Religion: ain't it grand

[MichiganHerd]

I can't read the Bible. Too many words and phrases that I either cannot comprehend or can take in a variety of ways. I need to read something I can understand, and know there's a resolution involved in it. I can read the box score of the baseball game, and know all I need to know. With the Bible, it leaves me wondering about what the hell stuff like thou this, dost that are all about. They don't speak like that up in the holler. Is there a Bible out there translated into ways folks like me talk? That's the only way I could get through more than a handful of verses.

 

[CockyHerd]

It is about love but for the most part its living a certain way to escape Gods wrath towards the sodemites and non-believer. Plus the Roman Catholic Church put language in the bible to misguide people towards Christianity because they believe you repent your sins to some priest and all sins are forgiven. But honestly you can see a lot of the devils work within the Catholic church. And if you know your bible, you will know what im talking about.

So....Fear.

 

[Herd Fever]

I can't read the Bible. Too many words and phrases that I either cannot comprehend or can take in a variety of ways. I need to read something I can understand, and know there's a resolution involved in it. I can read the box score of the baseball game, and know all I need to know. With the Bible, it leaves me wondering about what the hell stuff like thou this, dost that are all about. They don't speak like that up in the holler. Is there a Bible out there translated into ways folks like me talk? That's the only way I could get through more than a handful of verses.

The New world Bible, but honestly the bible has turned into a game of Telephone. Anytime a new version has came out, it was dumbed down for the masses to understand.

 

[Herd Fever]

So....Fear.

Yes fear, one thing I have learned about Christianity is that it teaches you to fear an unforgiving God and his wrath.

 

[Walden Pond]

There's a big difference between dumb and lazy. If I wanted to understand Shakespeare, I could. Just don't care enough to engage in it. I prefer nerdy calculus over Shakesqueer.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Ah, now I get it. You are a devout follower of Catherine Ponder - a forerunner to Osteen and his ilk. That's why you are so defensive on this topic. Catherine Ponder is the L. Ron Hubbard of Christianity. Reading a series of books by someone with an obvious agenda doesn't make you an expert on the financial history of the early church. It just means you've bought her version of history hook, line, and sinker.

I don't "devoutly" follow anyone specifically. Which is the overall point of developing levels of spirituality and awareness. If I had to be connected to any specific religious group/belief (which I am not), it would most likely resemble something from the ancient Asian philosophies.

Where exactly did you gain such an understanding of what Ponder wrote? Simply reading an internet blog post somewhere? (again, thought I would use one of your previous accusations) What was her agenda exactly? Please explain your knowledge of her writings to us. (Don't simply quote internet blog critiques). Give us specific examples of her "false doctrine". Be sure and dumb it down for us, the way its been dumbed down for you.

Easy there. XGreed might take offense to the L Ron Hubbard comment. Not all the books I listed were Ponder written. But then again, you haven't read any of them either, so what do you really know. One minute you accuse another of not reading a book, and demanding examples. The next, you cowardly deny the examples as factual.........despite having never read any of them. Your levels of hypocrisy continue to be abundant (there is that word again).

The difference of course is that I read many different things in order to develop my own opinions. I understand that is not something most churches encourage their followers to do. Asking "why" is frowned upon in most doctrines/denominations. Which is exactly "why" I do it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Any true Christian needs to just read Genesis, Exodus, Revelations to learn how to live like a Christian to get closer to God and have eternal life. Granted everything in the bible was pieced together for a reason but pay attention to those 3 books and you will be fine

You better talk with Xgreed and Thunder and clear up their never ending contradiction. They question the whole premise of Christianity being about receiving anything of benefit (abundance) for one's loyal, unquestioning belief.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Where exactly did you gain such an understanding of what Ponder wrote? Simply reading an internet blog post somewhere? (again, thought I would use one of your previous accusations) What was her agenda exactly? Please explain your knowledge of her writings to us. (Don't simply quote internet blog critiques). Give us specific examples of her "false doctrine". Be sure and dumb it down for us, the way its been dumbed down for you.

Easy there. XGreed might take offense to the L Ron Hubbard comment. Not all the books I listed were Ponder written. But then again, you haven't read any of them either, so what do you really know. One minute you accuse another of not reading a book, and demanding examples. The next, you cowardly deny the examples as factual.........despite having never read any of them. Your levels of hypocrisy continue to be abundant (there is that word again).

The difference of course is that I read many different things in order to develop my own opinions. I understand that is not something most churches encourage their followers to do. Asking "why" is frowned upon in most doctrines/denominations. Which is exactly "why" I do it.

I have also read many books over the years on a variety of different beliefs. I enjoy challenging my faith because I think (1) it is a worthy pursuit, and (2) it makes it stronger - the same goes for debates like this. Admittedly, most of my reading/research has more to do with science and how it intersects and compares/contrasts with faith, as opposed to prosperity gospel.

That being said, I have never read any of Ponder's books. I am, however, generally familiar with her "works" and the teachings of those that have followed her. Do you deny she is a proponent of the "prosperity gospel"? Do you deny that Ponder is in a clear minority of "scholars" or ministers that view Christ and his disciples as "wealthy"?

Like I said, she was merely a precursor/contemporary of Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar. They all preach a doctrine that, on it's very face, is contrary to the Bible. It is a doctrine that focuses on man using God for material gain, as opposed to God using man to further His Kingdom. This is a false and contrary to everything the scriptures teach. Adherents to this belief system take several verses - ahem, John 10:10, ahem - and twist them to fit their selfish desires. The "abundance of life" referred to in this verse coincides with the parable of the sheep, the gate, and shepherd, and refers to knowing Christ, not material gain.

In short, you and I are obviously not going to agree on this issue, but to suggest I'm a mindless follower who is being intellectually dishonest in my views is incorrect.

 

[Walden Pond]

Be sure and dumb it down for us, the way its been dumbed down for you.

I feel kind of bad for him. Feels ashamed and trapped in a condemnation church. If he was proud of it, he would proclaim that yes, it's God's mighty fear and ability to throw you into hell that inspires him to move forward.

But that's not what we get. We get "it's false doctrine" and "you're too dumb" to mask the extremely thin veiled reason that it's the absence of hellfire and brimstone that makes Osteen's message unacceptable to the critics.

 

[big_country90]

I just want to point out that Riflearm has ran away from this thread because he knows he can't answer my question about his stance on abortion and science without being shown to be the hypocrite he is.

Carry on.

 

[raleighherdfan]

I have also read many books over the years on a variety of different beliefs. I enjoy challenging my faith because I think (1) it is a worthy pursuit, and (2) it makes it stronger - the same goes for debates like this. Admittedly, most of my reading/research has more to do with science and how it intersects and compares/contrasts with faith, as opposed to prosperity gospel.

That being said, I have never read any of Ponder's books. I am, however, generally familiar with her "works" and the teachings of those that have followed her. Do you deny she is a proponent of the "prosperity gospel"? Do you deny that Ponder is in a clear minority of "scholars" or ministers that view Christ and his disciples as "wealthy"?

Like I said, she was merely a precursor/contemporary of Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar. They all preach a doctrine that, on it's very face, is contrary to the Bible. It is a doctrine that focuses on man using God for material gain, as opposed to God using man to further His Kingdom. This is a false and contrary to everything the scriptures teach. Adherents to this belief system take several verses - ahem, John 10:10, ahem - and twist them to fit their selfish desires. The "abundance of life" referred to in this verse coincides with the parable of the sheep, the gate, and shepherd, and refers to knowing Christ, not material gain.

In short, you and I are obviously not going to agree on this issue, but to suggest I'm a mindless follower who is being intellectually dishonest in my views is incorrect.

So "knowing Christ" poses no "material benefit" to the believer? Your Christian doctrine supports God "using man" for "His" benefit, but Man "not using God" for their benefit? Does God not want man to be prosperous in belief, thought, action in order to better promote "His Kingdom"??? You are undermining your own doctrine and don't realize it. It's senseless.

Yes. You are intellectually dishonest, as any other preacher or "scholar" would be who denied most of the disciples wealth and prosperity before Jesus signed them up. For instance, another example.........Paul (formerly Saul) was a Pharisee (so says the bible---not a Ponder book). Do you know what a Pharisee was Thunder?? A Pharisee was a wealthy, Roman, connected, educated citizen. He was the one Non Jew of the bunch who also held tremendous power and influence within the region along with the other disciples. I could go on with more NON PONDER written examples and evidence here but you've already shut your mind to that knowledge.

 

[raleighherdfan]

I feel kind of bad for him. Feels ashamed and trapped in a condemnation church. If he was proud of it, he would proclaim that yes, it's God's mighty fear and ability to throw you into hell that inspires him to move forward.

But that's not what we get. We get "it's false doctrine" and "you're too dumb" to mask the extremely thin veiled reason that it's the absence of hellfire and brimstone that makes Osteen's message unacceptable to the critics.

He claims to have read books. I am beginning to wonder if he's actually even read the Bible.

 

[Walden Pond]

Well, since nobody will render an official ruling then I will do the honors.

Joel Osteen's sermons become true doctrine if you insert the phrase "follow this rule or eternal hell will befall you" at the 7 1/2 and 15 minute marks.

That's not bad. I think I can ignore two little bad mentions in a 20 some minute pep talk.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I feel kind of bad for him.

While I appreciate the sentiment, don't feel bad for me, I am quite happy with my life and faith.

 

[ThunderCat98]

He claims to have read books. I am beginning to wonder if he's actually even read the Bible.

Odd. I had the same thought about you.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Yes. You are intellectually dishonest, as any other preacher or "scholar" would be who denied most of the disciples wealth and prosperity before Jesus signed them up. For instance, another example.........Paul (formerly Saul) was a Pharisee (so says the bible---not a Ponder book).

Well, we can agree that 2 out of 12 came from money - which doesn't equate to "most" by my count. No question that Paul came from a wealthy, educated family. However, he ceased being a Pharisee upon his conversion. While his family's wealth may have funded his missionary work, Paul certainly didn't live a lavish lifestyle after accepting Christ. He was imprisoned numerous times, received corporal punishment at least 5 times, was shipwrecked 3 times, "knew hunger and thirst," was cold and naked (see 2 Corinthians 11:22-29), and ultimately beheaded. Yep. Sounds pretty abundant/prosperous to me. In a material/worldly kind of way, of course.

 

[Walden Pond]

While I appreciate the sentiment, don't feel bad for me, I am quite happy with my life and faith.

Was it built on a fear of eternal hell?

I'll admit that can be a good motivator. I'd have probably never done much of anything if not for fear of being broke and eating out of the dumpster.

Come to find out though, they throw better food in there than I usually eat.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Was it built on a fear of eternal hell.

Nope. Just love.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Well, we can agree that 2 out of 12 came from money - which doesn't equate to "most" by my count. No question that Paul came from a wealthy, educated family. However, he ceased being a Pharisee upon his conversion. While his family's wealth may have funded his missionary work, Paul certainly didn't live a lavish lifestyle after accepting Christ. He was imprisoned numerous times, received corporal punishment at least 5 times, was shipwrecked 3 times, "knew hunger and thirst," was cold and naked (see 2 Corinthians 11:22-29), and ultimately beheaded. Yep. Sounds pretty abundant/prosperous to me.

Yep that's progress. You denied that any were wealthy just one post prior. What else could you learn if your head wasn't stuck in additional dogmas? Maybe that even fishermen of that period were not broke impoverished men??? Considering that fish was a staple of life in that region, even a basic understanding would tell someone today that they were not impoverished. Do you need more tutoring?

As I have also pointed out earlier delivering a message of prosperity and abundance does not guarantee that your message will be acknowledge or accepted by those who question it. (Look at your own ignorance on the subject of prosperity as the example). Whether or not paul was liked, believed, or be headed has little to do with what his message was. Jesus spoke of "love" and desired people to love one another. Because he was crucified should I assume loving another is a waste of time because a group of people chose to kill him instead? That's the absolute ignorance you are continuing to perpetuate here Thunder. It's simply laughable.

I'll ask again, does your doctrine say that God demands actions of man to benefit "Him" while also denying the believer receive benefits from such a belief???

 

[CockyHerd]

Well, we can agree that 2 out of 12 came from money - which doesn't equate to "most" by my count. No question that Paul came from a wealthy, educated family. However, he ceased being a Pharisee upon his conversion. While his family's wealth may have funded his missionary work, Paul certainly didn't live a lavish lifestyle after accepting Christ. He was imprisoned numerous times, received corporal punishment at least 5 times, was shipwrecked 3 times, "knew hunger and thirst," was cold and naked (see 2 Corinthians 11:22-29), and ultimately beheaded. Yep. Sounds pretty abundant/prosperous to me. In a material/worldly kind of way, of course.

Just for the record.....Paul was not one of the original twelve.

 

[Walden Pond]

Nope. Just love.

How does that feel exactly?

I am grateful that I've never felt it, for I believe it would be similar to wearing 15 feathered bras as a hat.

 

[raleighherdfan]

The funny part of all this is that I have also been waiting for you to point out that Paul wasn't even a disciple of Christ. You read the bible regularly??

 

[raleighherdfan]

What's hillarious is that you follow up your argument that the apostles were poor, with this gem, admitting that they weren't. Do you even try to keep track of what you are arguing? It's like the old saying goes - you can't argue with stupid.

Just ran across this reply in the thread. Sorry I missed it before. I wasn't arguing the point that the apostles were poor moron. In the previous thread before this one, you asked me why I thought the first century church continued to thrive/survive after Jesus's death? I answered.......Because "they" (meaning: those citizens seeking the promises made by the apostles) were largely poor. Keeping track doesn't seem to be your foray.

I might add since you are into correct spelling......."Hilarious" is with 1 "L".

 

[Walden Pond]

Starting to wonder about all this love business, what with the insults of "dumb" and "stupid" being thrown around.

 

[extragreen]

The funny part of all this is that I have also been waiting for you to point out that Paul wasn't even a disciple of Christ. You read the bible regularly??

Yet another lie.

 

[ThunderCat98]

The funny part of all this is that I have also been waiting for you to point out that Paul wasn't even a disciple of Christ. You read the bible regularly??

Some scholars believe that Paul actually took Judas' place as the 12th apostle since he was expressly called by Christ into service, as opposed to being selected by men. I have no great opinion on the subject as it is of little consequence one way or the other.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Yep that's progress. You denied that any were wealthy just one post prior. What else could you learn if your head wasn't stuck in additional dogmas? Maybe that even fishermen of that period were not broke impoverished men??? Considering that fish was a staple of life in that region, even a basic understanding would tell someone today that they were not impoverished. Do you need more tutoring?

As I have also pointed out earlier delivering a message of prosperity and abundance does not guarantee that your message will be acknowledge or accepted by those who question it. (Look at your own ignorance on the subject of prosperity as the example). Whether or not paul was liked, believed, or be headed has little to do with what his message was. Jesus spoke of "love" and desired people to love one another. Because he was crucified should I assume loving another is a waste of time because a group of people chose to kill him instead? That's the absolute ignorance you are continuing to perpetuate here Thunder. It's simply laughable.

I'll ask again, does your doctrine say that God demands actions of man to benefit "Him" while also denying the believer receive benefits from such a belief???

The only benefit that is promised to those that believe is salvation. As for your other point, where did I say fisherman were "broke"? I said they weren't wealthy. There is obviously some middle ground between broke and wealthy.

 

[riflearm2]

I just want to point out that Riflearm has ran away from this thread because he knows he can't answer my question about his stance on abortion and science without being shown to be the hypocrite he is.

Carry on.

I told you that I would answer your question if you would answer mine. If you thought you really had me in a gotcha' moment, why would you hide from that?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Yet another lie.

Take it up with the scholars that say he wasn't a disciple/apostle. Either way. Doesn't matter. Dude was rich.

 

[extragreen]

Take it up with the scholars that say he wasn't a disciple/apostle. Either way. Doesn't matter. Dude was rich.

"The funny part of all this is that I have also been waiting for you to point out that Paul wasn't even a disciple of Christ. You read the bible regularly??"

Maybe you ought to read the Bible if you're going to use it as a reference. Some of the apostles and disciples certainly accepted him as a disciple.

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

You take it up with the scholars, I'll go with the guys that were actually there.
_______________________________

And while Paul may have been born into some wealth, he denounced it and says he lost all.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

 

[big_country90]

I told you that I would answer your question if you would answer mine. If you thought you really had me in a gotcha' moment, why would you hide from that?

I'm not hiding from anything. Simply put, I asked you first. Now you are wanting me to answer a question before you answer the one you were originally asked. I'm not going to do that until you answer mine. You are the one hiding.

Your reluctance to answer a simple question tells me all I need to know. You're a hypocrite who only accepts science when it agrees with your position. When science proves your position to be wrong, you run and hide. Quite frankly, I expected much better from you.

 

[raleighherdfan]

"The funny part of all this is that I have also been waiting for you to point out that Paul wasn't even a disciple of Christ. You read the bible regularly??"

Maybe you ought to read the Bible if you're going to use it as a reference. Some of the apostles and disciples certainly accepted him as a disciple.

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

You take it up with the scholars, I'll go with the guys that were actually there.
_______________________________

,

Impressive. You've talked with the guys that were there? Since when did the LRon members develop time travel?

Unfortunately, it wasn't Jesus who asked him to be an apostle. But since all these poor fisherman quit their businesses to follow a "Christ", that got killed, they probably needed some coin. What better excuse than to let a rich Roman into the new troubled Jew club. He probably picked up their tab for a while. (must have been the first "Angel Investor" ever recorded....LOL) Nevertheless, I guess we should just ignore Jesus in this instance and go with your version Greed.

By the way, what exactly were the ladies like back in the old homeland of Galilee during your visit?

 

[raleighherdfan]

The only benefit that is promised to those that believe is salvation.

Indeed, one hell of an incentive retirement plan with a prosperous payoff.

 

[Walden Pond]

Listened to Bill O'Reilly rail against the loss of religion in this country tonight on his show. It's a shame that there's this thought that Christian values can't be preserved unless people believe in a great reward after this life.

He talked about making sacrifices. Religious people sell their values short. If you don't live with good values, that's the sacrifice. It would be better to sell the idea that following the rules gets you a better life now, not after you're dead.

 

[extragreen]

Impressive. You've talked with the guys that were there? Since when did the LRon members develop time travel?

Unfortunately, it wasn't Jesus who asked him to be an apostle. But since all these poor fisherman quit their businesses to follow a "Christ", that got killed, they probably needed some coin. What better excuse than to let a rich Roman into the new troubled Jew club. He probably picked up their tab for a while. (must have been the first "Angel Investor" ever recorded....LOL) Nevertheless, I guess we should just ignore Jesus in this instance and go with your version Greed.

By the way, what exactly were the ladies like back in the old homeland of Galilee during your visit?

I read the account of the matter from people who were there.
Am I understanding correctly that you're stating that Jesus didn't ask Paul to be an apostle?

 

[extragreen]

Listened to Bill O'Reilly rail against the loss of religion in this country tonight on his show. It's a shame that there's this thought that Christian values can't be preserved unless people believe in a great reward after this life.

He talked about making sacrifices. Religious people sell their values short. If you don't live with good values, that's the sacrifice. It would be better to sell the idea that following the rules gets you a better life now, not after you're dead.

Luke 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

 

[Walden Pond]

life everlasting

I know most people want to lay peacefully on their death bed thinking of how they're going to live on. That's great. It provides them a way to die without being afraid of the nothingness they now face.

I will lay there and be grateful for the oblivion that I'm about to enter. Life. I didn't ask for it. Didn't want it. Don't really even like it. It's not bad, but it's just a decades-long chore. Seems to require more work than what you get in return.

Most people like it. I just don't. I kind of got taken. Spent my prime worried too much to enjoy anything. Now that I know it was all a joke and could buy whatever I want, I don't even want anything.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Listened to Bill O'Reilly rail against the loss of religion in this country tonight on his show. It's a shame that there's this thought that Christian values can't be preserved unless people believe in a great reward after this life.

He talked about making sacrifices. Religious people sell their values short. If you don't live with good values, that's the sacrifice. It would be better to sell the idea that following the rules gets you a better life now, not after you're dead.

We continue to agree on this topic. The problem with this of course (as it relates to the "church" and their old business model) is that by following the rules now....benefits you now philosophy........undercuts their evangelical "hopes and god fearing" message that have gone on for centuries in various religious sects. It turns their premise upside down.

Just look at the disgust and hate coming from "Christians" here who attack a preacher that delivers a positive message, encouraging positive thought and action, so that one can receive more out of their one life here now. The premise is so confusing you actually have self proclaimed devout Christians contradicting each other in this thread. Greed's last post to you above directly contradicts what Thunder has been calling a "false doctrine" for 2 days.

Unfortunately its an all or nothing simple proposition for most evangelical kooks. 1)Its ok if you are dependent, needy, fearful and guilt ridden into a faith in this life. 2) In order to earn privilege to walk streets of gold and live in mansions after you are dead. Probably THE greatest myth ever written.

 

[Walden Pond]

1)Its ok if you are dependent, needy, fearful and guilt ridden into a faith in this life. 2) In order to earn privilege to walk streets of gold and live in mansions after you are dead. Probably THE greatest myth ever written.

I think it's another weeding out process like welfare and college. Our system has many tests in place to cast people out of relevance.

If you fall for all the "you can't do anything" stuff, you still get the necessities of life for free and if you want it, a free promise of a great afterlife that you'll never even have to be shown doesn't exist.

If that's not good enough for you, then you press on. College education, learning the ropes of elaborate overcomplicated forms of simple things. All to get your foot in the door of doing something worthwhile.

Sometimes I still think maybe it wasn't worth it, but I really couldn't have accepted anything less.

 

[extragreen]

There's nothing wrong with motivational speaking. Just don't call it the gospel of Jesus Christ. When I quoted Christ with the "manifold more in this present time", he wasn't talking about material wealth. So no, that does not contradict what Thunder had to say. If you're going to disregard the Bible, then history itself will show you that many Christians are not wealthy. And no, it's not because they failed to "claim" their rightful riches. It does not surprise me that you side with those that teach wealth in this life, while claiming the religious teachings he might mention occasionally are total bunk. I'll sum up the situation of people like you, something you'll probably never hear from Osteen:

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.