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