Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 241 of 295 (526557)
09-28-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Izanagi
09-28-2009 10:22 AM


Re: The existence of Hell
quote:
some information
Information? If readers have to be told that posts offer information, posts are liable to be considered disinformation, surely. So let's see, shall we?
quote:
that might be relevant.
It might be a deliberate red herring, too. We shall see about that, too.
quote:
From what I know, evangelicals believe in the hell of fire and brimstone.
Now, isn't that strange? The previous post, referring to all traditional theology, contains the comment: 'Literal flames are left to the fundamentalists of the USA.' There appears to be an overwheming desire to confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism at the earliest sign of danger. But perhaps that's a misleading appearance, and this comment should not be taken as an irrational attack on a religious movement that cannot be dealt with in an academically respectable manner.
quote:
Judaism, from which Christianity is derived
This is not information- it is fundamental ignorance. Judaism gets its name from Judah, and its modern character from Mosaic Law. As is clear from the New Testament, Christianity is founded upon the promise to Abraham, who lived before either Judah or Moses, and is premised upon the failure of Mosaic Law! It is Judaism that is liable to be the modern upstart, the wayward sect, if either religion is. Pull the other one.
quote:
there is no hell in the Christian sense.
If Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, then hell is quintessentially Christian, because Christ, descended from Judah and David, spoke about hell like no-one before or since- and there is no record of any Jew questioning his statements on hell, as there is of others. Even in the Old Testament/Tanach, there are unmistakable signs that there would be punishment for evils committed in this life in an afterlife. Indeed, the whole rigmarole of Tabernacle and Temple worship, the 600+ laws of Moses, the promises to the patriarchs, are meaningless if there is no afterlife, with consequences of the actions of this life to be met with in that afterlife. This is what Jewish contemporaries of Jesus believed, and if modern Jews back-track on that issue, they may do so for less than admirable reasons.
But this is truly a culpable red herring, because the topic concerns evangelicals, who are by no means alone in believing in hell. Hell is built into the creeds that all but evangelicals recite weekly! As has been stated before in this thread, the topic does not concern the correctness of evangelical belief, but the manner in which evangelicals (or people mistaken for evangelicals) apply this belief in their dealings with others. Poster, read the forum section heading before you think fit to throw in your 'information'.
quote:
If the soul exists and is immortal, who wouldn't want to avoid eternal punishment.
If one actually believes that the soul exists and is immortal, one will think that the use of hell as a 'recruiting tool' is perfectly irrelevant, to absolutely everyone. We have much better things to think about than recruitment, if that is true. So think about that. It's relevant information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Izanagi, posted 09-28-2009 10:22 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 295 (526563)
09-28-2009 11:35 AM


Again trying to return to the topic...
I don't understand why the current discussion because a simple list of all the world's various religions proves theologians have no consensus about anything, not even who God is. Some seem to think that only Christians can be theologians.
But this is all off-topic. Some evangelicals think that telling children they'll go to hell if they believe in evolution is okay, some don't. The evangelicals who happen to be participating in this thread find the practice abhorrent. But that's not the issue either.
The question is whether the practice is responsible for the intransigent irrationality we see so frequently here at EvC. The manner in which Kbertsche and Ochaye who are participating here differs markedly from, say, Peg and Archangel. Peg manifests an simplistic understanding and Archangel a passionate antagonism. I wonder if there was any fire and brimstone in their upbringing.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 12:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 243 of 295 (526566)
09-28-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by kbertsche
09-28-2009 11:10 AM


Subjective!
The study of these works [Torah, New Testament, Koran, Iliad, Odyssey] should not be called "extremely subjective" either, since it rests on an objective text and objective techniques of literary analysis.
But those "objective texts" are historical fiction, and many different interpretations, many mutually-exclusive, can be drawn from them, else there would not be some 38,000 denominations or subdivisions of Christianity alone.
38,000 denominations? That alone shows how subjective theology is; if it was objective there would be some way of determining which interpretation is correct. Many interpretations rely on belief, which is subjective as well.
Add: but this is all off topic, so I won't be posting on this subject again here. Start a new thread?
Edited by Coyote, : Reminder of being off topic

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 11:10 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 1:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 244 of 295 (526576)
09-28-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
09-28-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Again trying to return to the topic...
quote:
I don't understand why the current discussion because a simple list of all the world's various religions proves theologians have no consensus about anything, not even who God is. Some seem to think that only Christians can be theologians.
As has been stated already, anyone can be a theologian. One does not need to believe that a theosof any sort exists. As has further been stated, it is not belief that matters, but expertise. In order to qualify to define the word 'evangelicalism', one needs to have expertise in Christian theology, simply because evangelicalism is, supposedly, a Christian phenomenon. That is, if one does not avail oneself of a decent dictionary- though dictionaries are unreliable when it comes to religious matters, and theologians are a safer resource. But that is not a consideration that normally troubles the typical internet writer. Remarkably, not one contributor to this thread has, apparently, taken the trouble to open a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history book, or even Wikipedia!
quote:
But this is all off-topic.
On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the OP to accurately state what the thread is about, and that task has still not been carried out. Without a definition of evangelicalism, this thread can become a free-for-all for any who dislike real evangelicalism to make or take up any malicious accusation that comes into their heads. Which surely looks, to any impartial observer, like a large white flag.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 09-28-2009 11:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 09-28-2009 1:39 PM ochaye has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 245 of 295 (526582)
09-28-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Coyote
09-28-2009 11:42 AM


Re: Subjective!
quote:
Add: but this is all off topic,
Agreed.
quote:
so I won't be posting on this subject again here.
I was not trying to start an off-topic subthread. I was trying to flag the incorrect (and off-topic) characterization of theology in this thread. It is very easy for those who have no training in a scholarly discipline to make derogatory, dismissive comments about it.
quote:
Start a new thread?
I am interested in scholarly discussions of theology or science or both, with those who are knowledgeable in these fields. I am not so interested in arguing the scholarliness of either field with dismissive skeptics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2009 11:42 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 295 (526585)
09-28-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by ochaye
09-28-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Again trying to return to the topic...
This is a "rose by any other name" type of issue. It doesn't matter what term you apply to the people who engage in scare tactics with children, this thread is about whether such tactics are the cause of the type of intransigent irrationalism in the adults that we see here. If you want to believe they're not true evangelicals then that's fine, but who are the true evangelicals isn't the topic of this thread.
If you want to discuss who the true "evangelicals" are, or how much in agreement theologians are over the definition of "evangelicals", then you should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 12:44 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 2:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 247 of 295 (526590)
09-28-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
09-28-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Again trying to return to the topic...
quote:
It doesn't matter what term you apply to the people who engage in scare tactics with children
How about 'fifth columnists'? There seems very little doubt that these people are a mixture of atheists and Catholics who seek to give evangelicalism a bad name by calling themselves evangelical, using what might be supposed to be evangelical language and styles.
quote:
If you want to discuss who the true "evangelicals" are
You mean there's someone who doesn't know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 09-28-2009 1:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 09-28-2009 2:26 PM ochaye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 248 of 295 (526596)
09-28-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by kbertsche
09-28-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Peer review and "peer review"
Further, you seem to imply that all truth can be shown empirically. Do you really believe this?
Well I guess we would need to know what you mean by "truth". Do you have an actual definition for this truth?
I think I know what meaning you are trying to convey. If so, how do you know there is some sort of "truth". If you cannot show evidence of this, then the question really doesn't have any meaning does it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 10:56 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 249 of 295 (526597)
09-28-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ochaye
09-28-2009 2:03 PM


Re: Again trying to return to the topic...
There seems very little doubt that these people are a mixture of atheists and Catholics who seek to give evangelicalism a bad name by calling themselves evangelical, using what might be supposed to be evangelical language and styles.
Please, please start on nrew topic on this. I really want to see your arguments and evidence for this. I mean other than paranoia.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 2:03 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 2:50 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 250 of 295 (526601)
09-28-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Theodoric
09-28-2009 2:26 PM


Re: Again trying to return to the topic...
quote:
Please, please start on nrew topic on this.
So are the atheists and Catholics who are frightening children in order to smear evangelicalism to be let off scot-free? Tut, tut! They are a social menace, and there may need to be legal action to protect children from their predations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 09-28-2009 2:26 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 251 of 295 (526714)
09-29-2009 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by ochaye
09-28-2009 8:28 AM


Regarding the catholic indoctrination of evangelical protesters ...
Thanks for the exchange ochaye.
Glad things are well with you ...
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
cavediver writes:
ochaye writes:
and anyone else who is technically competent.
And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field?
Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether regarding Levitical Catholicism, Levitical Protestantism or Levitical Evangelicism in general, as long as they maintain their theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse as it relates to the magik of a blood sacrifice?
It might be, though it seems hardly likely that very many involved would regard the word 'magik' as fair!
Chances are your right. Yet, just because a player suggests a call is unjust, doesn't support the idea that it is. That's what the referee and rulebook's for. I may be better at simply calling a spade a spade, and so, if you were the ref and vocabulary was the rulebook, how would you make the call?
My minimalist version, that imv should meet with the widest agreement, would be as follows:
'Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether in the context of Catholicism, Protestantism or evangelicalism- as long as one maintains theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse related to the sacrifice of Christ?'
I'd call that a fair play ...
(This in no way presupposes that there was/can be a Christ, or that there was/can be a sacrifice. It is merely to set the limits for the identification of evangelicalism.)
All things considered, that's more than understandable. There's a sense that, for one to even begin to contemplate whether or not there was/can be a Christ - or an Anointed One, a clear understanding should first exist as to what one would achieve, thus identifying a consise purpose. While considering the variant approaches taken on that matter as they relate to Judaism, Catholicism and Christianity on the whole, it may become easy to consider that one cannot arrive at that 'clear' definition apart from the indoctrination of independent subjectively interpreted doctrines hardly evidenced within scripture text.
At least, not without without being considered as some sorta hairy tick for failing to conform to the democratic majority of variant priesthoods.
Who, of course, are amiss all through scripture, lest there be no need for prophets.
Anyway, in terms of further identifying evangelicals, perhaps we may employ David Bebbington's quadrilateral. Being a broadly accepted and fairly well established definition of evangelicalism, it attempts to identitify four main qualities employed towards defining evangelical attitudes and convictions.
1) Activism, suggesting a belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in a concerted - as well as independent, effort, as opposed to purely rhetoric.
2) Biblicism, catering to a particular regard for the common roman bible, and further suggesting all necessary spiritual truths may be found within its pages.
3) Conversionism, denoting the requirement of internalizing a new belief system which directly implies a new reference point for one's self identity.
4) Crucicentrism, directing one's focus towards the various atonement methods available in relation to the Anointed One's 'work' on the cross.
I meant that a liberal sees the evangelical's emphasis on sacrifice, even crucifixion, as what makes that person an evangelical, and not a liberal.
In otherwords, for the most part, some may tend to perceive others as nasty hairy ticks of sorts if/when they're unwilling to adhere to the independent doctrinal conclusions arranged by, arrived at and finally concluded, as well as, confirmed by the democratic majority within their correlating priesthoods.
Liberals tend to suppose that there is nothing for which a sacrifice is necessary.
I've yet to stumble upon a christian tradition, liberal or otherwise, that is willing to declare that sacrifice is unnecessary. Yet, one may, perhaps, safely posit Reform Judaism and Islam as Abrahamic traditions holding to those standards. Granted, unless the Anointing refers to that of a prophet - as opposed to a kingship, they don't claim Joshua.
Then again, according to the booklet of Samuel, the Father was disheartened that the nomads desired a King in the first place. So, providing Joshua was a Son of God, as well as, the Son of Man as he often referred to himself, for what logical reason might he want to displease his Father and continue with such a dissappointing tradition as Kingship?
I'm tryin' to think of one off hand, but I'm drawin' a blank over here ...
Nevertheless, it isn't uncommon to see liberals placing more attention on the Christus Victor veiw, while evangelicals gravitate towards p-sub.
The catholic is like the lady in the video whose motive was to oppose the spread of Islam, and to use, one suspects, methods similar to those of Islam. The catholic believes in volkskirche, the mass conversion (indoctrination?) of whole nations, the individual suppressing personal choice in favour of the best interest (as supposed) of the many. The evangelical, otoh, is essentially a pluralist, a democrat who believes that individual choice is of paramount importance.
A fair assessment; yet, while there are many differentiations that can be made, both of these traditions seem to rely heavily on each other for support. At least in the sense that, many of their 'mysteries' seem to be completely unevidenced apart from one another; in otherwords, they both employ subjective concepts that are seemingly unevidenced apart from indoctrination, and usually not even spoken of clearly, nor by parable, within the NT by Joshua, or his disciples. That is to say, if two mannequins, side by side, were representative of each tradition, then perhaps their preferred dress code may represent their variant doctrines, as though only the outer garments were distinct.
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
Curiously, catholics often seem so embarrassed by themselves that they appear to make attempts towards posing as christians in general. I think you may have touched on a similar dynamic within Message 210.
Indeed they do seem embarrassed, though there are still to be observed odd Catholics who openly advocate a return to Latin, inquisition and direct papal rule.
Scary stuff - while I would say some evangelical's are beginning to embrace the more classical liberation theology associated with Origen and the likes ...
I've, at times, perceived evangelical's as faux Catholic's, as if that whole 'infiltration' dynamic you suggested may have been what birthed their original movements all that time ago. Imo, considering their shared emphasis on the passion and a certain sense of romance, a constant resemblance seems to rear it's head, apart from their obvious divisions of 'grace'/'works' and veneration/ no veneration, etc. - in the fashion of Rome's infamous divide and conquer technique, of course. I want to hear Mel Gibson's perspective, after all, he must have paid attention to the statistics as he counted all his loochey.
Perhaps you had a good point earlier about some evangelicals when you suggest that their too far from the catholic mindset to be an embarrassed catholic, even if it's only because they've never seriously examined the roots of their denominational familiy tree, and so, are a bit out of touch with their roots.
Evidently, Calvinists may be considered an evangelical majority and the power it fought - even killed, for and with gave way to a certain influence over what's disseminated throughout our modern landscape. Indeed, in Calvin's day, his authority within Geneva had ultimate 'weight', which - when combined with some of his more questionable methods of debate, is no doubt why some referred to the Geneva of his day as the 'Rome of Protestantism', and further - to the man himself, as the 'Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva'. So then, it's no secret that Calvin maintained a desire to demonstrate his Christian orthodoxy amongst Catholics, especially when fighting to maintain his weakening power in Geneva, and what better way than to declare a protester a hairy tick?
Consider how the Calvinists, as some of the earliest breeds of Evangelical's, indoctrinated there prey. One need only consider the famous episode of the libertine and atheist Jacques Gruet, who - although openly admitted a certain disdain for the law, whether it be those relating to men or Gods, thought it good to pen some letters of criticism regarding the Consistory, as well as, petitioning the Catholic king of France to intervene in the political and religious affairs of Geneva. While the man may be considered in many ways too far ahead of his time and in others, too far behind his own, he was arrested by Calvin, tortured for a month and beheaded in 1547 CE. So then, what is Evangelical Calvinism and the 'Remonstrance', if not another Catholic turd?
Now, while disputing theological matters peacefully seems to be a tenet of Joshua's tradition, to debate theology with the likes of John Calvin seems to have been a certain death sentence - as can be further evidenced by his treatment of a Spanish physician convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities. After mistakingly attending a sermon of Calvin's - a pit stop in Geneva that would prevent him permanently from reaching his Italian destination, his fortune of escaping the Pope by means of prison break was short lived. That this man placed any hope or trust in Calvin and the Reformers, who had already firmly denounced him, may display a sense of desperation or a plea of reconciliation towards bridging the gap between him and fellow Protesters.
Just as John Hus was torched at the stake by the Roman Catholics in 1415 CE over 'doctrine' and Luther just made it out by the skin of his teeth, John Calvin, likewise, continued on in the former murderous trends that Luther avoided and disputed (not to imply anti-semitism), by having Michael Servetus burned at the stake, etc.. Yet, it is more than obvious that doctrine was not the sole issue - although Servetus was actively disputing Trinitarianism and Infant Baptism, but rather these murders are most always politically motivated, as was Joshua's according to the witness of the common roman bible.
So I ask, considering the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around Servetus' feet - with a sulfur infested wreath upon his poor head, and then took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in an, eventually, blazing fire while various residents of Geneva stood around to watch him slowly suffer and die; is it then possible for a man such as John Calvin to have been a 'great theologian'? Or rather, a 'prominent politician'? Let's take another perspective, supposing a man from a certain church with a reputation for being a 'spiritual leader' captured your neighbor's dog and chained it to a stake, then using a small amount of green kindling to slowly burn the dog to death, would you want him to, then, interpret the bible for you? Or rather, run for political office?
Perhaps this 'evangelical reformer' was indeed the 'Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva'; yet, he had himself snazzy new, less recognizable, outer garments. Moreover, why is it that facts like these ones, regarding the murderous tendencies within John Calvin's life of crime, rarely go mentioned in our day? The answer becomes obvious and simple - as they are both an embarrassment and refutation to any Calvinists who proudly refer to themselves by his name. Thus, since they're an evangelical majority, it's likely their power and influence keeping information of this nature about their founder seldom, if ever, heard.
I mean, were any of the early christian denominations - if even Luthers (ie. On the Jews and Their Lies, On War against the Turk, etc.), established without the use of inquisitional methodologies, and then, subsidized by a lack of indoctrination of those occurences? It seems interesting how seldom practitioners care to discuss their denominational origins, as well as, the behaviors of the ruling authorities and methods that founded them; they seem most effectively overshadowed by romantical doctrines. Finally, would Calvin the evangelist protester have promoted such murderous acts without Catholic indoctrination?
Catholic embarrassment is much more likely than that of Protestants, either liberals or evangelicals, because Catholicism as a hierarchical institution runs counter to Western zeitgeist.
Speaking of Catholic and Protestant embarrassment, I'm curious of your opinion - do you think Luther would have ever come to his conclusions regarding a Christ - much less the conclusion he finally arrived at, apart from the intense, relentless fear and preconceived doctrines he was indoctrinated with?
That is, if Luther had never been indoctrinated at all, what would he have concluded if given a desert, forty days and a common roman bible?
One Love

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 8:28 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by ochaye, posted 09-29-2009 9:14 AM Bailey has replied
 Message 254 by kbertsche, posted 09-29-2009 11:54 AM Bailey has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 252 of 295 (526759)
09-29-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Bailey
09-29-2009 6:27 AM


Re: Regarding the catholic indoctrination of evangelical protesters ...
quote:
a common roman bible
I don't know what is meant by this term. The RC canon is not common, if that is what we are supposed to think.
Any reader left in a desert with a readable New Testament can reach a firm conclusion in far fewer than forty days. The conclusion is that Jesus has died for his or her salvation- and the reader will either love Jesus for his sacrifice, and want to follow him in loving others, or will prefer to live selfishly, greedily, rejecting that sacrifice. The person will either take the NT as good news, because guilt for evil acts done (and to be done) is taken away by Jesus, or as bad news, because the love of Jesus increases guilt if one wants to carry on doing evil things. If the former, the person would become a Christ-ian, who treats Jesus as saviour, and therefore lord, which is the implication of the word 'Christ'. The person would have assurance that the righteousness of Christ was sufficient to account him or her righteous before God because of his or her own reaction to the good news, and would want to inform others who had not heard this news. And that is all there is to being a Christian, as far as others are concerned. Christians as Christians have only one thing to say to non-Christians, and it can be read in Jn 3:16. That's how one knows a Christian, or rather, who's not one. Anyone who talks too much, about Genesis, tongues, Mass, water baptism, whatever, is an antichrist.
Now where does the word 'evangelical' come in? It's not in the Bible. Actually, it's a euphemism, to protect the guilty, the pretenders in 'church' circles. No evangelical admits to being an evangelical among evangelicals. An evangelical calls himself, or herself, a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. To an evangelical, anyone who is not called an evangelical is not a Christian. Liberals, Catholics, Orthodox, whatever, need converting just as much as the Joe on the street, though they may be much more resistant to conversion, and it is probably a waste of time attempting to persuade them. That does not mean that all who are called evangelicals are Christian, though. The Christian rejects utterly people like Billy Graham, who are known as evangelicals but who support the RCC, that preaches the word of the Devil, that mankind must earn its way to heaven, a deadly message to all Christians. The vast majority, if not the totality, of the evangelical leaders of the USA are rejected for similar reasons. So are Pentecostals, who say, in effect, that one must gabble incoherently if one is to be saved. Calvinism is usually included as part of evangelicalism, but it is abhorrent to Christians, who believe that Jesus died for all, and wants all to come to a knowledge of him. Calvin was a Catholic and a lawyer, and his doctrine is exactly what one would expect from a cunning Catholic lawyer.
Even conservative evangelicals, fully orthodox, are not necessarily Christians. In fact, the Christian, like Paul, does not say for certain that anyone else is a Christian. He or she is simply full of the assurance that, provided that he or she remains faithful and grateful to God, he or she will go to be with him in the fullness of time. That's a better sign of an evangelical than any formula.
But this thread is not really about theology, it's about the social dangers of certain people. Now if a belief in hell makes people socially unacceptable, then Christians are socially unacceptable, along with all of the masses of pretenders in churches and cathedrals in Western countries and beyond who follow historic creeds. But Christians and mass membership never go together. Many are called, but few are chosen, and Christians never seek mass membership, but are, by contrast, very fussy indeed about who they allow into their fellowship, as apostolic warning requires them to be. They do not operate in the way we can witness on the linked video, where the methods of Islam are consciously emulated, under the fear of Islam! Those Pentecostals on the video are antichristian; not just because of the sickening brainwashing methods they use, but because their theology is fundamentally antichristian, being that of works-justification, just like that of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the circumcision party that Paul condemned. Plus a change...
So there is, yet again, a link between anti-social elements and false teaching, as there has been since the desperate, grasping, tyrannical Constantine, whose own comforts depended on greedily exploiting others. It appears also that it is hoped that Christians will take the blame for the actions of those who, sitting quietly in the desert, reject the love of Jesus because they love their short-term advantage better. It's only what one would expect these people to hope for. Peter prophesied of some of them, if it was not predictable, like this:
'But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.' 2 Pe 2:1-3 NIV
Edited by ochaye, : typo
Edited by ochaye, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 6:27 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 6:17 PM ochaye has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 295 (526767)
09-29-2009 9:29 AM


Summation and Topic Change
This thread's premise is that fire and brimstone scare tactics cause children to grow into adults with an irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs. While this seems a realistic possibility, no real evidence supporting this premise was offered beyond anecdotal stories.
Upon further reflection I think the reasons for the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world must be as varied as the individuals themselves, plus my personal acquaintance with adult converts to evangelicalism testifies that there must be other causes beyond a fire and brimstone upbringing.
If the other participants in this thread would like to continue discussing who gets to decide who's a true evangelical then I have no problem with it as long as the moderators don't mind. My only objection to it was that it is off-topic for this thread - it's still a very interesting topic.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 7:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 09-29-2009 11:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 254 of 295 (526845)
09-29-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Bailey
09-29-2009 6:27 AM


Re: Regarding the catholic indoctrination of evangelical protesters ...
quote:
I mean, were any of the early christian denominations - if even Luthers (ie. On the Jews and Their Lies, On War against the Turk, etc.), established without the use of inquisitional methodologies, and then, subsidized by a lack of indoctrination of those occurences?
I would propose the anabaptists (Grebel, Hubmaier, Simons, etc.) as such a group, and the denominations that sprang from them. These "radical reformers" were pacifists who made a wider break from Catholicism than the other Reformation groups.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 6:27 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 10:46 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 255 of 295 (526938)
09-29-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ochaye
09-29-2009 9:14 AM


Re: Regarding the catholic indoctrination of evangelical protesters ...
Thanks for the exchange ochaye.
Glad things are well with you ...
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
a common roman bible
I don't know what is meant by this term. The RC canon is not common, if that is what we are supposed to think.
It seems it was common enough to base all other authoritative renditions on.
It's nothing, more ot less, but a term which may safely indicate that the bible(s) most are familar with are a rendition of the one bought and paid for by Constantine. By it's usage, it assumes other texts, such as those found within the Nag Hammadi Library, are not specifically being included as a witness.
Any reader left in a desert with a readable New Testament can reach a firm conclusion in far fewer than forty days.
I think it fair to say a complete forty day wilderness trek wouldn't stunt one's spiritual beginnings, much less disaffect the continuity of their life ...
The conclusion is that Jesus has died for his or her salvation- and the reader will either love Jesus for his sacrifice, and want to follow him in loving others, or will prefer to live selfishly, greedily, rejecting that sacrifice. The person will either take the NT as good news, because guilt for evil acts done (and to be done) is taken away by Jesus, or as bad news, because the love of Jesus increases guilt if one wants to carry on doing evil things. ...
That's a conclusion - your conclusion, which is not to say that I find it offensive, but rather acceptable, interesting and inconclusive, considering that only later authors, editors and redactors referred to the Anointed One as a 'christ' or 'sacrifice'; while Joshua, himself, referenced his work as that of a ransom ...
And there may be some Good News to be found in that notion as well.
If the former, the person would become a Christ-ian, who treats Jesus as saviour, and therefore lord, which is the implication of the word 'Christ'.
Again, I don't think it unfair to acknowledge that those are later interpolations and polemics offered up, but the identification as 'saviour' begs the question of what one's being saved from. In a tangible sense, might it be those who claim to be a teacher or a religious father of sorts, as well as the rhetoric they attach to their claims? Anyway, messiah is the transliteration of the original testament Hebrew word pronounced maw-shakh, meaning Anointed One.
That term, when translated into the latter roman testaments in Greek, becomes Christos. The term 'Christ' carries much of its original Yuhdean meaning of 'Messiah' - or 'one who is anointed' or appointed by the Father with a unique and special mission and purpose on Earth. Since the first century CE, Christ has been used as the name of the man who was known during His own lifetime as Jesus/Joshua/Yashua of Nazareth. I'd say rightly so, for Joshua did not deny to be the Anointed One - or the Christ/Messiah; yet, in all fairness, did he not suggest others determine who he was themselves by often asking ...
'Who do you say I am?'
Joshua is many things to many people ...
But the common term of Christ is, again, a later interpolation and one never used by the man himself. It is a term that has been decorated like a asherah pole, with many brilliant, and different, lights of vague assumption, which isn't at all meant to imply that Joshua is somehow incapable of 'saving' people.
But this thread is not really about theology ...
Well - not directly anyway ...
Even conservative evangelicals, fully orthodox, are not necessarily Christians.
Then again, neither was Joshua.
There's the sense that Christians may often be to the Anointed One, what Yisraelites - as displayed in the original texts, often were to the Father ...
That is to say, spiritual rascists, and stumbling around in the dark with the rest of humanity.
... it's about the social dangers of certain people. Now if a belief in hell makes people socially unacceptable, then Christians are socially unacceptable, along with all of the masses of pretenders in churches and cathedrals in Western countries and beyond who follow historic creeds.
Your perspective has become an interesting thing to me and your wit quite enjoyable
I don't sense that anyone is suggesting that those who self-identify as Christians are socially unacceptable because of their individual belief in the Catholic invention of 'hell', but rather that they may easily become a bit socially unacceptable when they peddle their forced theological assumptions down the throats of others. Perhaps, especially when this is done to someone other than religious authority figures, such as a rabbi, pastor or priest, considering the concept - within it's original understanding and application, was most always employed and directed by Joshua in exactly this fashion. The exception is often considered to be Lazarus' parable, which may easily be demonstrated to be frequently misinterpreted, as parables - and their hidden meanings, often are.
If any, which passage from scripture texts would you promote in favor of threatening the masses of people on earth with the repercussions of Gehinom fire?
So there is, yet again, a link between anti-social elements and false teaching, as there has been since the desperate, grasping, tyrannical Constantine, whose own comforts depended on greedily exploiting others.
I think that may go back past Constantine; he simply adopted the ways of his forefathers - the same people that Yuhdean monarchists competed with. However, I think you're on to something when you focus your attention towards the exploiting of others in an attempt to acquire personal and national wealth. Although, I'd quickly add the desire to capture any recognition of spiritual status through competition; as what is that all about, if not greed?
Is this not where many stumbling blocks occur within the common roman bible, as well as, within the CE historical record ...
Along the pursuit of spiritual nationalism?
It appears also that it is hoped that Christians will take the blame for the actions of those who, sitting quietly in the desert, reject the love of Jesus because they love their short-term advantage better.
Perhaps Christians reject Joshua's affection and love when they compete with one another to be recognized as True ChristiansTM.
I can't help but to reflect on John 4:19 and Roman 2:29 at this moment ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by ochaye, posted 09-29-2009 9:14 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by ochaye, posted 09-29-2009 7:00 PM Bailey has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024