must be a Trinitarian to be saved. The Trinity is the correct view of God, but it's not a salvation requirement.

I don't really understand this logic. If the Trinitarian God is the true God of scripture, then who is this "god" the oneness folks believe in? Not the one true God, that's for sure. So why do unitarians or oneness folks get a free pass? Because they "believe in Jesus?" Who is Jesus? Who is God? God is more than just Jesus, the Apostles Creed has three parts remember. The Nicene Creed was established because of a unitarian/oneness heresy, and then of course there is the Athanasius Creed. These were not mere suggestions by the early (yes I consider 200 plus years into the adventure early, even though some date the Apostles Creed to possibly as early as around 100 A.D., possible the Apostle John was still around) church, this was establishing who the real God is. Not "how" the real God "is." But "who."

If we allow unitarians to believe in a false god, who are we to say Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, gnostics, Muslims and other religions who "believe in Jesus" but don't worship the true God are not Christian/saved? I know the answer, "because at least unitarians/oneness folks believe in the real Jesus and believe that He is God and died on the cross to save our sins, that's why, these other guys don't believe in the "real Jesus."

What kind of response is that really though? Is God just about the Son? Or is God also about the loving Father and the Holy Spirit who brings to faith and enlivens the church? We do not have just a second article creed, we have a 3 part creed, and just because one part may be longer than the rest does not equal different levels of importance. I see no difference between this "real Jesus" or "real God" unitarians believe in over against the "real Jesus" these other religions believe in.

Again, it is not about understanding how this can be, it's about having faith in the one true God. In the OT we see God dealing with Israel rather harshly not just for sin, but for whoring themselves out to other gods. Seems like God is rather interested in us believing in the one true God. If God is Trinitarian, which God is, then the unitarians believe in a false god. We should be encouraging them/praying for their conversion and not giving them a free pass while having an opinion about other religions who "believe in Jesus."

[middletree]

Valpo, your entire post lacked one thing: scripture. Find me a scripture that says one must have the correct belief about the Trinity and that verse needs to mention salvation.

You just gave me 3 paragraphs of Valpo logic. I need more than that to be convinced.

[cheewiee]

So oneness is very different from many of the other non-trinitarian chrisian based religions... They see God the Father, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit, all 1, but that they are only 1 incarnation at any given time. (atleast that's how I understand it)

Mormans, and JW's outright deny the eternal divinity of Christ.

[Valpo]

Valpo, your entire post lacked one thing: scripture. Find me a scripture that says one must have the correct belief about the Trinity and that verse needs to mention salvation.

You just gave me 3 paragraphs of Valpo logic. I need more than that to be convinced.

Well no it doesn't. Because "my" entire "logic" is grounded in scriptural truth. You said it yourself, the Trinitarian view is the correct one. Therefore the Trinitarian God is the one true God. This means unitarians believe in a false god if they do not believe in the one true God. You must believe in the one true God in order to be saved. I stand with the universal church on this, the onus would be on you to prove otherwise that someone who believes in a false god is saved. God is not just Jesus. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture testifies to this quite clearly.

I also showed upstream how Peter is preaching about the triune God and then calls the folks to believe in that. Jesus says we are to be born again by water and the Spirit and Jesus gives a command as to how to baptize, in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not flesh and bones, the Father's name is not Jesus. The Spirit is not flesh and bones, the Spirit's name is not Jesus. Yet somehow, miraculously, mysteriously, they are One. This is all scriptural. This did not fall out of the sky at Nicea.

[middletree]

Because "my" entire "logic" is grounded in scriptural truth. You said it yourself, the Trinitarian view is the correct one.

So far, I agree.

But the leap from the above to this:

This means unitarians believe in a false god if they do not believe in the one true God. You must believe in the one true God in order to be saved.

And that's where I am unconvinced. Again, I agree with you that the trinity is the correct doctrine. I haven't seen any salvation verses which said we have to have all the right things lined up in our doctrinal viewpoints to be saved.

And for this I am grateful. Because I doubt that anyone has all the right doctrines about everything.

Perhaps we should start a thread in the Word forum, since this has little to do with Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

[Grank]

*Randy dies at the age of 72, being saved on his death bed*

*Peter opens book, sees Randy's name*

Peter: Well Randy, you cut that one pretty close, huh?

Randy: I guess you could say that I did. I only wish that I would have gotten saved earlier in my life, so I could share God with more people.

Peter: You're on the list so head on in. Oh, and watch out for Samson... he always pats the n00bs on the back... REALLY hard

*Peter opens gate*

Randy: Praise Jesus!!

Peter: Wait just one second. You mean praise God the Father, God the Son and God's Holy Spirit, right?

Randy: Well yeah... i mean... Jesus died for my sins.

Peter: hmmm... are you a unitarian or trinitarian???

Randy: Um... I'm a Christian...

*Peter slowly closes gate*

Peter: I'm gonna have to call the manager...

[VerbumReale]

*Randy dies at the age of 72, being saved on his death bed*

*Peter opens book, sees Randy's name*

Peter: Well Randy, you cut that one pretty close, huh?

Randy: I guess you could say that I did. I only wish that I would have gotten saved earlier in my life, so I could share God with more people.

Peter: You're on the list so head on in. Oh, and watch out for Samson... he always pats the n00bs on the back... REALLY hard

*Peter opens gate*

Randy: Praise Jesus!!

Peter: Wait just one second. You mean praise God the Father, God the Son and God's Holy Spirit, right?

Randy: Well yeah... i mean... Jesus died for my sins.

Peter: hmmm... are you a unitarian or trinitarian???

Randy: Um... I'm a Christian...

*Peter slowly closes gate*

Peter: I'm gonna have to call the manager...

Apples and oranges.


You're missing Valpo's point. I mean by your logic, why should Randy even be expected to identify Jesus as the Son of God, as long as He knows that Jesus died for his sins? Somebody who was saved on their death-bed more than likely would not have been exposed to the biblical witness of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one. Randy would still be a believer in the one true God, he just wouldn't have been exposed to the Trinitarian element of who God is, but neither did he deny it. He just didn't know about it.

But for someone who has heard and read this witness and still deny it, they are denying an essential element of the Word of God. They would essentially be denying Jesus' claim that He and the Father are one. This would be a denial, in form at least, of the one true God.

[Valpo]

Grank not even close, buddy.

[Grank]

Grank not even close, buddy.

it was more of a joke, but whatever... please explain how it's not close... there isn't any conclusion in my post... the manager didn't show up to clear the mess yet...

anyway, i'm pretty sure i read somewhere in here that the trinitarian philosophy was nec for salvation... am i incorrect?

God made everything, Jesus saved us and the Holy Spirit helps us... i don't think i know any Christians that disagree with that...


I would add that belief in the one true God does not equal salvation... you have to go through Jesus... I mean "...whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." Him being God's son of course. seems pretty simple to me...