Wwmlkd?

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not presume to know the truth. At least not in this matter. And I do not believe you do either. Therefore, any approach which places doctrine above pragmatism is fatally flawed. Working for the betterment of your fellow human beings in the here and now has tangible benefits which can readily be appreciated. Working toward some hypothetical afterlife is ...[text shortened]... uld bet he is more concerned with the public actions of mankind than with their private beliefs.

I do not presume to know the truth.
Sure you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't suggest...

If there is a god, I would bet he is more concerned with the public actions of mankind than with their private beliefs.

Your god looks a lot like you. You're concerned for your fellow man's plight, his state of life and general well-being. All very commendable. Not spiritual, of course, but commendable nonetheless--- in a Boy Scout type of way. Very Golden Rule.

And I do not believe you do either.
Well, of course you don't! Otherwise, we'd never be at odds over what the priorities ought to be. However, I'm asking what your confidence is based upon and the only response you can offer is that your god looks like you. My God looks nearly nothing like me, His standards are so far above anything I can ever hope to be--- at my best He describes my pathetic attempts at righteousness as dirty menstrual rags.

My confidence comes from my God, nonetheless. He gave me His righteousness without any merit on my part, so I needn't worry about my negative account. I don't do good works as a means of appeasing Him: He has appeased Himself and allowed us to share in the glory. Whatever good works come from my life are a result of something better inside... certainly not for the hope of the better outside.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I do not presume to know the truth.
Sure you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't suggest...

If there is a god, I would bet he is more concerned with the public actions of mankind than with their private beliefs.

Your god looks a lot like you. You're concerned for your fellow man's plight, his state of life and general well-being. All ...[text shortened]... a result of something better inside... certainly not for the hope of the better outside.[/b]

I'm not entirely sure that my re-conception of god looks much like me. I see 'god' as being the sum total of all that humanity aspires toward. Love, kindness, empathy, etc. If one being could possess all those attributes in their entirety, we would call this being 'god.' I personally do not believe that this being has a physical existence. It is a mental construct. God, in this sense, is a gauge by which we measure ourselves. To widely display those attributes is to be "at one with god." To behave in a contrary manner is to be "separated from god." We may use this conception of god, or our conception of Jesus, to inspire us to act in that direction. With this inspiration we may then be empowered to save ourselves.

I do not at any time claim that anything presented here is 'true' in any sense. But it is useful. Jesus is a character that most people in the western world are familiar with and would respond to. If others are inspired toward love, kindness and empathy by other means, then that is that is fine with me. Many paths may lead toward the same goal.

This conception of 'god' is open for all to use if they are so inclined, with no penalty toward them if they should see fit not to. Furthermore, it is a conception that empowers and ennobles human beings by inspiring them to better themselves. Your conception of god is an exclusionary one, with its emphasis on doctrine and dogma it claims to be the only path available. But most importantly, it denigrates any sense of human self worth by instilling in them a sense that they are naught but lowly maggots who are capable of doing nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So when are you developing some. 🙂
Hey! I'm more humble than you... wait: that didn't come out right.

I mean you play Mr Know It All for us normal humans. And thats not so bad.
But saying that the Lords Prayer is not for our time and then refusing to explain why is just plain ole arrogance.
Who says I'm playing? The fact of the iss ...[text shortened]... Since you have such difficulty with grace, how can you hope to understand dispensations?[/b]

What a totally humble reply. I was so wrong about you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Didn't Jesus say the Kingdom of God is at hand?
And, wasn't it? We cannot take one passage out of its context and simply apply it to any time frame or situation, without all kinds of unintended consequences.

With all due respect, dispensationalism ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
As should any aspect of knowledge. What's the poi ...[text shortened]... s meant for today, sir.[/b]
The dissertation you provided fails to support this conclusion.[/b]

I get the feeling I'm wasting my breath here.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Right: you're a fundamentalist of sorts.
No more so than, say, you for example.

... when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
Let's test this hypothetica ...[text shortened]... d, do you see how your brush paints you every bit of a fundamentalist as it rendered me?[/b]

... when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

Let's test this hypothetical definition and see if it truly works. The first issue is conflict between truth and 'love, compassion and caring.' Already, we have a false dichotomy, or at the very least an extremely ill-defined one.

Like I've told you before, you need to learn to read. Bidstrup does not set up a dichotomy or tension between "love, compassion and caring" and truth. (If anything, he is in a sense conflating the prosocial dispositions related to love, compassion, benevolence, etc, with truth -- truth, taken here in the sense of practical wisdom.) He's not calling any attention to any kind of tension between such prosocial things and truth: he's calling attention to tension between such prosocial things and what essentially amounts to blind allegiance to doctrinal conformity. It is merely a sad testament to your blind allegiance to doctrinal conformity that you would somehow just read "conformity to doctrine" as "truth".

Whichever way you respond, do you see how your brush paints you every bit of a fundamentalist as it rendered me?

No.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Didn't Jesus say the Kingdom of God is at hand?
And, wasn't it? We cannot take one passage out of its context and simply apply it to any time frame or situation, without all kinds of unintended consequences.

With all due respect, dispensationalism ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
As should any aspect of knowledge. What's the poi s meant for today, sir.[/b]
The dissertation you provided fails to support this conclusion.[/b]

And, wasn't it? We cannot take one passage out of its context and simply apply it to any time frame or situation, without all kinds of unintended consequences.

But the understanding provided by the context gives ample reason to suppose that the Kingdom of God is still at hand. Just because a certain passage is being applied to the present doesn't automatically mean it is being taken out of context. The context is simply what provides the understanding. Do I really need to remind you of this?

An example of taking a passage out of context is your earlier use of Mark 14:7, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." Here Christ spoke of his physical body's imminent departure, and the woman had just anointed his body with oil for burial (an act of faith and an expression of love and reverence). In Mark 14:7 Christ justifies her act of anointing in the hearing of those who had yet to grasp the full import of his mission. Yet you use this passage to support your case that making the world a better place isn't as important to God as making converts.

The dissertation you provided fails to support this conclusion.

Dissertation? Ouch. I suppose I deserve that, as it seems my opponent in this debate has already long since lost interest in discussing the finer points. Forgive me for not catching on sooner. If you will not give my words any credence, perhaps you might give some to Matthew Henry's:

"3. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven... (1) The thing prayed for, thy will be done. In this sense Christ prayed, not my will, but thine be done. (2) The pattern of it, that it may be done on earth (where our work must be done, or it never will be done), as it is in heaven. We pray that earth may be made more like heaven by the observance of God's will."

~ Matthew Henry's Commentary, p. 1229

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I do not presume to know the truth.
Sure you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't suggest...

If there is a god, I would bet he is more concerned with the public actions of mankind than with their private beliefs.

Your god looks a lot like you. You're concerned for your fellow man's plight, his state of life and general well-being. All ...[text shortened]... a result of something better inside... certainly not for the hope of the better outside.[/b]

Whatever good works come from my life are a result of something better inside... certainly not for the hope of the better outside.

That love of God which allows you to embrace even the negative aspects of yourself. When we drink deeply of it, it overflows to the benefit of all. I'm assuming this is what you are alluding to. Let me ask you this: how can we define what form this overflowing love should take?

You could start a thread like this about me, or anyone. I wonder if Aaron, after being face to face with God, would choose to be a kitchen manager and a family man, or if he would have devoted his life to being a pastor instead. But is that fair? I have a gift for cooking in which I find fulfillment, and because of the desire in my heart to be a good father and husband, my wife and child are blessed. Is everyone meant to be a pastor? Am I not able to obey the will of God in whatever unique form my life currently takes? Aren't we all different parts of the body of Christ, having different functions? MLK was blessed with particular gifts and his vocation reflected that. Again, who is to say what form the overflowing of God's love must look like from one individual believer to the next?

My point is, it is not necessarily so that MLK wasn't being obedient to the will of God just because he stepped out from behind the pulpit in order to effect change in the world for the better.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not entirely sure that my re-conception of god looks much like me. I see 'god' as being the sum total of all that humanity aspires toward. Love, kindness, empathy, etc. If one being could possess all those attributes in their entirety, we would call this being 'god.' I personally do not believe that this being has a physical existence. It is a mental co ...[text shortened]... em a sense that they are naught but lowly maggots who are capable of doing nothing.

I see 'god' as being the sum total of all that humanity aspires toward.
Of course, you're referring here to all of the 'good' stuff--- at least, as considered on some unnamed scale. You mention love, kindness and empathy, which all sound emotionally charge with good-good sensations. But you've failed to define any one of these aspects/attributes/actions beyond using the sound of their labels.

At the same time, you've not come close to addressing the human condition, i.e., what about all of what humanity aspires toward? What of the drug addict, the pedophile, the pornographer, the despot, etc., etc., etc.? Certainly each of these folks are aspiring toward what they 'love,' as each of them also consider any assistance they receive along the path to their goals as acts of 'kindness,' and they are likely all grateful for other like-minded folks--- 'empathetic' toward their own goals.

I do not at any time claim that anything presented here is 'true' in any sense. But it is useful.
Many things are useful, but they wear out and reveal their limitations to life application long before their shelf-life. Here is one of the main and salient differences between the world view you offer and the one offered by God: His is not only useful, it is based on truth and therefore will not suffer the one adhering it any disappointment. The utility of the system you offer sputters and fails immediately out of the gate... really with the first numb-skull one encounters outside one's front door.

Jesus is a character that most people in the western world are familiar with and would respond to.
Totally disagree with the second part. If He was such a 'character' that people could respond to, there wouldn't be such a need to dumb-down the message of Christianity--- the very act which inevitably leads to all kinds of confusion and rejection by thinking people. Neither would there be such a dearth of mature Christians, one who are actually growing in the grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, we see idiocy at every turn, people going through life reacting to everything that comes up, never able to tackle life as functioning adults, emoting instead of thinking.

But most importantly, it denigrates any sense of human self worth by instilling in them a sense that they are naught but lowly maggots who are capable of doing nothing.
Hogwash. You cannot have a proper sense of self-worth until you can first rightly assess your position. As humans, we are capable of mind-blowing accomplishments. However, we are also saddled with the unrelenting degradation alluded to in my second paragraph seen above. Only when we are released from the curse can we ever hope to reach the potential originally intended.

Originally posted by LemonJello
... when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

Let's test this hypothetical definition and see if it truly works. The first issue is conflict between truth and ' ...[text shortened]... your brush paints you every bit of a fundamentalist as it rendered me?

No.[/b]

Like I've told you before, you need to learn to read.
I'll get right on that. Thanks.

Bidstrup does not set up a dichotomy or tension between "love, compassion and caring" and truth.
Sure he does. He lumps 'any religion, all religion' referring to all belief systems as religions. It is assumed that he has in mind Christianity, as well, despite the distinction between religion and Christianity. That's another matter, so we can set it aside for now.

Nonetheless, by claiming that all of them are the same, he is also saying that none of them are true. Here is the fatal flaw. Christianity is not true because I hold it to be true; its truth stands or fails based upon its own merits. As viewed properly within history, Christianity is the only belief system which can claim to offer truth to any and all who want it, and back it up.

If, as you suggest Bidstrup is offering a 'whole new truth' based on "proscocial dispositions" (however that is supposed to be defined), he's got a long way to go toward providing a foundation upon which to base these supposedly good things or how we are to rate them. If these "dispositions" are to be equated with truth, then =presto!= he's got a new brand of fundamentalism. Those on one side are in line with this new-found truth, while those on the other are out of line, and therefore infidels.

The only other view--- as he is really offering--- is that there is no truth, which clearly is a self-canceling proposition.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
And, wasn't it? We cannot take one passage out of its context and simply apply it to any time frame or situation, without all kinds of unintended consequences.

But the understanding provided by the context gives ample reason to suppose that the Kingdom of God is still at hand. Just because a certain passage is being applied to the present ...[text shortened]... en by the observance of God's will."

~ Matthew Henry's Commentary, p. 1229[/quote][/b]

But the understanding provided by the context gives ample reason to suppose that the Kingdom of God is still at hand. Just because a certain passage is being applied to the present doesn't automatically mean it is being taken out of context. The context is simply what provides the understanding. Do I really need to remind you of this?
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

I suppose I deserve that, as it seems my opponent in this debate has already long since lost interest in discussing the finer points. Forgive me for not catching on sooner. If you will not give my words any credence, perhaps you might give some to Matthew Henry's:
I wasn't intentionally insulting your efforts, I was merely pointing out that you hadn't supported the position. Matthew Henry was wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But the understanding provided by the context gives ample reason to suppose that the Kingdom of God is still at hand. Just because a certain passage is being applied to the present doesn't automatically mean it is being taken out of context. The context is simply what provides the understanding. Do I really need to remind you of this?
Jes ...[text shortened]... was merely pointing out that you hadn't supported the position. Matthew Henry was wrong.[/b]

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

This passage does not support your case. Yes, God's kingdom isn't a worldly kingdom, but that doesn't mean God's kingdom isn't at hand, in a spiritual sense. God reigns in men's hearts and His will is done on earth through those whom the Spirit of God indwells.

Christ said, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" (Matt. 6:33). If the kingdom of God isn't near, how then can we seek it? Christ said, "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:28). If we have the Holy Spirit, why do you say the kingdom of God isn't at hand? Christ said, "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). If the kingdom of God is within us, why do you insist that it hasn't come? Even Paul said, "The kingdom of God is... righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).

It is clear from scripture that the kingdom of God is spoken of in at least two distinct ways: (1) as the presence and power of the Holy Spirit at work in those who obey the Gospel, and (2) the kingdom which shall be established when Christ returns, which all those born again in Jesus Christ will be joint heirs. It seems what you fail to recognize is (1).

In order to apply this to the outworking of God's will in those who believe (as in the case of MLK), all we need to do is consult the parable of the Good Samaritan. In discussing how one ought to do the will of God on earth, Jesus said, love "your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). The lesson of the parable is that Christians ought to love and serve others without prejudice, favoritism, or limit. He used an example of someone who had been attacked and left for dead, but no doubt the trouble or circumstance need not be limited to the example he gave. It could easily be applied to the injustice and inequality suffered by the black man in 20th century America. MLK was in a position to help, therefore it was his duty to help in whatever way possible, actively and intelligently loving his neighbor as himself.

I was merely pointing out that you hadn't supported the position.

I insist that I have. What you haven't done is show that I haven't.

Matthew Henry was wrong.

What sources do you have to support your reading of scripture?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

This passage does not support your case. Yes, God's kingdom isn't a worldly kingdom, but that doesn't mean God's kingdom isn't at hand, in a spiritual sense. God reigns in men's ...[text shortened]...
What sources do you have to support your reading of scripture?[/b]

Let's open another thread related to that topic. If you wish, we can discuss dispensationalism as a whole, or the biblical support for my contention that the Lord's Prayer is intended for specific groups of people, of which, we in the Church Age are not a part.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's open another thread related to that topic. If you wish, we can discuss dispensationalism as a whole, or the biblical support for my contention that the Lord's Prayer is intended for specific groups of people, of which, we in the Church Age are not a part.

I would if I thought discussing dispensationalism might free you from its hold on your intellect, but you seem way too entrenched. Have you ever entertained doubts about it? Or are you highly practiced in glossing over the inconsistencies and excusing the many false claims? If I'm dealing with a crystallized conviction a la rajk and robbie's contention that Jesus Christ is not divine, then I think I'll have to pass.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would if I thought discussing dispensationalism might free you from its hold on your intellect, but you seem way too entrenched. Have you ever entertained doubts about it? Or are you highly practiced in glossing over the inconsistencies and excusing the many false claims? If I'm dealing with a crystallized conviction a la rajk and robbie's contention that Jesus Christ is not divine, then I think I'll have to pass.

That sounds so Avatar-ish, but I'll bite, nonetheless.

For the record--- and just so you can lay out the right weaponry--- I never even considered a dispensational view until the last ten years. Three quarters of my life as a Christian was more covenant-minded.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would if I thought discussing dispensationalism might free you from its hold on your intellect, but you seem way too entrenched. Have you ever entertained doubts about it? Or are you highly practiced in glossing over the inconsistencies and excusing the many false claims? If I'm dealing with a crystallized conviction a la rajk and robbie's contention that Jesus Christ is not divine, then I think I'll have to pass.

umm you guys really need to get a handle on this, Christ is divine being, hes just not Almighty God for he is always in subjection to the father, he is to be honoured, but not worshipped like the father, he is a created entity, not the creator like the father. To state that we think that he is not divine is an inaccuracy, or at very least a misunderstanding, for he proceeded directly from God, the only entity directly created by God, that is why he is termed the only begotten. (please no arguments about the trinity, i am merely clarifying our position, you can believe what you want)