What do you classify yourself as and what do you define that as?

[Ratt Mhule]

I can’t speak for your mother, of course. But as for myself I feel sorry for people who are atheists. I don’t think they are necessarily bad people. I suspect many simply haven’t put themselves in a position to experience the grace and gifts of God. Or perhaps they’ve heard, been exposed, and learned all they needed, but it just didn’t happen for them. Which is really unfortunate. For them.

 

Or maybe your god is lazy and hasen't revealed himself in a coherent enough manner to be taken seriously. Or maybe it's worse than that. Maybe your god actually hates atheists and wants us to burn in hell. Ever think of that? Ever do a quick study of predestination?

 

And I'm sorry, but feeling bad isn't good enough. If you think I'm about to roast alive forever thanks to your loving god, I need to see some emotion, here. I don't think you really mean it.

Ha ha! Oh, I don't feel bad about anything. It's your choice. If you had an open mind about things, I'd be glad to share with you to help you along a path that I know is right. If that's what you really wanted. But the thing is, Husker_X, you give me the impression that you don’t actually want to learn, or experience, or find out the truth. You just want to ridicule and argue. You are far too intelligent to have faith in God, or so you think. So I am not sure what’s going to happen to you when you die. Good luck with that, though.

 

I don't know where to start. This post is so wrong on so many levels. You believe Husker_X is going to hell, and you laugh about it? And say oh well, have fun? You kidding me Nuance? The fact you'd laugh about something like that is just wrong. And your job as a Christian is to help Husker_X see God, not ridicule him and laugh at him about his "eternal fate". And like he said himself, he is a soft atheist, which means if he finds God in his own way, he can become a believer again. If he was a strong atheist, then he wouldn't want to learn, experience, or find the truth. This is just from what I gather from my discussions with him. He can correct me if I am wrong.

[Husker_x]

I can’t speak for your mother, of course. But as for myself I feel sorry for people who are atheists. I don’t think they are necessarily bad people. I suspect many simply haven’t put themselves in a position to experience the grace and gifts of God. Or perhaps they’ve heard, been exposed, and learned all they needed, but it just didn’t happen for them. Which is really unfortunate. For them.

 

Or maybe your god is lazy and hasen't revealed himself in a coherent enough manner to be taken seriously. Or maybe it's worse than that. Maybe your god actually hates atheists and wants us to burn in hell. Ever think of that? Ever do a quick study of predestination?

 

And I'm sorry, but feeling bad isn't good enough. If you think I'm about to roast alive forever thanks to your loving god, I need to see some emotion, here. I don't think you really mean it.

Ha ha! Oh, I don't feel bad about anything. It's your choice. If you had an open mind about things, I'd be glad to share with you to help you along a path that I know is right. If that's what you really wanted. But the thing is, Husker_X, you give me the impression that you don’t actually want to learn, or experience, or find out the truth. You just want to ridicule and argue. You are far too intelligent to have faith in God, or so you think. So I am not sure what’s going to happen to you when you die. Good luck with that, though.

 

I don't know where to start. This post is so wrong on so many levels. You believe Husker_X is going to hell, and you laugh about it? And say oh well, have fun? You kidding me Nuance? The fact you'd laugh about something like that is just wrong. And your job as a Christian is to help Husker_X see God, not ridicule him and laugh at him about his "eternal fate". And like he said himself, he is a soft atheist, which means if he finds God in his own way, he can become a believer again. If he was a strong atheist, then he wouldn't want to learn, experience, or find the truth. This is just from what I gather from my discussions with him. He can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Can we internet hug? You're absolutely right. I have no clue, none, nadda, if there is a god or where this universe came from. The only comment I can intelligently make on the subject is that the major religions I've looked at and their sacred texts have given me no reason whatsoever to think the human race has already stumbled onto the answer. When the evidence starts coming in, I fully intend to be one of the first in line to see it.

[Husker_x]

Anyways, back on topic. Husker_x, as I'm sure you're in agreement with (whether or not you will admit it), you are an extremely bright fellow. You challenge me and why I believe what I do on a consistent basis (and I am someone that already does a heck of a lot of that myself), but I personally really think that while you put up a guise of being open to evidence or sound arguments in favor of God, Jesus, Christianity or anything else that isn't kosher with your beliefs, I think it's just that; a guise. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the gospel, which is incredibly surprising to me since you are almost always entirely objective and fair in any other argument.

 

Then educate me. What is the gospel? The real one? I'm going to admit up front, though, that I suspect what you call my 'bad handle' on the gospel is really only our different views of the same information, not a missing piece of it.

 

Maybe you are right, though. Maybe God hasn't revealed himself in practical or evidenced ways; or maybe Romans 1:20 is true and we're making excuses for our rebellion and blindness. Maybe pre-destination is the non-user-friendly version that is, naturally, most popular amongst critics of Christianity, or maybe it's not nearly as unfair or selective as it could possibly be perceived. Have you done any studies in Greek? You probably have actually, I've recently been reading up on it a lot, and have been trying to wrap my head around middle verbs and how they are used in the scripture, some interesting stuff that gives a very different idea of what pre-destination means or consists of.

 

The thing with predestination is you can attack it from two angles: scripturally and philosophically. Where one lags the other picks up the slack. I see no way out of the conclusion, personally. My religious background didn't focus on but definitely included what you might call Calvinism. I am aware that a huge debate wages on the subject, but as I said, in my own understanding, predestination is a pillar of the larger Problem of Evil.

 

Maybe you're going to roast in hell because of the Christian God, or maybe it's your own fault. The Bible makes much more clear that we weren't meant to live sinfully, we weren't meant to live apart from God, and we weren't meant for hell, but we chose and continue to choose ourselves instead of harmony with God, and we bring a just wage of death upon ourselves. Just because God knows what will happen, when it will happen, how it will happen and why, doesn't mean He caused it to happen that way

.

 

I didn't bring it on myself in your view. I was born in sin. The sins of the father were passed down to me. I never had the opportunity to be anything but a guilty, wretched, miserable, damnable, contemptible slithering sinner. And when you say that it doesn't mean God caused to happen that way, are you saying that something happened God didn't cause, that happened apart from his will?

 

I don't really accuse you of this, but as a side-topic, I think the biggest error most of us make (those of faith or lack of faith of any sort) is thinking that we have it all figured out. I am well aware that men with literally triple the amount of wisdom and knowledge I possess have agreed with things I believe in, disagreed with them, changed their minds, converted and the like. I hope that I'm right in believing that I'm not ignorant enough to seriously think I know better than they do.

 

I don't have the burden of having everything figured out, let me make that very clear. If I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be on Huskerboard. Both hemispheres of my genius buttocks would be planted in a Dean of Religious Studies chair at Harvard. Here's the problem with your appeal to authority, though. You seem to be saying you're content that someone smarter than you believes something. This isn't a bad thing all the time. I believe Richard Dawkins when he talks about biology, or Neil Degrass Tyson when he talks about astronomy. The reason I do is that I know the method by which they came by their information on a subject was through a reasoned, documented process that is open to scrutiny and revision, and they're very willing to present their evidence publicly. Now about faith in an invisible God. What do you suppose a smart guy knows that you can't about it? What secrets are they holding onto that you can't have? For me, I would be uncomfortable leaving it at that.

[walksalone]

Heathen

[HUSKER 37]

... My point is to stop looking at others for your validation. You and you alone are responsible for what you do or do not believe.

 

mm0

 

Maybe responsible for..But there ARE other influences.

 

I remember as a teenager being at a friends place and his Mom was watching Jim Baker (or Robert Tilton?) and was actually writing a check to send in..I said something freaky like, "Can't you see their dark soul? Sending them money will only feed that side of them".

 

In my previous post, I included a video posted by an old friend that now minnisters to teenagers in my hometown (FCA).

 

I guess my main concern is the potential such an obvious false (fable) could have on his "kids" and their beliefs.

 

Even when I was a teen, I tried not to let religious "authority figures" influence my beliefs too much but still have trouble believing there is any "Religion" that God would approve of.

 

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

 

My only experience with the Catholic Church was in watching The Blues Brothers and the first time I was a Best Man in a wedding..But I too sensed that Catholics tended to be the most "rebelious" of the bunch..Most of my family was Methodists where the easiest way into Heaven was to make sure you bring a covered dish.

 

But Robsker:

(same name I call my Son sometimes)

 

You state that the purpose of the Church is "not about man and how men are impacted, but rather about God"

 

For what purpose?

Do you really expect God to be impressed by people worshipping him and praising him all the time? Or according to Jesus IIRC just believing in him?

I think that almost insults Him/Her..Thrusting human traits or desires on Him/Her.

 

I consider myself a Christian, but have become skeptical of the faith over the past couple of years. It's hard for me to have faith in the church when itself has been more than evil and inhibitory to progress of the human race (i.e. preaching the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth, etc.).

 

I've taken a step back and looked at the Bible as a whole. Keeping in mind that I believe the church has done more than its' fair share of wrong-doings, who's to say that some clergyman didn't switch a couple of phrases or tweaked a couple of passages in the Bible during the Dark Ages, when nobody knew how to read and write? Heck, maybe they even wrote entire chapters---I don't know.

 

It's little thoughts like these that have been eating away at me, I suppose.

 

 

I'll admit I never had the patience to read all of the Bible..And what little I did read seemed to have some glaring mistakes..(Doesn't everyone have a sort of dejavu from some innate memory when reading the Bible?).

Then my Brother's Wife pulled out an older Bible from her vast collection and showed me a better interpretation of the same passage I was having trouble with. She's even been studying Hebrew and some of the other ancient languages so she can translate some of the older editions more better.

 

It's much more enjoyable discussing faith with her now..the more she's learned, the more open she seems to be to other ideas..I don't remember if it was just her, or also something I saw on the History channel. But the Church had way too much influence on what made it on to the final drafts (of their Bible)..like ommiting all references to Jesus having a Wife..or Children..thinking that made him seem a little more "sinfull" or something.

 

"They" can claim that it was all "inspired" by God, or that he was sitting on their shoulder while they were editing and throwing out so many key chapters, but I think it's much closer to the being the National Enquirer of it's day..with maybe a few "kernals of truth" in there witl a whole lot of embellishments and half-truths thrown in to help control the masses.

[zoogs]

The interesting thing to me has always been - we all consider ourselves to be the open minded ones.

 

Probably a lot less true than we think.

[robsker]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

Good Morning Husker X

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

 

Of course the presupposition that is tacitly utilized here is that the Bible is inspired (God authored the content in and through human instruments), that the content is thereby inerrant, and thus authoritative as truth in all that it declares. To defend that presupposition with concrete and rational data that is very compelling is something that has been done over and over again for over a millennium. There are hundreds (literally) of rational reasons to assert the veracity of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say that there are not those who disagree with the concept. Yet... when I assess the data, the overwhelming weight of evidence sides with an authoritative and inerrant Bible that is authored in the pre-eminent sense by God through human agents.

 

Care to give some examples?

 

I will give some examples perhaps tomorrow. As much as I love to post, today the tyranny of the urgent has me dedicated elsewhere --- also... rather than clog up this thread with pages of stuff... if you are interested I can email you stuff. I am not sure how to go about exchanging email addresses. Is that an accepatable way to continue dialog?

[Husker_x]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

Good Morning Husker X

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

 

Of course the presupposition that is tacitly utilized here is that the Bible is inspired (God authored the content in and through human instruments), that the content is thereby inerrant, and thus authoritative as truth in all that it declares. To defend that presupposition with concrete and rational data that is very compelling is something that has been done over and over again for over a millennium. There are hundreds (literally) of rational reasons to assert the veracity of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say that there are not those who disagree with the concept. Yet... when I assess the data, the overwhelming weight of evidence sides with an authoritative and inerrant Bible that is authored in the pre-eminent sense by God through human agents.

 

Care to give some examples?

 

I will give some examples perhaps tomorrow. As much as I love to post, today the tyranny of the urgent has me dedicated elsewhere --- also... rather than clog up this thread with pages of stuff... if you are interested I can email you stuff. I am not sure how to go about exchanging email addresses. Is that an accepatable way to continue dialog?

 

You can PM me here. I'll send you a PM so it appears on the HB homepage.

[robsker]

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

 

The point of a church is not to sit in a pew on Sunday singing hymns preparing for the afterlife. If that's what you're teaching your congregation you're giving them half a loaf. Your role as a pastor is to model Christ to your congregation, giving them a living example of their goal, which is to model Christ to the world.

 

Stop me when I'm wrong here.

 

The model Christ gave you was not one of sitting around waiting for the afterlife, it was a model of direct contact with those most in need. Christ toured the slums of Palestine healing the sick, teaching the uneducated, working miracle after miracle, providing lesson after lesson. He did not sit on his hands, in one spot, basking in His righteousness.

 

Christ's whole purpose was to change the world - to justify it and make it right with God. That is what you should be teaching your congregation, not some mantra about worship. Worship takes many forms, the least productive of which is to sit in a pew on Sunday. Worship can take the form of building a house for a poor family, gathering coats for the city mission, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or simply talking to a friend in need. These are the actions that naturally spring forth from a Christ-centered life, not a means to justification. I am NOT advocating righteousness through works; rather, I am stating that your faith should naturally produce such works. These actions are not idolatrous in the least. If they were, Christ himself would be an idolator.

 

Again, stop me when I've said something not in keeping with sound Christian doctrine.

 

So, you have (hopefully) a congregation intent on emulating Christ. Where are they going to do this? Heaven? Eventually, but not now. Now they're here, on Earth. Here on Earth is where you are doing your ministry, not in Heaven. Worry about Heaven when you get there. While you're here, do what Christ did.

 

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature (his flesh, from the flesh) will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

 

 

Knapp... I would love to meet you some day... you seem like a great guy.

 

When you say that “Christ's whole purpose was to change the world - to justify it and make it right with God” — the use of the word “whole” is the problem. In fact, there are several purposes that Christ came to earth to accomplish. The pre-eminent, highest order purpose for all that Christ does is to show forth the glory of God. Jesus came to show forth the Glory of the Godhead (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit — 3 in 1; 1 in 3). Most pointedly He came to declare the greatness of His Fathers name (see Ezekiel 36:22ff). What Christ did on the Cross had its highest order motive in His love for His Father. Now... how did He declare the Fathers glory? He did so by living a perfect life on earth and then by dying a sacrificial death on the Cross, by raising again from the dead and by ascending onto the Father. Now, the physical component of His death was a trivial (though real) component of the Cross. But the infinite component of His death on the Cross was spiritual — where He faced the wrath of God for the sins of those for whom He died. Specifically, the sin penalty (which is a hell sentence of agony and pain) for each individual for whom He died (those who are heaven bound) was imputed to Christ’s account (as if He was guilty of their transgressions. And, Christ’s righteousness was imputed into the account of those for whom He died. Thus, Christ, when He went to the Cross essentially served the hell sentence for those for whom He died (we will call them the redeemed) — leaving the “account” of the redeemed free of sin (all the sin having been placed on Christ) and filled with the righteousness that Christ earned for, and gave to them. Thus, the redeemed, upon death are saved.

 

Now... this work on the Cross displays the perfect attributes of God — perfect love, perfect sacrifice. Perfect forgiveness, perfect grace — and maintains the perfect wrath of God against sin (for all sin is penalized) and thus perfect justice is perfectly maintained. God is glorified. This is why Christ came — motivated by the love He has for the Father in declaring and displaying God the Fathers perfections.

 

Now... the means by which Christ displays the Glory of God is in the saving of men. So... it is also Biblical to state that Christ came to save sinners — He did... as the means (not as the primary purpose... but as the means of displaying God’s perfections ... which is the end).

 

As for changing the world? Well... saving men was a secondary consequence of displaying the glory of His Father. And changing the world is a secondary consequence of saving men. So... yes... Christ did come to change the world... but it is not only not the “whole

 

 

You also say “Your role as a pastor is to model Christ to your congregation, giving them a living example of their goal, which is to model Christ to the world.” Of this, as well intentioned as this statement may be... I must say emphatically... no. My privileged role as a Pastor is to show forth the model in the Word of God. That model is Christ. They need no other model. It is there for them to see. As for me? Here is what I tell them — I am a fine model of a wretched sinner, one who is — on his own merits — deserving of hell and capable of only sin and nothing else in my own power. I tell them that I am without hope an unworthy in every sense. I tell them that I am, like they are — in and of myself — deservedly to be condemned. But... Christ died for me. I am forgiven. He has served my hell sentence and He is to be praised. My role as a Pastor is to be cellophane — see through — as if invisible, getting out of the way so as not to obscure Christ. I tell them that if the see anything in my character of value, anything in my conduct as noble, then praise and thank God for anything good in me is God’s Grace though the Holy Spirit and because of Christ worked in me. He is the author of all that is good.

 

When you say “Your role as a pastor is to model Christ to your congregation, giving them a living example of their goal, which is to model Christ to the world.” I must again, respectfully, counter. The goal of the Christian is to worship God. To declare His glory. That is the goal. A goal lived out in His power. The model for the world is not the goal — or even a goal — it is a secondary consequence of worshiping God. Christ tells Peter that if Peter is to love the Lord he is to feed the sheep. To feed the sheep is to serve others. That is, because God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit — Triune) is perfect, He is complete. Because He is complete, He cannot have anything added onto Him or given to Him. That is, we cannot express love to God in anyway that gives or adds on to God. God, in another manner by which His glory has been shown, has chosen to move us to serve others as an expression of our love for Him. So... to love God is to serve others.

 

You are spot on and 100% correct when you say “Christ toured the slums of Palestine healing the sick, teaching the uneducated, working miracle after miracle, providing lesson after lesson. He did not sit on his hands, in one spot, basking in His righteousness.” Quite correct — Christ modeled love for the Father expresses as serving others (and, infinitely more so, love for others — The Cross — as an expression of love for His Father).

 

You were agin spot on when you said “Worship takes many forms, the least productive of which is to sit in a pew on Sunday. Worship can take the form of building a house for a poor family, gathering coats for the city mission, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or simply talking to a friend in need.” What is awesome is this — God moves our hearts to Worship (love Him) and, as we worship, we serve others ... and we benefit as do those around us. In this sense, our worship is God’s gift to us — not our gift to Him (as we can give Him nothing).

 

When you say “ These actions are not idolatrous in the least.” That is true... if the motive in serving others is love for God through Christ. If the motive is anything else (say self-satisfaction, or even the benefit of others w/o reference to love for God through Christ) then the actions are idolatrous (with either self or others as the idol). The actions themselves are not what constitutes idolatry or obedience — the motives driving the actions are determinative.

 

So... to the main issue. The church is not a body dedicated to humanitarian efforts — there are plenty of secular organizations for that. The betterment of the world is not the highest order reality for the church. No... the highest order reality is reveling in the glory of God through Christ, declaring His glory to the world (which is motivated out of love for God and for people and will impact the world — but the focus is God-ward, the expression man-ward), and loving God by loving others. Living as the church should live will make the world a better place. It will be consistent with humanitarian effort but it is driven by loving the Lord by loving people.

 

Well... off to work now. I hope this helps at least clarify one sinners opinions. And, if anyone needs further evidence that I am a sinner... just read my posts about a certain coach named Bo..

[robsker]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

Good Morning Husker X

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

 

Of course the presupposition that is tacitly utilized here is that the Bible is inspired (God authored the content in and through human instruments), that the content is thereby inerrant, and thus authoritative as truth in all that it declares. To defend that presupposition with concrete and rational data that is very compelling is something that has been done over and over again for over a millennium. There are hundreds (literally) of rational reasons to assert the veracity of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say that there are not those who disagree with the concept. Yet... when I assess the data, the overwhelming weight of evidence sides with an authoritative and inerrant Bible that is authored in the pre-eminent sense by God through human agents.

 

Care to give some examples?

 

I will give some examples perhaps tomorrow. As much as I love to post, today the tyranny of the urgent has me dedicated elsewhere --- also... rather than clog up this thread with pages of stuff... if you are interested I can email you stuff. I am not sure how to go about exchanging email addresses. Is that an accepatable way to continue dialog?

 

You can PM me here. I'll send you a PM so it appears on the HB homepage.

 

I apologize for the ignorance, but I am not certain how the PM'ing process works. I know that it is possible... and that it allows us to converse off the board. But how do I access your PM to me... or how do I PM you?

 

Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

[robsker]

... My point is to stop looking at others for your validation. You and you alone are responsible for what you do or do not believe.

 

mm0

 

Maybe responsible for..But there ARE other influences.

 

I remember as a teenager being at a friends place and his Mom was watching Jim Baker (or Robert Tilton?) and was actually writing a check to send in..I said something freaky like, "Can't you see their dark soul? Sending them money will only feed that side of them".

 

In my previous post, I included a video posted by an old friend that now minnisters to teenagers in my hometown (FCA).

 

I guess my main concern is the potential such an obvious false (fable) could have on his "kids" and their beliefs.

 

Even when I was a teen, I tried not to let religious "authority figures" influence my beliefs too much but still have trouble believing there is any "Religion" that God would approve of.

 

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

 

My only experience with the Catholic Church was in watching The Blues Brothers and the first time I was a Best Man in a wedding..But I too sensed that Catholics tended to be the most "rebelious" of the bunch..Most of my family was Methodists where the easiest way into Heaven was to make sure you bring a covered dish.

 

But Robsker:

(same name I call my Son sometimes)

 

You state that the purpose of the Church is "not about man and how men are impacted, but rather about God"

 

For what purpose?

Do you really expect God to be impressed by people worshipping him and praising him all the time? Or according to Jesus IIRC just believing in him?

I think that almost insults Him/Her..Thrusting human traits or desires on Him/Her.

 

I consider myself a Christian, but have become skeptical of the faith over the past couple of years. It's hard for me to have faith in the church when itself has been more than evil and inhibitory to progress of the human race (i.e. preaching the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth, etc.).

 

I've taken a step back and looked at the Bible as a whole. Keeping in mind that I believe the church has done more than its' fair share of wrong-doings, who's to say that some clergyman didn't switch a couple of phrases or tweaked a couple of passages in the Bible during the Dark Ages, when nobody knew how to read and write? Heck, maybe they even wrote entire chapters---I don't know.

 

It's little thoughts like these that have been eating away at me, I suppose.

 

 

I'll admit I never had the patience to read all of the Bible..And what little I did read seemed to have some glaring mistakes..(Doesn't everyone have a sort of dejavu from some innate memory when reading the Bible?).

Then my Brother's Wife pulled out an older Bible from her vast collection and showed me a better interpretation of the same passage I was having trouble with. She's even been studying Hebrew and some of the other ancient languages so she can translate some of the older editions more better.

 

It's much more enjoyable discussing faith with her now..the more she's learned, the more open she seems to be to other ideas..I don't remember if it was just her, or also something I saw on the History channel. But the Church had way too much influence on what made it on to the final drafts (of their Bible)..like ommiting all references to Jesus having a Wife..or Children..thinking that made him seem a little more "sinfull" or something.

 

"They" can claim that it was all "inspired" by God, or that he was sitting on their shoulder while they were editing and throwing out so many key chapters, but I think it's much closer to the being the National Enquirer of it's day..with maybe a few "kernals of truth" in there witl a whole lot of embellishments and half-truths thrown in to help control the masses.

 

Husker 37 --- your question for me is a great one. Very insightful and it warrants an answer. I have to go to work now ... but maybe can play some hookie from the job and answer the question you pose later today. In any event, do not let me off the hook --- your question deserves a serious response. If you have not heard from me within a day or so... post again and make me answer!

 

Robsker

[Husker_x]

 

I apologize for the ignorance, but I am not certain how the PM'ing process works. I know that it is possible... and that it allows us to converse off the board. But how do I access your PM to me... or how do I PM you?

 

Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

 

No prob.

 

If you go to the top of the homepage of Huskerboard.com (but I think this is actually true for every page), there is a little red bar that goes across the screen. On the left hand side you'll see something that says "Signed in as Robsker" next to a picture or a profile of a picture. Click it. A menu will drop down. One of the options in the menu will say "Messneger." Click. I've already sent you a PM, so you can reply to it there.

 

Good luck!

 

EDIT

 

Oh, and by the way, when you say you have pages of stuff to send, it's not a problem, but if it's all the same, I would prefer if we start with one or two of your best examples that you believe best prove your point. Otherwise it can become very time consuming to discuss a typhoon of information. Fair?

[knapplc]

Robsker, I cannot disagree more with the statement that Christ's main purpose was to display the glory of God. If that were the case, Christ would not have humbled himself to be born in a manger, live the mean life of a carpenter, then give that up to live the even lower life of a servant rabbi, and ultimately die on the cross along with common thieves. That is most definitely not representative of God's glory. It's representative of Christ's model of subservience. Christ washed the feet of his disciples - what is glorious about that?

 

God's glory is just the overwhelming awesomeness that is part and parcel to God. He has no need to send his only begotten son to Earth to act as a walking billboard of his glory. The "glory of God" was best represented in the majesty of the host of angels who appeared at Christ's birth. Walking around being glorious is a waste of Christianity. It is a light held under a bushel, or salt without its saltiness. It is of no profit to you or to God to simply model Christ's innate glory.

 

Jesus' purpose on Earth was simple, direct, and well-explained by the Old Testament:

 

Prelude:

God creates everything, and Creation is perfect. God creates man to govern it, and allows man free will. Man uses that free will and turns from God. Man, of his own doing, is no longer right with God, and has created an unbridgeable chasm between himself and his Creator. God provides a covenant through which man can once again be made right with God, bridging that gap. Man breaks the covenant. Lather, rinse, repeat several times, through several covenants, all of which man breaks.

 

Enter Jesus:

Because man cannot, by his sinful nature, maintain a covenant relationship with God, and therefore cannot ever be righteous with God, God takes it upon himself to do the bridging. He creates a New Covenant, a final covenant, the most binding covenant of all, which man cannot break. God sends his only-begotten son to act as a perfect sacrifice, a final sacrifice which will erase all sin which stains man. Christ comes to earth, lives a perfect life, provides the perfect model for how God wants humanity to live, and finally, amidst his perfection, he is killed as that final, perfect sacrifice to atone for sin.

 

That was Christ's purpose here - to be the perfection we could not be, and ultimately to be sacrificed as a perfect offering to God as atonement for our sins.

 

Jesus showed that as a Christian, you must do good for your fellow man. Paul explained it quite succinctly: Faith without works is dead. (James 2) Works are to Faith as holes are to swiss cheese. Without those holes, it's just another cheese. Works do not make you right with God - faith does that - but works are so part and parcel to faith that they cannot be separated. They are one and the same, both utterly necessary.

[robsker]

Robsker, I cannot disagree more with the statement that Christ's main purpose was to display the glory of God. If that were the case, Christ would not have humbled himself to be born in a manger, live the mean life of a carpenter, then give that up to live the even lower life of a servant rabbi, and ultimately die on the cross along with common thieves. That is most definitely not representative of God's glory. It's representative of Christ's model of subservience. Christ washed the feet of his disciples - what is glorious about that?

 

God's glory is just the overwhelming awesomeness that is part and parcel to God. He has no need to send his only begotten son to Earth to act as a walking billboard of his glory. The "glory of God" was best represented in the majesty of the host of angels who appeared at Christ's birth. Walking around being glorious is a waste of Christianity. It is a light held under a bushel, or salt without its saltiness. It is of no profit to you or to God to simply model Christ's innate glory.

 

Jesus' purpose on Earth was simple, direct, and well-explained by the Old Testament:

 

Prelude:

God creates everything, and Creation is perfect. God creates man to govern it, and allows man free will. Man uses that free will and turns from God. Man, of his own doing, is no longer right with God, and has created an unbridgeable chasm between himself and his Creator. God provides a covenant through which man can once again be made right with God, bridging that gap. Man breaks the covenant. Lather, rinse, repeat several times, through several covenants, all of which man breaks.

 

Enter Jesus:

Because man cannot, by his sinful nature, maintain a covenant relationship with God, and therefore cannot ever be righteous with God, God takes it upon himself to do the bridging. He creates a New Covenant, a final covenant, the most binding covenant of all, which man cannot break. God sends his only-begotten son to act as a perfect sacrifice, a final sacrifice which will erase all sin which stains man. Christ comes to earth, lives a perfect life, provides the perfect model for how God wants humanity to live, and finally, amidst his perfection, he is killed as that final, perfect sacrifice to atone for sin.

 

That was Christ's purpose here - to be the perfection we could not be, and ultimately to be sacrificed as a perfect offering to God as atonement for our sins.

 

Jesus showed that as a Christian, you must do good for your fellow man. Paul explained it quite succinctly: Faith without works is dead. (James 2) Works are to Faith as holes are to swiss cheese. Without those holes, it's just another cheese. Works do not make you right with God - faith does that - but works are so part and parcel to faith that they cannot be separated. They are one and the same, both utterly necessary.

 

Knapp...

 

You are most interesting. And insightful. You are intriguing as you claim for yourself agnosticism. Yet you are a very thoughtful agnostic in that you have considered deeply things Christian. That is cool to see. Rare as well.

 

I wonder, should we continue our discourse on a PM so as not to unnecessarily impose our conversation on others? Husker X just taught me how to use the PM thing --- which was nice of him. So, would you mind PM'ing me and we can continue there? Or do you think it best in this forum?

 

For what it is worth, we have more in agreement than is evident on initial perusal of our points. And I would love to continue talking... just wonder if PM would be better.

[knapplc]

I dislike PMs. I get a million of them via Mod duties. I'd prefer to converse in the forum, if that's OK with you.