Page 6 of 12

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:21 pm
by B. W.
Butterfly wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote:I was in the Word of Faith movement from the mid to late 80's...through most of the 90's I was in and out of many different churches trying to find one that I could call home, all the while doing a lot of home Bible studies with Christian friends. From the late 90's till about 2008 my husband and I settled into a Covenant church where we were involved in the music and youth ministries and Bible studies.
Were those the years your parents were in the WoF movement? A lot of people drifted from WoF to the Covenant model group during the time periods you cited as well drifted into very legalistic Messianic (goyum) based groups. What years were you in Christian Science group as you mentioned you were involved before the Word of Faith (WoF)
Yes, my parents were in WoF the same years as I was, though they remained in it after I migrated out because of its legalism. In the late 80's I was very interested in Messianic ministries like Zola Levitt, I even learned how to read and write Hebrew, and to play Messianic songs from groups like Lamb.
I was involved in Christian Science for a few years in the late 70's with my mom.
B. W. wrote:Next, there are many different Covenant type Church groups with many different focus's - was the one you were involved with a Shepherding/Discipleship model or where there was a strong control - submission to authority and mandatory accountability model ie legalism model. For those reading this: Not all Covenant type Church groups now use these models but in the past it was an accepted standard for most that bore the name (Covenant). This model was directed primarily at any leadership role (leadership positions got the worst end of it) and due to this many leadership persons left the Covenant groups - broken and bitter people. It filtered down to the members in slower degrees. Thankfully this model is disappearing by God's unseen hand of correction, Amen

So Butterfly, is Spock your Husband? And were both of you in this type of Covenant Model group?
The Covenant church we were involved in was relatively liberal, but there was continual turnover in the leadership positions, which ultimately led to us leaving a couple of years before we left Christianity, though that wasn't the reason.

Anyone who has read my blog, and visited Spock's (Richards) blog and website, knows that we are husband and wife. I was involved in the Covenant church a few years before Richard and I were married, then he joined afterwards.
Can you define what you mean by relatively liberal as that is a broad definition? Who were the teachers they had or books you read from that group... or can you provide a link to their website?
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:29 pm
by Butterfly
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote:I was in the Word of Faith movement from the mid to late 80's...through most of the 90's I was in and out of many different churches trying to find one that I could call home, all the while doing a lot of home Bible studies with Christian friends. From the late 90's till about 2008 my husband and I settled into a Covenant church where we were involved in the music and youth ministries and Bible studies.
Were those the years your parents were in the WoF movement? A lot of people drifted from WoF to the Covenant model group during the time periods you cited as well drifted into very legalistic Messianic (goyum) based groups. What years were you in Christian Science group as you mentioned you were involved before the Word of Faith (WoF)
Yes, my parents were in WoF the same years as I was, though they remained in it after I migrated out because of its legalism. In the late 80's I was very interested in Messianic ministries like Zola Levitt, I even learned how to read and write Hebrew, and to play Messianic songs from groups like Lamb.
I was involved in Christian Science for a few years in the late 70's with my mom.
B. W. wrote:Next, there are many different Covenant type Church groups with many different focus's - was the one you were involved with a Shepherding/Discipleship model or where there was a strong control - submission to authority and mandatory accountability model ie legalism model. For those reading this: Not all Covenant type Church groups now use these models but in the past it was an accepted standard for most that bore the name (Covenant). This model was directed primarily at any leadership role (leadership positions got the worst end of it) and due to this many leadership persons left the Covenant groups - broken and bitter people. It filtered down to the members in slower degrees. Thankfully this model is disappearing by God's unseen hand of correction, Amen

So Butterfly, is Spock your Husband? And were both of you in this type of Covenant Model group?
The Covenant church we were involved in was relatively liberal, but there was continual turnover in the leadership positions, which ultimately led to us leaving a couple of years before we left Christianity, though that wasn't the reason.

Anyone who has read my blog, and visited Spock's (Richards) blog and website, knows that we are husband and wife. I was involved in the Covenant church a few years before Richard and I were married, then he joined afterwards.
Can you define what you mean by relatively liberal as that is a broad definition? Who were the teachers they had or books you read from that group... or can you provide a link to their website?
-
-
-
I prefer to leave it at that, since my twenty year old son is still active in the youth group band, and is friends with those in leadership.

-
y@};- positions

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:57 pm
by B. W.
Butterfly wrote: I prefer to leave it at that, since my twenty year old son is still active in the youth group band, and is friends with those in leadership.
Fair enough - so we can take by liberal you mean liberal theological circles and leanings - Correct - yes or no?
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:29 pm
by Butterfly
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote: I prefer to leave it at that, since my twenty year old son is still active in the youth group band, and is friends with those in leadership.
Fair enough - so we can take by liberal you mean liberal theological circles and leanings - Correct - yes or no?
-
-
-
Yes
-
y@};-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:42 pm
by B. W.
Butterfly wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote: I prefer to leave it at that, since my twenty year old son is still active in the youth group band, and is friends with those in leadership.
Fair enough - so we can take by liberal you mean liberal theological circles and leanings - Correct - yes or no?
Yes
Thank You for helping us gaining a better understanding of yourself and Spock...
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:08 pm
by Butterfly
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Butterfly wrote: I prefer to leave it at that, since my twenty year old son is still active in the youth group band, and is friends with those in leadership.
Fair enough - so we can take by liberal you mean liberal theological circles and leanings - Correct - yes or no?
Yes
Thank You for helping us gaining a better understanding of yourself and Spock...
-
-
-
You're welcome :D
-
y@};-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:15 am
by PaulSacramento
IF , and this is a big IF of course, we want to "judge
God and pout God to the test VS our own notion of morality and doing what we think to be "right", what we must do is understand what God IS, NOT what we want Him to be.
So, lets play the IF game:
IF God exist then, God created ALL the universe from His own power and being, which means that ALL energy and matter are God's.
IF God exists, all life belongs to God.
IF God exists then death is NOT final, but simply a change from matter to energy.
There is no suffering AFTER a death, energy doesn't suffer.
IF God exists and IF He is the God of the bible, then all those that die will return, in spirit to God.
God is also the only one ABLE to decide if a life form deserves to live, since only HE is God and that life form belongs to Him anyway.
IF God exists, death is a release from suffereing and from the decaying human forms as we know it and a return to a glorious form of Spiritual energy that is in union/at home with God.
If God exists and is the God revealed to Us by Jesus Christ then He is a God of infinite love and compassion, a God who suffers WITH Us and allows Us to have free will and is always there to reclaim us into his "bosom".
If God exists, we are in a far better state AFTER we die then when we are here.
IF God exists, His allowing for the end of suffering in this plane of existence is an act of divine mercy.
IF God exists, the only person that can judge ANY of His actions is a person that can UNDERSTAND and RELATE to what it means to BE GOD.

So, IF God exists then suffering MAY have a purpose that we don't see NOW, much like a child suffering through the side effects of a drug that will cure his/her terminal disease doesn't understand that the suffering is HEALING.

BUT, if you ask me why God allows suffering, which is a question I have longed searched for an answer too, I can only say this based on MY experience:

Nothing, NOTHING in this world brings humans together, makes human BE the MOST human they can be, nothing makes us COMPASSIONATE, nothing makes brings us close to God's ideal for us than SUFFERING.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:35 am
by Butterfly
PaulSacramento wrote:IF , and this is a big IF of course, we want to "judge
God and pout God to the test VS our own notion of morality and doing what we think to be "right", what we must do is understand what God IS, NOT what we want Him to be.
So, lets play the IF game:
IF God exist then, God created ALL the universe from His own power and being, which means that ALL energy and matter are God's.
IF God exists, all life belongs to God.
IF God exists then death is NOT final, but simply a change from matter to energy.
There is no suffering AFTER a death, energy doesn't suffer.
IF God exists and IF He is the God of the bible, then all those that die will return, in spirit to God.
God is also the only one ABLE to decide if a life form deserves to live, since only HE is God and that life form belongs to Him anyway.
IF God exists, death is a release from suffereing and from the decaying human forms as we know it and a return to a glorious form of Spiritual energy that is in union/at home with God.
If God exists and is the God revealed to Us by Jesus Christ then He is a God of infinite love and compassion, a God who suffers WITH Us and allows Us to have free will and is always there to reclaim us into his "bosom".
If God exists, we are in a far better state AFTER we die then when we are here.
IF God exists, His allowing for the end of suffering in this plane of existence is an act of divine mercy.
IF God exists, the only person that can judge ANY of His actions is a person that can UNDERSTAND and RELATE to what it means to BE GOD.

So, IF God exists then suffering MAY have a purpose that we don't see NOW, much like a child suffering through the side effects of a drug that will cure his/her terminal disease doesn't understand that the suffering is HEALING.

BUT, if you ask me why God allows suffering, which is a question I have longed searched for an answer too, I can only say this based on MY experience:

Nothing, NOTHING in this world brings humans together, makes human BE the MOST human they can be, nothing makes us COMPASSIONATE, nothing makes brings us close to God's ideal for us than SUFFERING.
So, it sounds like what your saying is: "If God exists, just shut up and do what you're told, because you don't known nothin' anyway!" :lol:
-
y@};-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:00 am
by PaulSacramento
Butterfly wrote:[

So, it sounds like what your saying is: "If God exists, just shut up and do what you're told, because you don't known nothin' anyway!" :lol:
-
y@};-
Well, that's kind of the message that Job got, LOL !
But NO, I am not saying that.
We, as Christians, have something that Job didn't and that is a living example of God, His Son Jesus Christ.
So we do know something about God, far more than the OT writers did and yes, I do believe that we should be "critical" and ask the "hard questions", BUT I also believe that just because we may not like or agree with the answers to those questions, doesn't mean that they are NOT the answers that we get.

What I mean is this:
We can't judge God in regards to why there is suffering because, quite honestly, we have NO IDEA, no ability to even begin to contemplate what GOD, if He exists, knows that we don't know.
Yes, we should still ask the questions BUT only to find the answers and NOT to accuse God of being this way or that.

Think of it this way, IF YOU knew the future of a being, would you act in the same way as if you had NO idea?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:06 pm
by Butterfly
PaulSacramento wrote:
Butterfly wrote:[

So, it sounds like what your saying is: "If God exists, just shut up and do what you're told, because you don't known nothin' anyway!" :lol:
-
y@};-
Well, that's kind of the message that Job got, LOL !
But NO, I am not saying that.
We, as Christians, have something that Job didn't and that is a living example of God, His Son Jesus Christ.
So we do know something about God, far more than the OT writers did and yes, I do believe that we should be "critical" and ask the "hard questions", BUT I also believe that just because we may not like or agree with the answers to those questions, doesn't mean that they are NOT the answers that we get.

What I mean is this:
We can't judge God in regards to why there is suffering because, quite honestly, we have NO IDEA, no ability to even begin to contemplate what GOD, if He exists, knows that we don't know.
Yes, we should still ask the questions BUT only to find the answers and NOT to accuse God of being this way or that.

Think of it this way, IF YOU knew the future of a being, would you act in the same way as if you had NO idea?
Basically if the Bible is the word of God, then we can't judge God for anything in it that he does, because we don't really know why he's doing it...unless we want to try and justify his actions.
-
y@};-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:15 pm
by PaulSacramento
Butterfly wrote: Basically if the Bible is the word of God, then we can't judge God for anything in it that he does, because we don't really know why he's doing it...unless we want to try and justify his actions.
-
y@};-
Nope, we can still try and SHOULD try to understand what is written in the bible, more so than any other book IF it is indeed the word of God ( through the words of man).
We can't confuse understanding with justification.
Trying to understand God is NOT trying to justify Him, because IF there is a God and IF that God is the GOd of the bible, He doesn't need nor want our justification" of His actions.

To me its kind of like this:
God revealed His TRUE self in Jesus Christ, who lived like Us, he laughed and cried and loves and DIES, like US.
God became HUMAN so that MAN could regain what Man had/has turned his back on.
To me, THAT God, that God revealed in Christ, is so freaking amazing that I WANT to KNOW Him.
And for me to know him I have to know the Good, the bad and the ugly about what was written about him AND I have to know Him through the HS and I must reconcile the two.
I need to find in the OT, the God revealed in Christ.
So, based on that, HOW do I do that?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:33 pm
by Butterfly
PaulSacramento wrote:
Butterfly wrote: Basically if the Bible is the word of God, then we can't judge God for anything in it that he does, because we don't really know why he's doing it...unless we want to try and justify his actions.
-
y@};-
Nope, we can still try and SHOULD try to understand what is written in the bible, more so than any other book IF it is indeed the word of God ( through the words of man).
We can't confuse understanding with justification.
Trying to understand God is NOT trying to justify Him, because IF there is a God and IF that God is the GOd of the bible, He doesn't need nor want our justification" of His actions.

To me its kind of like this:
God revealed His TRUE self in Jesus Christ, who lived like Us, he laughed and cried and loves and DIES, like US.
God became HUMAN so that MAN could regain what Man had/has turned his back on.
To me, THAT God, that God revealed in Christ, is so freaking amazing that I WANT to KNOW Him.
And for me to know him I have to know the Good, the bad and the ugly about what was written about him AND I have to know Him through the HS and I must reconcile the two.
I need to find in the OT, the God revealed in Christ.
So, based on that, HOW do I do that?
One thing that happened to me when I quit trying to justify God's actions in the Bible and just accepted the "good, bad, and the ugly" as you say, I realized that the god of the Bible didn't measure up to my moral standards. So then I had to ask myself if my moral standards are higher than God's where did I get my morals from?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:07 pm
by B. W.
Butterfly wrote:...You're welcome :D
Hi Butterfly,

So let’s review your spiritual journey so far to this current date in time. First you mentioned that were involved in Christian Science. Therefore, do you realize that Christian Science is a known cult and certainly not Christian? In fact, here is a quote from Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry by Matt Slick that verifies this:
Is the Christian Science religion Christian?

by Matt Slick
CRAM Article

Of all the biblically-based cults in America today, Christian Science is one of the most interesting. Not only does it deny the essential doctrines of Christianity, but it has completely reinterpreted the Bible. It drastically redefines the Bible’s culture and terminology and rips thousands of scriptures out of their historical and biblical contexts. The result is a non-Christian mixture of metaphysical and philosophical thoughts. Christian Science is so foreign to the Bible that, if it didn’t use words like Jesus, Trinity, Love, Grace, Sin, etc., you’d never suspect it had anything to do with the Bible at all. Additionally, the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which is the Christian Scientist’s mainstay of spiritual knowledge, reads with a rhythm of pseudo-logical statements that has the tendency to dull the senses when read long enough. Is Christian Science Christian? Definitely not.
Next, you mentioned your involvement in the Word of Faith movement. That movement is at best an aberrant form of Christianity because it mixes its true founders, E W Kenyon’s teachings, with Christian theology. This is a statement by John Kennington, on E. W. Kenyon’s that directly links him to Christian Science (what you came out if) as well as the Spiritual Metaphysical cults.
“One of the things that puzzled me in those days was the similarity between what he [Kenyon] taught and what was taught in Christian Science. We discussed the similarity at that time. And he acknowledged the similarity. I can remember him saying, ‘All that Christian Science lacks is the blood of Jesus Christ.’ . . . In doing so he became a source for a form of Pentecostal Christian Science even though Kenyon was not a Pentecostal….I can hear him yet talk about the philosophical roots of Christian Science and Hegelian thought, or about some international lawyer who on an ocean voyage influenced Mary Baker Eddy. He admitted that he freely drew the water of his thinking from this well.

John Kennington, "E. W. Kenyon and the metaphysics of Christian Science", unpubl. written statement, Portland, Ore., July 8, 1986.
E W Kenyon mixed not only Christian Science (CS) with Christianity, he mixed New Thought Metaphysics in as well. New Thought – History Link. New Thought Metaphysics roots is involved with taping into spiritual laws, power of mind, power of the will, basically old divination under a scientific logic guise. Instead of spirits to conjure – one taps into spiritual laws for health and wealth and control. A prevailing theme of the early 20 Century New Thought people was the concept of making a super race or superior race that rules the masses.

Kenyon mirrored the popular notion prevalent of this pre and post WW I philosophic thought concerning the need for a superior race. In Kenyon’s eyes, he wanted to create Christian Superman and claimed so in his own writing, ‘Identification’, where even wrote of this intent ‘(his teachings) will make spiritual supermen quoted below which mirrors New Thought ideas:
From E W Kenyon works - Identification wrote:Conclusion

When these truths really gain the ascendancy in us, they will make us spiritual supermen, masters of demons and diseases. This is an unveiling of what we are in Christ, how the Father sees us in the son. It will be the end of weakness and failure. There will be no more struggle for faith, for all things are ours. There will be no more praying for power, for He is in us. There will be no more awful bondage of sin consciousness, for we are the righteousness of God in Christ.

See Kenyon’s Conclusion in His own words
Now the next granddaddy of the WoF movement is Kenneth Hagin. Mr. Hagin blatantly plagiarized Kenyon’s works – word for word and ushered in these teachings now known as the Word of Faith movement. These teachings reached their heyday during the very years of your (Butterfly’s) involvement. Therefore, please read this article for evidence for this:
A Different Gospel, by D.R. McConnell

The Word of Faith (WoF) movement has shipwrecked many people’s faith. Its fruit is bad as your own involvement and testimony about your parents indicates and proves, correct?

The Word of Faith is merely a mix of Christian Science, New thought Metaphysics (ie New Age) as well as Unitarian thought that E W Kenyon brought together to Christianize in order to create spiritual Christian supermen and women (his own recorded words). In fact Kenyon began a New Covenant Baptist Church in Seattle Washington. Where you aware of this?

Kenyon may have been the silent founder of the New Covenant church movement but that still needs further verification and fact check. The NCC name used to be associated with his group so I find interesting that you next ended up in a New Covenant Church (NCC) on your journey. Through research, it appears His branch of NCC became Unitarian during the early parts of 20 th Century as he himself became or evolved into. However…

Let me state clearly, nowadays not all Covenant Churches are like this. Some NCC are true blue sound orthodox Christian, other NCC are of the shepherding discipleship/control model groups, but others follow after Kenyon’s developed form of Unitarianism which evolved into progressive liberal theology to distance themselves from Kenyon. The later sounds like the one NCC group you were involved in Butterfly.

So you went from Christian Science, to its kiss’n cousin Word of Faith, and ended up in liberal theological circles, then fell from that all together; then into some form of metaphysical spiritually new ageish philosophic system that your blog suggest.

Please Note: Liberal theology and progressive liberalism attempts to distort and water down the gospel and weaken the bible in order to replace it with a new man/woman liberated from superstition into a new – well lack for a better term enlighten or superior class that rule with the goal to dash the old social order to pieces and rebuild a new order from the ashes (Chaos Theory – Butterfly effect – Marxist Didactical thought to be more precise).

Kenyon’s model and the New Thought model goal were to create an enlightened or superior class that rules. So only you know, Butterfly, that if have that same goal or a form of it and are using it here on this Christian Forum. I am not sure, but maybe you still have some of that same super person model of CS, WoF, and liberal theology at work in you, seeking to further a new quest: Dash the existing social order of Christianity to the ground. Only you know the real answer as does God.

So here is my point – truth:

Cannot you see that your ideas about Christianity stem from blatant falsehood, bad warped doctrine and not the real deal?

So we have a direct link connecting you to bad theology, which indicates clearly that all your premises about the bible and Christianity is skewed toward error and propagating more error as how can your translation of Christian, the bible be correct since you drew only form polluted wells and not the real deal?

Therefore, your conclusions and arguments about the bible, Christianity, and biblegod are all based solely on error. You and your husband Spock need to realize how your own biases are based upon error and not truth – even concerning the golden rule.


Here what Jesus said "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. Mat 12:33 NIV

The fruit of your ideas were built upon the wrong foundations which have warped your ideas about God and the bible. These are mental strongholds and prevent you and your husband to ever actually see reason, or understand spiritual matters as it is written:

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 1 Co 2:14 NKJV,

So why are you really here on this Forum?
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:54 am
by PaulSacramento
Butterfly wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Butterfly wrote: Basically if the Bible is the word of God, then we can't judge God for anything in it that he does, because we don't really know why he's doing it...unless we want to try and justify his actions.
-
y@};-
Nope, we can still try and SHOULD try to understand what is written in the bible, more so than any other book IF it is indeed the word of God ( through the words of man).
We can't confuse understanding with justification.
Trying to understand God is NOT trying to justify Him, because IF there is a God and IF that God is the GOd of the bible, He doesn't need nor want our justification" of His actions.

To me its kind of like this:
God revealed His TRUE self in Jesus Christ, who lived like Us, he laughed and cried and loves and DIES, like US.
God became HUMAN so that MAN could regain what Man had/has turned his back on.
To me, THAT God, that God revealed in Christ, is so freaking amazing that I WANT to KNOW Him.
And for me to know him I have to know the Good, the bad and the ugly about what was written about him AND I have to know Him through the HS and I must reconcile the two.
I need to find in the OT, the God revealed in Christ.
So, based on that, HOW do I do that?
One thing that happened to me when I quit trying to justify God's actions in the Bible and just accepted the "good, bad, and the ugly" as you say, I realized that the god of the Bible didn't measure up to my moral standards. So then I had to ask myself if my moral standards are higher than God's where did I get my morals from?

I assume then that you believe the bible to be inerrant and infallible, the Word of God, yes?
By the way, IF your moral standards are higher than THAT God, then THAT god is NOT GOD by the very definition of God.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:43 am
by Byblos
What does one do when they don't like God? Why of course, create one that suits your liking. :shakehead: