creation... woooo

well, it's been a long time since I've updated this aspect of my blogging triumvirate, mainly because I've had nothing to say, but now I do, and I'm not even sure if people read this anyway

recently I've been struggling with the creation account that's in genesis. I've done a lot of research, and I understand evolution and creation, and I can honestly say, I don't believe in young earth creation as genesis tells it. I don't think the account in genesis is useless or irrelevant, I just don't think it's literal.

a few things have bought me to this point, mainly science showing me that evolution works and that everything points towards coming from the big bang and evolution, and also the apparent oddness of the genesis account.

another big thing that got me started was realising that christianity has been in this place before, with the earth as the centre of the universe thing. back when galileo offered up the idea that the earth rotated around the sun, the catholic church called him heretical and told him to recant what he had said as it opposed the bible. galileo was a christian, and he agreed with Saint Augustine that not all scripture is necessarily literal, for some of it is poetry or allegory. if you want to know if Saint Augustine was worth listening to, well, he's basically the very start of the reformation, and if you're non catholic (or if you are catholic and you enjoy the catholic church being non corrupt) then you have him to thank. the whole idea here is that galileo proved something "contradictory" to the bible, and he was punished for it.

so is that what is happening today with the whole creation evolution debate? the bible claims one thing and science claims another. I've studied evolution and it works, I have no reason to believe evolution itself is wrong, and I also understand the big bang, the science behind it and how science has come to that conclusion. and to be honest, I think it's greater glory to God to say he did it all that way instead of just "making the earth".

so what's the point of genesis then? I believe it's basically to point out that God did create everything, and that he planned it all and that it was all for his glory. it points out the meaning of everything.

if you want to look up some stuff for yourself here are some links Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis & Saint Augustine

just thinking

i was just thinking today, this is kind of going to be a bit of a stream of conscienceness kind of thing
i was lying down outside and i was so happy, so content with just lying there
and i was thinking about how the world is full of suffering
and it's unfair that while i can be content, i can't be 100%, only like 99% content, because the christian in me is always there saying 'there are people to be saved' or 'you haven't given God enough time today' and both are true, so it's not like their unresonable
and i was thinking, why is there suffering and sin, why didn't God stop it from happening, wether or not you believe in free will, but why did he set it up so it would happen.
and i was thinking, that there is suffering, but there is a 'solution' which is God, to be saved by Jesus. i was thinking that it's unfair some people are going to not be saved, and that just by being saved, doesn't actually make someone a non-sinner, it just covers their sin, so there in a sense is no difference, between the christian and the non-christian in the sense of having sin in their life. people can't determine where they are born, and so people can't choose to be born into a position that would guarantee salvation, so people aren't necessarily in control of getting saved.
and this is the crux I guess
as we know from revelations, there is to be a new world, I guess some people assume it's Heaven, but that's not directly what the bible says, so everybody is going to be in this new world, that was saved on earth, but what's the difference between someone who was saved and someone who hasn't been? well, as far as I can tell, nothing. is it really to someones credit that they were born into a particular time/place that allowed them to know God? What about Judas, it's a bit unfair on him. What about people born into Saudi Arabia, where converting to Christianity results in the Death Penalty?

I don't know

this is here for my sake not yours

well, you can read it if you wish, but i'm putting this here, because i read it and i thought it was great and wanted to keep it, so this is just a simple cut and paste, the writer was some "Martin Zender". if you don't want to read something about free will don't read this. and feel free to comment, but remember, i didn't write it, and that's not why i'm putting this here either. i'm not even saying i agree with all of it! but it's nicely put together. this is just for me to read again and keep basically


Free Will & The "Oh Well" Creed

What is free will? Free will is a doctrine that teaches that man can act independently of God. This should already ring sour to the spiritually-attuned ear. The doctrine of free will teaches that man has the freedom to choose or reject God, never mind the verse that says no man is seeking God (Rom. 3:11).

But I remind you that we’re talking about free will; Scripture has nothing to do with this.

In other words, in the doctrine of free will, man becomes the deciding factor in his own salvation. Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, according to this doctrine, was only a potential salvation, not an actual one. According to this doctrine, the cross of Christ never saved anybody; the cross only saves those who decide to be saved. What about the verse that says no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him? (Jn. 6:44). Never mind it. What about the verses that say God is the Savior of all mankind (1 Tim. 4:10), and that the blood of the cross will reconcile all to Him (Col. 1:20), whether those on the earth or those in the heavens? Never mind them. Then what about the verse that says God is operating all things in accord with the counsel of His will? (Eph. 1:11) Again, never mind. I have already told you. Scripture has nothing to do with this. We’re talking about free will.

Scripture is strong medicine

Reader, if you believe in the free will of man, please investigate the ninth chapter of Romans in any version you please, come back, then tell me if you still believe in it. If you still do, then read Romans 11:32. If you still believe in free will after that, take a little tea, massage your temples, and read John 6:44. You say you’ve read these verses and you still believe in free will? Very well; perhaps your neck needs cracked. If you do not know a good chiropractor, try it yourself. Place one hand on your head, another on your chin and yank. Ah! Now read Ephesians 1:4. Still? Perhaps bed is the answer.

Go to bed, rise tomorrow with a clear head, then read Proverbs 16:9, 19:21 and 1 Kings 22:22. If, for whatever reason—medical or otherwise—you still believe in free will, take Daniel 4:35, Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 21:1, Proverbs 20:24 and Isaiah 10:15 and call me in the morning. As long as you are neither pregnant nor nursing a baby, take two readings of Ephesians 1:11. Caution: do not exceed this recommended dosage. At higher doses, unbearable relief may occur.

Warning: these verses may cause excitability in theologians and seminary students. Avoid operating a motor vehicle while reading these verses. A persistent reliance on orthodox tradition may be a sign of a serious condition. If your belief in free will persists for more than a week, tends to recur, or is accompanied by rash, pride (or rash pride) and a general looking down on others, accompanied by a false estimation of self, consult your Savior.

Who chose who?

Don’t take my jolly humor the wrong way. I used to believe in free will myself. But then a brother asked me to exercise it by deciding not to sin the following day. I was determined to do it. My alarm clock went off and I reached for it, but it wasn’t there; Melody had moved it to her side of the bed. The day had hardly begun and already I had missed my alarm clock; the word sin, in the original Greek language of Scripture, simply means "to miss."

So much for my vaunted free will.

Deep down, many Christians believe that there is something about them that makes them smarter than others, able to make a better decision concerning God than others. Wouldn’t you agree that Christians who think this way would have something to boast in? They would if an account of their salvation began with the word "I."

Yet Paul says that, in the true gospel of grace, boasting is debarred. That’s Romans 3:27. "Debarred" means: shut out, excluded. Do you realize what this means?

This means that a believer cannot even claim credit for his or her ability to believe! (Quite true, I’m afraid. Read Philippians 1:29 and Romans 12:3. The first verse says that our belief in Christ is graciously granted us, the second that our very faith is a gift. You’re disappointed; I can see it in your face. But now you know the truth: You are no different than anyone else. If God hadn’t chosen you, you’d be an unbeliever, too, just like your stupid Uncle Harry. Take heart. Once your pride has recovered from this, you will exult in your Savior as never before; you will need Him as you never have. (If God has used me to save you from a fall and soften your opinion of Harry, I am happy.)

Think!

Now think about it. If a person begins an account of his or her salvation with the word "I," then he or she is boasting. That person may say they’re not boasting, but denial doesn’t change facts. Yet if they begin an account of their salvation with the word "God," they are practically repudiating the doctrine of human free will. What about you? Does an account of your salvation begin with the word "I" or with the word "God?" I hope that it begins with the word "God." If it does, then you have rejected the false doctrine of the free will of man and now believe in the free will of God. This is a good thing.

For who makes you different from anybody else, and what have you got that was not given to you? And if anything has been given to you, why boast of it as if you had achieved it yourself? —1 Cor. 4:7

But here we run into an apparently insurmountable problem, which also appears quite impossible to overcome. We now understand that God has given us the belief and faith necessary for salvation. But this leads us to a startling and seemingly troubling conclusion: He has not given this belief and faith to others. While this may be a hard pill to swallow at first (I recommend a little orange juice), it is nonetheless true. As I will show, this is not a problem. No, truth is never a problem. Discarding error is the problem.

Matthew 13:11 records these words Jesus spoke to His disciples: "To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those (the throng) it has not been given."

Hear Him in Matthew 11:25- "Jesus said, ‘I am acclaiming Thee, Father...for Thou hidest these things from the wise and intelligent.’"

What does the Master say of Jerusalem in Luke 19:42? "If you knew...what is for your peace! Yet now it was hid from your eyes."

Could it be that God purposely kept some from believing His Son? You may be tempted to think that the "wise and intelligent" nailed their own coffins, or that Jerusalem got stubborn apart from God’s influence. Resist this temptation. I challenge you to read what these verses say, not what the "wise and intelligent" tell you they say. God is a causer, not a reactor. Consider the above in light of the following:

Romans 11:8- "Even as it is written, God gives them (Israel) a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day."

Romans 11:32- "For God locks up all together in stubbornness."

Romans 9:18- "Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening."

To the mind unprejudiced by traditional teaching, these verses say one thing: God is responsible for unbelief. Don’t shoot the messenger! This truth is probably causing yet another seemingly inescapable problem to trouble your mind. That is why I am about to place that problem on a sturdy table in front of you and offer a solution to it in the plainest possible language. I choose English.

Divine-inspired stubbornness

If you believe in either the annihilation or eternal torment of Uncle Harry, then you have encountered a serious problem. I have just shown from the Scriptures that God is responsible, not only for withholding Himself from Uncle Harry, but also for locking up Harry in stubbornness. Now look around you. The world is an oblate spheroid from the weight of people like Uncle Harry; the spiritually stubborn account for most of humanity. My question to you is: what happens when these people die in this condition?

You say everyone gets an opportunity to believe before they die? Let’s test this theory. Pause to consider Israel.

In Romans 11:8, Paul writes that, "even as it is written, God gives Israel a spirit of stupor" that remains "till this very day." Paul was quoting Isaiah 29:10. Israel’s divinely-inspired stubbornness, then, dates at least to Isaiah’s time. (See also Isaiah 63:17 and 64:7-8.) Paul wrote Romans around the summer of ‘58 A.D. Isaiah lived around 750 B.C. Here alone are approximately 800 years of God-inspired stubbornness. And what of the nearly 2000 years of stupor since? Folks, a lot of Jews have died unbelievers in 2800 years. And God, Who has not only made them stubborn (Rom. 11:8, 11:32) but also holds the keys of death (Rev. 1:18), is responsible.

I wonder if your theology has an answer for this. I’ve been staring at that throw rug over there by your rocking chair. All this time I thought that was your dog lying under it. Now I see that Boscoe is chewing on the sofa. That lump under your rug is all the verses I’ve just quoted that you’ve been sweeping under there for most of your Christian life. I think it’s time for a little spring cleaning.

The "Oh well!" creed

Calvinists (those folks belonging to a religion invented by John Calvin) ran into the same problem; they simply put their dogs outside. But besides this, they also had trouble with the idea of a sovereign God bringing billions of people into the world, only to send most to an eternity of torment. You see, the Calvinists at least saw the truth of the sovereignty of God; give them credit for relatively flat rugs. They acknowledged that members of Christ’s body are predestined for it long before birth, apart from personal merit. That’s easy enough to see; Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 8:29 say as much. So hooray for the Calvinists again.

But what of the billions of people who aren’t predestined for heaven? What about the horrible problem of a God who purposely feeds hellfire with divinely-hardened flesh? Well, the Calvinists finally devised a "solution" to that: they no longer considered it a problem! Today, one of their shortest creeds is: "Oh well!" This creed is repeated a great deal at funerals. Calvinism so infuses the heart with Christian love that its founder, John Calvin, once had a disagreeable Spanish theologian, Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in Geneva in 1553. Doesn’t that hurt? I guess only if you hold onto the match for too long.

Song and dance

At the other end of the problem stand the Arminians. These folks followed Jacobus Arminius, who rejected Calvin’s predestination teaching of pure grace. Arminius believed salvation was available to everyone—if they exercised their free wills and took it (i.e. "works"). The Arminians’ rug resembled a beret on the Matterhorn. But at least they relieved God of responsibility for His creation. God sent them a large "thank you" card, which can be seen at the National Free Will Museum in Meesavemyself, New Mexico. This museum is open only if you believe that it’s open.

"If you go to hell, it’s your fault!" is the Good News of the Arminians. This bogus gospel, passed down to the present, is believed and preached by millions. It even makes some people want to wear robes.

But the doctrine, "if you go to hell, it’s your fault!" does have an even more sinister side-effect than making people want to wear robes. That side-effect is: If you go to heaven, it’s your credit. This deduction is unavoidable. If going to hell is one’s fault, how can staying out of it be anything but one’s credit? I give up. If I can be stubborn enough to lose my salvation, it is self-evident that I can be savvy enough to gain it. This little song and dance is also called "salvation by works." But I wouldn’t tell people that this is what they really believe. Well—I guess I would. But they won’t like to hear it. And they sure won’t believe it.

So you say you want to get persecuted? That’s awesome. Then walk into your average evangelistic church today and suggest to them that the blood of Christ was shed for—and will ultimately save—everyone.

For some reason, this news will stab their hearts and they will hate your intestines.

Want to hear some sense?

Now I’m going to solve the problem and relieve your troubled mind. Don’t credit me—give God the glory. (But I do accept Red Lobster gift certificates.)

The problem, restated, is: 1) No one can believe in God unless God gives belief 2) He refuses to give belief to most of humanity, hardening hearts to boot, and—here comes the problem— 3) He allegedly sends those whom He has hardened (without the proper clothing, one would assume) to an eternity of hellfire.

You will notice that the Calvinist and the Arminian viewpoint have one common point: a belief in eternal torment. The Arminians ducked this horror by making God not liable for sending folks to orthodox hell. The ticket out? Free will. Free will is one of the easiest heresies to disprove from Scripture—but it doesn’t matter. Arminian-types who believe in eternal torment are in the embarrassing position of having to stare sovereignty-of-God verses in the face and deny them; I’ve witnessed the phenomenon. But at least, unlike Calvinists, they resist a God who damns people on purpose. Calvinists, delicate souls, simply recite the "Oh well!" creed and go home.

The common problem with these two errant beliefs is—eternal torment. In my next book, I will put together the correct part of Arminianism with the correct part of Calvinism (discarding the rest), to show you the truth.

ALL things © copyright 2001-2006 by Martin Zender. All rights reserved.

andrew rants

i just want to say before you read this, that i was very 'emotional' when i wrote this and it comes off as a big rant, which it is. i still stand by everything i said, but if i wrote it again, i'd be a lot less emtotional and less of a rant

inspired by this blog and the war going on, i have been inspired to write about something.

can we just make stuff up and say it's true? i'm not talking about any old thing, but things to do with God/theology etc?

the more i look back at my past, the more i realise i've heard preachers tell me things, that have no bearing in reality. i have learnt that the bible is the only definate word of God we have. people talk about special revelation and what-not, but i've heard more than one 'revelation of heaven' and they were both different.

lets get a fact straight. the only theological thing we know for sure is the bible. who agrees with me? hopefully you all do.

second, we know that if something contradicts the bible then it is wrong, that too is not a grey area but black and white.

the issue comes from the third area. when someone preaches something that doesn't contradict the bible but doesn't come from it either, then what are we to do?

i heard a preacher at CNLC (guest) tell me that when you get to heaven, if you have gotten over something (like an addiction to drugs) that you'll get a crown.

his message was based on that, yet, there is no reference to that in the scripture?

sure it sounds nice, he may have even woke up from a dream with that in it! but does that mean we can just 'add' it to theology? of course not. often i hear people say things, that do sound correct, and may well be, but they're not from the bible, and therefore, ARE NOT DOCTRINE/TRUTH, and should always be stated with that in mind. something SHOULD NOT tell you something like getting a crown in heaven, without also adding that this information is speculative and not bible sourced

another one is people reading their experience into the bible. in the bible, start of acts, people spoke in tongues. in that instance, it was other known languages. nowadays people speak in tongues (i too used to do it lots), not in the same way as in the bible, but people say that what happened in the bible must be what is happening now. you know what they say about assumption.

and the greatest thing about all this is the pride people have. i am open to new opinion. i used to just accept things. i listened, and changed my mind. at least i gave it a chance. most people who i talk to won't listen. they are set in their way/thoughts and won't accept others. that is pride. to assume you are right? we CAN NOT know for sure if the 'tongues' people speak today are the same thing that was in the bible. never mind the fact that the bible clearly states to not speak in tongues unless there is an interpreter, it still happens in church often.

people will argue and tell me that tongues they speak today are the same as they were back in acts despite the fact that the situation is different and the results are different. i don't know why people are so proud they can't stop and think, maybe i'm just doing what everybody else is doing and not really stopping and studying the situation for myself, and then talking to people on both sides of the fence and really getting their own concept. a well rounded view.

i'm not trying to tell you if tongues are right or not. in my opinion, what i used to say wasn't the spirit, it was me making stuff up. i don't personally think that we have a need to speak in tongues, and that tongues was something for the people who first experienced the holy spirit. that was extraordinary circumstances, the holy spirit came down for the first time in history. they also had fire on them, but no-one has fire on them today??

context context context people. not just with learning, but why did those people have tongues and who else did and why? tongues is just an example here.

please people, study the bible, don't add to it. if it doesn't come from the bible then while it may be true, you can't state it as truth.

education vs ignorance

i was just reading something and it made me think. unlike most things i'm not sure on my position here.

the thing i was reading was about sex education and abstinance etc. this was actually about those 'purity' rings that people can wear that say they have put themselves aside to wait for marriage to have sex.

now usually i think thats a good thing. im not condoning pre-marital sex, with my christian believes and whatnot

the problem here, is that 88% of the people who make these 'purity pledges' go against what they've said.

now that in itself isn't the problem, people are responsible for their own actions and no-one else is, the problem, is that more often than not, the teachings of abstinance do not actually teach the realities of life and the 'what ifs' of what happens when (a large proportion of) people ignore these teachings and go ahead and do stuff anyway.

invariably, these people because they have been taught abstinance, do not know 'what to do', or more importantly, what not to do. this is where more people have unprotected sex, spread stds and get pregnant.

so thats the problem, but the other issue is what to do about the problem. some people (conservatives more than liberals) say that sex education is the same as condoning sex. well, there is a good question. if you teach people about sex are they more likely to do it? well, maybe, but i know i'd rather have my kid have sex younger and protected than older and unprotected (ultimately, i'd rather them wait until marriage) so yeah. education is a good thing, in my opinion. what do you think?

i personally think it's silly that people think education or legalisation = condoning, and this has come up in various debates i've had about drugs with people. i've been arguing with people about BZP and how various people want it made illegal, when i think it should stay legal, and in fact i think most drugs should be made legal, not because i want to use them, but because we shouldn't be told what to do, and it's our bodies, and just because some people don't like it doesn't mean we should force people to do what we want. people have said if you legalise marijuana it's the same as telling people 'it's ok to do', but cutting yourself is legal but that's not ok to do and it's also legal to run into a wall but that doesn't mean anyone is encouraging you to do that (actually, if you're the type of person who does things because you get told to do them, I encourage you to run into a wall) it's more a matter of personal freedom

for those opposed to drug legalisation, seriously answer this: "if someone wants to get high, why shouldn't they be allowed to" because the answer to "if someone wants to drink himself to oblivion every night, why shouldn't they be allowed to" is "but they are"

what i've been taught vs what i've been "taught"

what?
i was talking with my wife about this, talking about our earlier christian walks, and the churches and everything
iwe were talking about, how the churches were, and how we were taught some things but then the actions would teach us opposing things.

for example, the idea that all sin is the same. we were taught that, we read the bible and people would make a point of saying that all sin is the same. then people would be seriously looked down upon if they went out and got drunk but a lot of other sins were overlooked or weren't looked so badly at.

there were a number of things that i 'learnt' which contradict what the bible teaches me about things

freedom to do as we please

i've been thinking, and lets discuss (or not) some concepts of freedom and what we have in our society.

we think we have a pretty free society, but on the other hand, it's illegal to drive without your seatbelt on. we know why, as it is proven that seatbelts can turn fatal car accidents into non-fatal ones. but what if a person knows that danger but wants to risk it anyway? he's not allowed to, he's not free.

we can expand that to almost anything, drugs (my favorite), gambling, tv, basically anything. if something does not directly affect others lives, then why should we stop people from doing something? it's not illegal to be an alcoholic and spend all of your life drunk, some people think it should be, but that person makes decisions to ge drunk every day, and sure we think he's wasting it, but he's just excersising his freedom to do what he pleases. for some people it's not so easy, they can't legally just do what they want.

so what would happen in a society where the state didn't try to be everyone's parents/nanny? if all drugs were legal and taxed and that money was spend on education? a lot of christians read this blog (maybe not a lot..) and i am one of them, but often tend to forget that we live in a free society, not a christian one, so why do we push christian ideals onto people? we all know heroin is extremely addictive and can kill, why is that justification for not letting people do that to themselves?

bias opinion a

this has absolutely nothing to do with theology, it's just some thoughts on how society, and humanity (in the west) have changed in 50 odd years.

i've just been reading this post on this board and it cracked me up but it also got me thinking. not really about that in particular though.

in the past the majority of people had similar tastes, i guess that would be the 'evolution' of the fundamental way that our western society/civilisation, from earlier times where money was not as existant and people were forced, out of situations generally out of their reach, to have similar lifestyles. next from an ingrained acceptance of society, from growing up only experiencing it, they carried 'not making different choices to other people' 'genes' through. when i say gene here i mean in a sense where although its not biological, you have it (a behaviour) carried on from parent/s to child. so often people are bought up liking the same things, not so much because they didn't have different tastes, but the whole general concept of people having radically different tastes and it being for the most part acceptable didn't even yet exist.

i'm sure that tv was a giant spark in the whole 'acceptance of different tastes', as people experiencing enjoyment in things that weren't what 'everybody' enjoyed also. slowly people in their own very home, they enjoyed television, not when they were around their friends, but when you were home alone with their family, or even by themselves?

then people would see things happening on tv that didn't happen in real life, so people would then slowly do these things (often is lesser amounts) do this more and more in real life and that would set the new standard for society (over a slow gradient of time) and tv's 'standards' are permanently lower than what is acceptable by general (as in average) population so it's an persistant cycle. and now that a large proportion of the population have access to the internet at home, a portion of those people use it as a fundamental part of their living in this current state of society, and so they will 'hone' their interests (some moreso than others) in more specific sub-aspects.

we now, as a common feature of society, will have people that are indulged into certain activities, who are rarely accepted by 'average' people. but people influence other people, people would co-exist with these people (more often now in a physical location sense) and learn from/teach people different ways of thinking and realisations of different tastes from these people not only from talking but learning also from observation (the brain's primary method of learning, being a basis for all thoughts 'above' it) and it may register something in these people.

and seeing as in *our* society the government in a round about way attempts (as the general goal that the government) to give the majority what they want. back in the day often the majority wanted it the same way, but not so today, a lot lost the passed down 'gene' of wanting to remove minorites (in a global sense), and have just chosen to accept them.

now all of this isn't something that happened suddenly, most of these things happen slowly during overlapping generations. remember there is roughly an average amount of people going through this school year learning habits passed down from older kids every year, so often change in society doesn't happen in bursts as history has previously, as we are taught it, but happens slowly.

then something society get quicker bursts happening in subtle and not so subtle (in the past tense) ways. as far as societies' history goes (as we were taught it) the internet being picked up was particulary quick, because for a lot it has revolutionised everything. 'revolutions' of thought and acceptance happened in the 50's, and that small burst of revolution started something else entirely different but entirely similar in the 60's, which has carried on until now going through changes that have basically completely affected the way all of society is today. which has always been happening of course, but this explosion of population growth that's happened recently (history time scale) has accelerated everything.

and it's hard sitting in this position now to wonder how 'wide' society is going to get before they don't fit together anymore at all. i guess some people would imagine that couldn't happen to our 'glorious' western society but it can and it will, at some stage, maybe not anywhere near our time, but we're experiencing it, it seems some parts of society aren't willing to give up things that the rest of people have now 'know' is not acceptable (ingrained racism etc) as quickly as others and when that lag gets too long big problems are going to happen, and they are, society puts it's pressure on people in different ways, and things that used to be of great value are now undervalued, like staying in marriage for example (wether or not the people were happy, is an unavoidable (as a whole) aspect of society that often happened to people regardless of their own efforts and is due to the 'hand me down' construct of society).

/opinion follows
so the patterns of living the way people were, aren't based from self made choices, they were enabled by their ancestors life experiences. wether we want it or not you have picked up stuff from your parents and every single person around you, wether it be good or bad. and basically, in the past, people got those things from directly above (parents) or from people with similar perspectives on life, but the 'web' of effective people is widening.

whats my point? well, that part is based on my opinion of right and wrong and my opinion of how i think society 'should be'


i spend a lot of time reading an internet forum where most are far more liberal than i have been, has this affected me? hell yes, so much, is it all good? me from the past wouldn't agree but who knows? i can accept being liberal in some ways, but not others.

i guess im personally a bit of an odd liberal, because i believe people should be able to do basically anything, as long as they understand (in a complete sense) all the repurcussions off such an anything. is that even possible to achieve?

i have been allowed

what a fling fest

not really
if you keep up with this particular blog of mine, you may have noticed, not so much argument but discussion on the topic of calvinism/arminianism in my last post by people leaving comments, thats fine. i thought i'd make a post giving some points and generally moving that discussion here to where it should be. as per usual i'm crap at explantion so here are quotes.

now before i start, i want people to realise that calvinism is just as valid a doctrine as arminianism (that's what most pentecostal/modern christians are, they just don't realise there is a name for it) and for starters here are some quotes from the wikipedia

"Although much of Calvin's practice was in Geneva, his publications spread his ideas of a correctly reformed church to many parts of Europe. Calvinism became the theological system of the majority in Scotland, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany and was influential in France, Romania (especially in Transylvania and Poland. Most settlers in the American Mid-Atlantic and New England were Calvinists, including the Puritans and Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam (New York). Dutch Calvinist settlers were also the first successful European colonizers of South Africa, beginning in the 17th century, who became known as Boers or Afrikaners.Sierra Leone was largely colonised by Calvinist settlers from Nova Scotia, who were largely Black Loyalists, blacks who had fought for the British during the American War of Independence.

And some more quotes from the wikipedia

The five points of Calvinism

Main article: Five points of Calvinism

Calvinist theology is often identified in the popular mind as the so-called "five points of Calvinism," which are a summation of the judgments (or canons) rendered by the Synod of Dort and which were published as a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate). Calvin himself never used such a model, and never combated Arminianism directly. They therefore function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism but not as a complete summation of Calvin's writings or of the theology of the Reformed churches in general. The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of men.

The five points of Calvinism, which can be remembered by the English acronym TULIP are:

* Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures.
* Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
* Limited atonement (or particular redemption or definite atonement): The death of Christ actually takes away the penalty of sins of those on whom God has chosen to have mercy. It is "limited" to taking away the sins of the elect, not of all humanity, and it is "definite" and "particular" because atonement is certain for those particular persons.
* Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.
* Perseverance of the saints (or preservation of the saints): Any person who has once been truly saved from damnation must necessarily persevere and cannot later be condemned. The word saints is used in the sense in which it is used in the Bible to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint).


And here is a link to a History of Calvinist and Arminian Debate

See Calvinism is not some new doctrine that I've just come up with, it's older than arminianism, the doctrine of most christians out there TODAY.

The beauty of christians is their ability to have crazy arguments based on emotion and an unwillingness to consider an opposite. I seriously challenge people to actually do some of their own research into this, don't just spout of what you think or have been taught by church leaders. If you research this and still find it lacking, then I'm happy, but if you just don't give it the time of day because you are too proud to consider that you may be incorrect, then I am unhappy.


Rayd, you say you believe in free-will but you cannot fall away from Salvation, as in, someone who falls away from God didn't really know him in the first place.

So what about people who don't go to Heaven? You're saying that when someone is born, God knows for certain if they will go to Heaven or not. So God willing makes people that he KNOWS will not choose him and go to Hell? How is that a loving God? Because you said unless someone truely knows God, they won't go to Heaven, but how can someone know God unless HE brings the person to him? A person cannot know God by his own accord or ability. What you're saying is he makes someone, gives them an option KNOWING they won't accept it, and then they go to Hell??

I don't actually disagree with that so much, only I don't think God actually offers something to people he knows won't take it. Well I don't even think God offers anything to us, he gives it to us, and if God gives us something how are we as humans to reject it? Is that even possible? I don't think so personally.

So people, go read about it. Here is another good link. And also read anti-calvinist writings too and see how for me they grasp onto weak concepts and out of context scripture. Remember the aim of the game isn't to be 'right' (even though I am :v) but is to have looked at all the paths and decided on your truth. I honestly believe what we call Calvinism to be the true gospel. No I don't think everything John Calvin said is 100% correct but I believe in the doctrine he outlined.

The theological/historical knowledge of christians about christianity is quite appaling really. I had to do a course to even learn that the original Hebrew people split into two distinct groups and formed the Jews and the Samaritans. Why wasn't I taught this in church, why was I only taught stuff like how to save my school (which is still not saved) and other stuff which is good at the time but based on emotion/being-cool and not really any depth.

Rayd and Sharyn said I should read my bible without the intention of study or trying to get anything out of it. Why should I read it like that? Where are the instructions in the bible for how to read it? Sure there is merit in reading it like that, but seeing as most churches don't study the bible during church and the 'bible studies' leave a hell of a lot to be desired, I need to study it at some stage..

/rant

challenge/inspire me

if you read my last post you may be wondering what i am doing
now i made a statement that said i am over non-belief and into uninterested territory. what i mean was that i am now over unbelieving and back into believing, not that i had gone so far in my unbelief. i hope that clears things up. in some ways i am doing better than before but in some ways not.

anyway. you can help me. i know a few people read this from time to time, thanks big jas and rayd sometimes you do

anyway, give me a verse or preferably a passage and i will study it and write a miniture sermon on it to the best of my ability. help me get interested in the bible again. i know if i pick one myself i won't have the motivation but if in a way i'm doing it for someone else, then awesome!

so what am i doing

so what am i doing? my wife asked me last night if i still think of myself as a christian. yeah i do, but you can't really tell. especially by my personal time. i'm actually almost over my non-belief stage and just in a stage of complete uninterest. the bible just doesn't interest me like it used to. and i know the answer to that is to just read it.

why is it when we fall away from God we often are able to keep outward appearances (for the most part) up to scratch. we're all SO afraid of being seen to be non-christian but don't really have a problem pretending to be 'better' than we are.

and why do i always feel a need to be abrasive to christian concepts? i for whatever reason always feel the need to question people and generally be distracting. now i don't want to make people uninterested in God, i guess often i just want people to think more and listen less. christians as a whole tend to be very sheepy, but more so when it comes to preachers and not Jesus. so many christians will spout out things like "Jesus would rather have a sinning Andrew than no Andrew at all" but where do they get this information? do they have a special internet-connection with God that we don't because that stuff sure as hell certainly isn't in the Bible which is the only SURE thing God gave us. but irrespective of that why do i feel the need to bring up stuff like that. or bring up drugs or other edgy comments. part of me has some amount of disdane for the current state of the church and where it gets its morals from but the other half agrees with them. oh what am i doing

struggling

i don't know what else to say. my faith as of lately is stuggling to get through the day. i still try to pray and occasionally read the bible but i'm not enthusiastic about it at all and sometimes i even doubt it. i'm even becoming quite cynical and i don't like it. take for example, i was reading some blogs, amy hays to be specific, hers is called 'you love me just the way i am' and the first thing that popped into my head was 'but i'm still not good enough' and in some ways i feel that way. god loves us just the way we are, but that might still not be enough to get us into heaven?

i was thinking about why people are like they are. who am i? where does my personality come from. well, my personality resides in my brain, and the only thing my brain has to go off is memory. without memory what can a brain do. the brain is just a memory machine, a very advanced one. but say for example someone gets drunk and forgets what they did on a certain evening, for example, or even goes under general anesthetic for a operation. now the brain was working but didn't remember it. so in theory you could take away the memory of someone and they'd be no-one. so from the moment a person is born they start to remember things, the way people bring them up and the things they see, and it molds what the person is like. so what makes me different from a child born in saudi arabia? i was born into a situation where i came across god, but he did not. i can only make choices that are given to me, and imo choices are just an illusion anyway, because if you think about it, form the moment you're born everything that is ever going to happen to you is already worked out because nothing is random and because things have to follow laws nothing can change..... if i took away my memory then what makes me a christian or not? if a christian gets knocked out and get amnesia, are they still a christian?

just venting sorry