Problems In The Church

reply to post by adjensen


That's not entirely true.

There are some kinds of people God hates and curses.

I could show you several places in the bible where God does this.

But I think it would be a useless effort.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
But I think it would be a useless effort.

Since I'm not a Fundamentalist or a Calvinist, you're probably right.

reply to post by TheBeatMasta


First the church is all who believe. The question is believe in what? Most people who call themselves Christians, pastors included, say they believe in Christ but they don't do what he said. The modern church often teaches, alive, dead, resurrection, forgiveness. Believe in those 4 things and you're saved.

The church has practically omitted the "repent" part of the equation. You see no one who continues to do the same thing can be truly forgiven. I'm not saying that all sins are not forgiven, what I am saying is that you cannot know forgiveness until you repent.

You must understand that most people haven’t truly in their heart repented, which is why they continue to struggle with the same sin. People can read the verses about repentance and hear the pastor read them but their hearts are hardened by their desires to do what they know they should not do. How can someone who has not listened to Christ, truly believe they follow him? Most Christians would acknowledge that they don't do everything he taught.

How can anyone be a witness that doesn't do what he said? Everyone who has truly repented and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit is expected to be a witness, because we are the church. Weather we our neighbors or live 1000s of miles away we are the church. There are far too many unrepentant witnesses who destroy the word of God by going around passing judgment on others.

Since you believe you have a connection that most do not than you need to be a witness. I speak about God all the time. Everyone I know knows that I am a Christian. My coworkers, friends, family, anyone I meet. I speak about God often. I don't always use bible speak, so that I don’t offend my non Christian friends but I don't hesitate to teach the lessons found in the book. Sometimes it is enough for someone to know that I am speaking about the truth found in the bible even though I'm not throwing it in their face.

About demons and the devil. We all know that evil is real. But we all have a different grasp on what that means. One thing that I try to do when talking with non-believers or even weaker Christians is to leave out some of the difficult details. Instead of taking directly about demons and the devil I will simply refer to the influence they have on us.

Most of us can accept that we have conflicting desires. The desire to do what we know is right comes from love, the desire to do what we know is wrong comes from somewhere else.

"What desire do you want to follow the one that comes from love or the one that comes from somewhere else?"

You see in that one sentence how I have removed the demons and devil, while still acknowledging their influence. Thus for the weaker Christian and the non-believer I have opened the door for a later conversation about where these desires come from. Most are simply not ready for the deeper details.

The bible calls this milk vs. solid food. You can't feed an infant solid food no matter how much you would like to.

Just my take on your post.

reply to post by adjensen

We're all children of God, regardless of what our beliefs might be

I disagree. We're all creations of God but not all are his children and Jesus addresses this:

John 8:42-47

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

He was speaking to the pharisees but this is still applicable today, because wicked people still exist today. Some people are Abraham's seed, some are Satan's seed. Being of Abraham's seed or Satan's seed as we can see in this scripture is not a physical exoteric nature, but of a more spiritual esoteric nature. This is why Jesus preached "you shall know them by the fruits of their labors". There are wolves in sheep's clothing, and then there are just straight up wolves who do not care to hide their intentions. Darkness and Light do not mix, the Darkness does not comprehend the Light.

reply to post by TheBeatMasta

Before I begin this thread, I want to state clearly, that this is the wrong thread for an atheist, or agnostic. I have no time to argue with a fool. I recently got back from church, and my mind continues to spin. I find myself questioning a lot of what the preacher talks about. It's not that what he says, doesn't go along with the Bible.

Your problem is that you see the bible as an inspired source. It is nothing more than a typology written by the Flavians to mock the Jews and uproot the history of militant Christianity.

Good news! You qan be salvaged.

Originally posted by LightBreeze

Your problem is that you see the bible as an inspired source. It is nothing more than a typology written by the Flavians to mock the Jews and uproot the history of militant Christianity.

Good news! You qan be salvaged.

True, that is what I've come to realize after so many years being pentecostal/evangelical Christian.

A question that begs answered is to those who are Christians and reading this. What was the FIRST thing that made you think that the Bible is Holy and infallible, that you need a pastor or ministry leader to help you understand the scriptures??

Is it a pastor, is it another Christian?? If yes then you are probably deceived for John 16:13 and 1 John 2:27 states, you most definitely NOT need another person to teach you into the truth. You only need to receive the Holy Spirit!

To unbelievers who are becoming Christians or are interested in Christianity. Do not let another Christian to tell you that you need them or another Christian, a ministry leader or pastor, or theology expert, or any person to tell you how to read the Bible.

All you need to do is repent, seek God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and earnestly ask God for the Holy Spirit which will guide you into truth so you can understand the Bible. You'll find it's a lot different than what mainstream Christians tell you. They do not understand the Bible because they choose to trust what men and women say about the book NOT what the Holy Spirit tells them. They themselves don't know they are deceived and that's the sad truth. The false doctrine, the prosperity gospel. The gospel of wealth has blinded them.

reply to post by ahnggk

All you need to do is repent, seek God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and earnestly ask God for the Holy Spirit which will guide you into truth so you can understand the Bible. You'll find it's a lot different than what mainstream Christians tell you. They do not understand the Bible because they choose to trust what men and women say about the book NOT what the Holy Spirit tells them. They themselves don't know they are deceived and that's the sad truth. The false doctrine, the prosperity gospel. The gospel of wealth has blinded them.

Understanding the NT doesn't require sacred spirits or celestial flying birds either. It only requires the typological relationship between Titus Flavius and the ministry of the historically fallacious "Jesus Christ". Kudos to Joseph Atwill for that revelation.

I need someone to help me with a ? I have, am not sure if I am using my own bias or not. Is it possible that I can pm someone about this, my queries are not referenced and are only by memory so I may very well be way off my point, also am not an academic.

Originally posted by chloe2850

I need someone to help me with a ? I have, am not sure if I am using my own bias or not. Is it possible that I can pm someone about this, my queries are not referenced and are only by memory so I may very well be way off my point, also am not an academic.

I apologize but could you retype your request? I cannot determine what you mean.

Hi, need someone to help clarify a few things,just have a few personal thoughts that I feel that it would help me more by sharing without creating problems with other peoples feelings and beliefs.

reply to post by chloe2850


Feel free to PM me if you like. Understand that I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic, though, and my response will likely be tinged by that.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by chloe2850

 

Understand that I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic...

What, pray tell, is that?

Originally posted by ALightBreeze

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by chloe2850

 

Understand that I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic...

What, pray tell, is that?

I used to be a Catholic-leaning Protestant (a Methodist who thought that a fair bit of Catholic theology was correct,) but converted to Catholicism in the past year. So I'm a Catholic, who still has a Protestant perspective on a number of theological issues.

I'd probably be happiest in the Anglican church, but I don't like the Episcopalians, and theologically, I'm most aligned to paleo-orthodoxy, but I don't view that as a viable religion at this point.

Yeah, my priest isn't real happy with me and my questions, either

reply to post by adjensen

I used to be a Catholic-leaning Protestant (a Methodist who thought that a fair bit of Catholic theology was correct,) but converted to Catholicism in the past year. So I'm a Catholic, who still has a Protestant perspective on a number of theological issues. I'd probably be happiest in the Anglican church, but I don't like the Episcopalians, and theologically, I'm most aligned to paleo-orthodoxy, but I don't view that as a viable religion at this point.

Why a religion at all then?

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Why a religion at all then?

I view things as being threefold -- personal faith, religion, and theology, in descending order of importance. Personal faith is the most important, religion is important to validate that belief, and theology is important to validate the religion.

Without religion (which is the teachings of a church, as well as the community of believers,) one can believe in anything, regardless of whether it has an basis at all, and without theology (the logical analysis of the religion,) one can be taken in by a system that doesn't make sense. One doesn't need to understand theology to be religious, and one doesn't need to be religious to have faith, but they are there for those of us who want them.

That's how I see it, but I recognize that I approach faith very differently than other people.

Originally posted by chloe2850

Hi, need someone to help clarify a few things,just have a few personal thoughts that I feel that it would help me more by sharing without creating problems with other peoples feelings and beliefs.

You can message me if you wish, the tab for message option is under my avatar. I'll try to help your dilemma to the best of my abiliies.

reply to post by ahnggk


I agree with you completely. They teach born again without even knowing God. I believe most of the church wants to do the right thing but they have become so caught up in the traditions handed down that they never find the truth.

Originally posted by LightBreeze
Understanding the NT doesn't require sacred spirits or celestial flying birds either. It only requires the typological relationship between Titus Flavius and the ministry of the historically fallacious "Jesus Christ". Kudos to Joseph Atwill for that revelation.

I just read the research of Joseph Atwill www.fargonasphere.com...

I read it all. I tell you, it's almost right on the money on how most Christians understand the NT And it would seem like, it was Paul's teachings most Christians lean to. Wouldn't be surprised if Paul was a Roman 'undercover apostle' for he claimed to be a Roman Citizen.

However, my understanding of Jesus is different than the false 'Piso Doctrine' conspiracy and the rest of the mainstream Christianity.

- Jesus is not subservient, nor advocates subservience to worldly authorities. He is only subservient to God.

- Jesus rebukes, insults, preaches the hard truth, punishes, and judges his enemies. That is the right way to love your enemies!

- Jesus promotes 'anti-leadership' ideals for you have only one leader - Jesus. "Do not call anyone father, teacher, master"

- Jesus teaches not to work for food that spoils

- Jesus teaches that money, titles, possessions, achievements, even your own life (self-preservation) has no value!! The only that has values are the work of God and eternal things. These things are in fact abominations to God.

The backbone of the Roman Empire are the slaves and workers.

The true Gospel of Jesus advocates (non-violent) resistance against leadership and anything opposed to the Gospel, a fearless countenance, and selflessness.

Put all these together and you got a slave/worker that would not obey everything you say, will stop working for you/leave you, and on top of these, won't fear you, even with the threat of death!!

If all the slaves knew the True Gospel, it would be end of the Roman Empire!!

There is still some truth, to the Joseph Atwill theory from my point of view as a follower of Jesus. Christians are subservient to leadership, to authorities, they love their enemies wrongly! The Beast will surely love them!!

Originally posted by ahnggk
I just read the research of Joseph Atwill www.fargonasphere.com...

I read it all. I tell you, it's almost right on the money on how most Christians understand the NT

And it would seem like, it was Paul's teachings most Christians lean to. Wouldn't be surprised if Paul was a Roman 'undercover apostle' for he claimed to be a Roman Citizen.

The problem with those theories (Piso, et al) is that there is NO historical evidence for them, none. "Piso" begins with Abelard Reuchlin (a pseudonym of an anti-Christian Jewish guy that lives in Oregon,) in the 1970s, and is based on his speculations, and nothing else. Bruno Bauer, same thing -- he cites no sources in his text, leading one to the inevitable conclusion that he just made it up.

Meanwhile, there is significant and sufficient evidence that the New Testament was written by people who lived in the culture of Israel, circa mid-First Century (see this book review, for example,) enough to dismiss claims such as these outright.

While a case may be made for the political intentions of the New Testament authors, basing such a case on an utterly ridiculous basis, like "The Romans wrote the Bible" is a sure way to poison your argument from the start.

Originally posted by LightBreeze
Understanding the NT doesn't require sacred spirits or celestial flying birds either. It only requires the typological relationship between Titus Flavius and the ministry of the historically fallacious "Jesus Christ". Kudos to Joseph Atwill for that revelation.

Originally posted by ahnggk
I just read the research of Joseph Atwill www.fargonasphere.com...

I read it all. I tell you, it's almost right on the money on how most Christians understand the NT

And it would seem like, it was Paul's teachings most Christians lean to. Wouldn't be surprised if Paul was a Roman 'undercover apostle' for he claimed to be a Roman Citizen.

However, my understanding of Jesus is different than the false 'Piso Doctrine' conspiracy and the rest of the mainstream Christianity.

My theories and Atwill's are similar and are at odds as well. As to Piso, it is common to see false skeptics attempt to tie Breeze, Atwill and Piso together. Sorry, cupcakes aren't Twinkies even though both can be cream filled.

Even if Jesus were not an obvious typological character, the relationship between his ministry and Titus' campaign would, in and of itself, prove that one was based on the other. The parallels between the ministry and the campaign of the two "sons of God" do not merely occur in the same locations, but in the same sequence. This is the clearest proof that Titus left for us—proof he left so we would see that he had succeeded in his efforts to make the Jews call him "Lord," proof he left that he had become the Christ that Christianity would worship for thousands of years.

Sure, it's tough for materialistic scientists and confused Christians - and those that think they are real Christians - to have their entire faith trashed by the overwhelming evidence of the Breeze-Atwill expose' but tough toenails.

"Truth will out" ~ Arthur Weasley