What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?

Phat writes: Isaiah 5:8-21 warns us of excesses. It speaks of the sin that you naive secular humanist liberals make against Christianity and the God whom you deny exists.

Isaiah was written to the Jews , and by extension, if you like, to Christians. It is not about secular humanists calling evil good; it's about Jews/Christians calling evil good.

Tangle writes: Middle of the road Anglicanism is exactly what I mean by playing the game to your own rules. Anglicanism is as near to agnosticism as makes no difference. It's the ultimate pick and mix belief system loosely based around a Christian myth. You are able to fluff every traditional Christian position, from heaven to hell, from omnipotence to original sin. (...)I see Anglicanism as the pathway the sane Christians are taking towards secularism and humanism so I'm all for it. But it's still total bollox and a distraction from doing more useful stuff with your time.

The question then becomes what is the most efficient use of our time while here on earth. Ringo seems to think we all should focus on doing...and that belief is irrelevant and, in fact, harmful. Tangle and Theodoric agree to some extent. Tangle, however, raises the stakes when he states to GDR:

You're interfering with another culture's belief system. Stop it, it's patronizing, evil and wrong - even if it's well meant.

Thus he is calling good evil and evil good, as scripture warns us about. Isaiah 5:8-21 warns us of excesses. It speaks of the sin that you naive humanists make against Christianity and the God whom you deny exists.

Isa 5:18-21 writes: 18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of vanity, And sin as if with a cart rope; 19 That say, "Let Him make speed and hasten His work, That we may see it; And let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, That we may know it." 20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight! NKJV

The haughty arrogance of the humanist/atheists is explained here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes's Isaiah 5:19 Bible Commentary
That says... - They add one sin to another for "the purpose of defying" God and provoking him to anger. They pretend that he will not punish sin; and hence, they plunge deeper into it, and defy him to punish them.
Let him make speed - Let him come quickly to punish.
And hasten his work - His punishment.
That we may see it - An expression of defiance. We would like to see him undertake it.

The counsel of the Holy One ... - His threatened purpose to punish. This is the language of all sinners. They plunge deep into sin; they mock at the threatenings of God; they defy him to do his utmost; they do not believe his declarations. It is difficult to conceive more dreadful and high-handed iniquity than this.
---------------------------

Which brings up several questions. You claim that "sane Christians" are heading towards secularism and humanism, correct? The implication is, of course, that the insane Christians such as myself teach that the world will never improve without accepting the Holy Spirit--through Jesus Christ, and surrendering to this necessary flow.

And if so, you are quite correct.

Secularism: the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.-- Make no mistake, I believe in the separation of church and state. What bothers me is when the state attempts to impose its own "religion" and code of ethics as a default for everyone. I will fight that one with my last dying breath.
Hopefully, the Democratic majority will never become an atheist majority. They can create their own rules in their own homes but not in mine.

Humanism:an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. It all sounds good and well if we were in fact not in a spiritual war and if God was but a myth. He isn't. You will never convince us of this. Even if you silence me, God Himself will put you deceived and deluded (though well-meaning people) in check for all eternity.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : fixed spelling and punctuation errors

GDR writes: My point was that my beliefs are hardly unique.

I suspect that your belief is entirely unique. Actually I suspect all are. They're all personal variants within the 30,000 or so Christian mythologies. Your variant of a modernised liberal Christian belief system involves distorted science that you don't understand but jemmie into your model and compromising all the basic founding features of the belief itself. It's great, there's virtually nothing left of it but gentle Jesus meek and mild.

I listened to your ex-boss, Archbishop Rowan Williams a couple of years ago, I liked him a lot, he's an intelligent and thoughtful guy. Intelligent enough to give up the job too. I watched him struggle to answer a simple question about the existence of god and I could see that he was really struggling with it. Like I say, it's agnosticism bar the name.

Having lost that point you then move on to being critical of the Anglican church in general.

You haven't yet understood my point. And I'm not criticising the Anglican church. As religions go, it's one of the best. My actual preference is for the Quakers if I had to choose.

If you actually read through the articles of faith of the Anglican church you can see that Anglicans do actually have a relatively cohesive theology. In every service either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles creed is read out loud by the congregation.

Yeh I know all that. That's the official version but I know an awful lot of Anglicans and their actual beliefs are wide and mostly wishy-washy nice.

I am not concerned about their belief system.

Liar, liar pants on fire!

Of course you're doing wonderful things and trying to help people but the underlying agenda is conversion. Bringing the good news etc. My wife has a good friend who was an Anglican missionary in Africa, her and her husband now look back on their days there in horror of what they did. Maybe things have changed or your lot is very special - perhaps, but that's not the norm.

Phat writes: It all sounds good and well if we were in fact not in a spiritual war

There's no spiritual war Phat. Atheist don't give a hoot what you nutters believe so long as you don't interfere with what others believe or don't believe.

and if God was but a myth. He isn't.

Says you.

You will never win this one.

It's only you fundies that thinks you're in a fight. I suppose it helps you to imagine an enemy. My side couldn't care less, belief is evaporating naturally, we're just getting on with life.

Even if you silence me,

Look, feel free to rant and rave away to your heart's content. No one cares. No one's trying to silence you are they?

I have to say, it sounds like you're trying to be a martyr.

God Himself will put you arrogant deceived and deluded (though well-meaning people in check for all eternity.

I'm sure you'll recover your mental balance soon - at least I hope so.

I'm sure you'll recover your mental balance soon

Doubt it. Phat has had is moments of fervor in the past. This is different. He drank the kool aid. I think you hit the nail on the head. He wants to be a martyr.

ringo writes: But it isn't. If you obey the command to love, you don't have to be commanded not to kill.

No argument there.

ringo writes: o. The command to love is a command to do loving actions.

Not really. The loving actions are symptoms of a loving heart.

ringo writes: It isn't about rewards. The point of Matthew 25 is that God's will is about what you do, not about what you profess. It doesn't matter what your motivation or your attitude is; what matters is your physical actions.

Sure it doesn't matter to the person that is the beneficiary of the action. However, if the the individual in question is expecting something back in return for the loving action then it isn't really loving.

Tangle writes: Of course you're doing wonderful things and trying to help people but the underlying agenda is conversion. Bringing the good news etc. My wife has a good friend who was an Anglican missionary in Africa, her and her husband now look back on their days there in horror of what they did. Maybe things have changed or your lot is very special - perhaps, but that's not the norm.

The aim is not to convert but to serve. I just read a book called the Patient Fermant of the Early Church.

It was an interesting read. I think that the church in general is going largely back to that model. Instead of evangelizing the church's vocation is all about loving service. If because of seeing this loving service in action it causes people to inquire about Christian beliefs then sure you talk about it, but that isn't the point. The point is simply to model the Bible verse I use in my quote.

GDR writes: The loving actions are symptoms of a loving heart.

That's an empty claim - and a self-serving one. You can always claim that you really, really, really do love but without the actions, there's no reason to think that you do. By their fruits ye shall know them.

GDR writes: Sure it doesn't matter to the person that is the beneficiary of the action.

It doesn't matter to anybody, except maybe a badly warped god. The only thing that matters is the action.

GDR writes: However, if the the individual in question is expecting something back in return for the loving action then it isn't really loving.

That isn't what Jesus said. He didn't mention anything but the actual action. If you're motivated by wanting to "serve Jesus", that is not love.

I checked out the Kindle sample of that book. It is a good one! Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and the early church was in no hurry to rush things. We all could learn from that today.

Though actions are themselves where the rubber meets the road, some actions can have an effect the opposite of what was intended. If you buy a homeless guy a beer and he happens to be an alcoholic, for example...you have done little to help him.

As I reflect on my own aggressive behavior, I am reminded of the catchphrase of What Would Jesus Do?

Would Jesus simply buy the homeless guy a beer or would Jesus buy him a meal? Would Jesus charge him with shoplifting or would Jesus pray for him while overlooking the obvious sin of "Thou Shalt Not Steal"? Would Jesus annoy everyone at EvC Forum with a self-righteous attitude or would Jesus strive for humility and understanding? These sorts of inner dialogues are necessary on a daily basis.

Some would argue that we are responsible for our own behavior, and I won't disagree. What I will do, however, is to always ask myself what Jesus would likely do in any given situation.

ringo writes: That's an empty claim - and a self-serving one. You can always claim that you really, really, really do love but without the actions, there's no reason to think that you do. By their fruits ye shall know them.

I agree with that completely. None of us know what is in a person's heart, maybe not even our own

ringo writes: That isn't what Jesus said. He didn't mention anything but the actual action. If you're motivated by wanting to "serve Jesus", that is not love.

..but He did make it clear that the actions were done simply out of care for others. Another good exapmle is the "Good Samaritan".

The one who loved his neighbour was the one of the "hated Samaritans" who took care of the individual and even paid for his accommodation. I suggest that from a Christian perspective if Jesus was telling that parable today, it would be the story of the "Good Muslim", as it is clear that this is a call on the hearts of all mankind and has nothing to do with our various doctrines.

In this example it is even more clear that the command to love is more than just action, it also includes being prepared to love at our own expense.

Thugpreacha writes: I checked out the Kindle sample of that book. It is a good one! Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and the early church was in no hurry to rush things. We all could learn from that today.

It was a good read. You are right about the patience thing, but part of that was that the idea of growing the church was secondary to the foolowing out of Jesus' command to love neighbour and enemy, even in the face of estrangement and sometimes death.

In so many cases today Christians have gotten so focused on personal salvation, to the point that what we are called to has been often made secondary. You are right. We should get back to the vocation that God calls His church to.

Phat writes: Would Jesus simply buy the homeless guy a beer or would Jesus buy him a meal?

We already know the answer to that. Jesus would turn water into beer. Really, there's a whole book about this stuff. You should read it sometime.

GDR writes: ..but He did make it clear that the actions were done simply out of care for others.

Where did He say that? Not in Matthew 25.

GDR writes: Another good exapmle is the "Good Samaritan".

Same thing there. All I see is the action itself, nothing about the motivation.

GDR writes: In this example it is even more clear that the command to love is more than just action, it also includes being prepared to love at our own expense.

Of course, loving your neighbour usually involves some expense to ourselves. That has nothing to do with love being in the heart. It's all about the hands.

Jesus would turn water into beer.

Not for an alcoholic he wouldn't. Context is everything. At the wedding, the alcohol(wine) was symbolic. The guests were not a bunch of homeless drunks. Jesus the character has more wisdom than ringo, apparently.

I need to pray for humility, though. I tend to get arrogant when I knock these secular fastballs out of the park. But then again, you guys see no Umpire. He is but a myth.