ChristianForums banned Christ.

[oftenbuzzard]

Sorry, it was in an exchange between godrulz and mustardseed. I get you rightwing Christian fanatics mixed up sometimes since you all seem to spout the same one-size-fits-all theological formulas.

Typical stereotypical response when you can not understand differences. "All you _____ people look/think/act alike."

I am the Amyraldian,credo-baptist, classic dispensationalist with a BSIE, ThM, PhD

I'm apparently an egghead. Philosophizing and theorizing come naturally to me, it's just my cognitive style. The more I learn about the world and how different philosophies and religions view it the more I realize that fundamentalist interpretations are incomplete visions.

I believe I said that I affirm a biblical world view which you equate to a fundamentalist view. Now, I am closer to the historic fundamentalists of the 1920s and 1930s than the fightin' fundamentalists today in Lynchburg, Virginia or Hammond, Indiana (for example). Hey, I own a copy of the NIV and have a Nestle Greek New Testament and a Massoretic Text of Old Testament.

Don't have much Buddhist stuff. We already have a gas starter for the fireplace and a good stock of Charmin, so the pages of that false teacher's writings are totally unnecessary.

 

[godrulz]

oftenbuzzard - in an earlier posting in response to Mustardseed you said that God couldn't create a deterministic universe. Isn't that placing limitations on what God can and can't do? If God is omnipotent, etc. then "he" should be able to do anything, even creating a deterministic universe, though I'd guess such a universe wouldn't be as entertaining as what we apparently have now.

God could have created a deterministic universe, but He did not. A proper view of the type of sovereignty God chose affects our understanding of His ways and our experiences. It is self-evident that we are not part of a Matrix.

 

[godrulz]

Please cite the post. I do not recall making that statement.

I have said that God can do all things consistent with His character and that do not involve a logical inconsistency (eg. create a rock too heavy for Him to lift).

I believe in both Divine sovereignty and Human responsibility. The Bible places the two side-by-side without explanation and without apology (Acts 2:22-23).

I bewlieve in a biblical universe. Ie. I accept the Bible's revelation of how God relates to His creation. Philosophical labels and theories I leave to eggheads.

Incompatibilism vs compatibilism. A deterministic, micromanaging, wrong view of sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom/responsibility. A providential, responsive, creative, biblical, risk model of sovereignty is compatible with human freedom/responsibility. The truths are held in tension but are not incoherent or a mystery if sovereignty is properly understood (Calvinism's hyper-sovereingnty is not biblical). Acts 2 affirms that God purposed to come and die redemptively for man. It is not a proof text for exhaustive, meticulous control. Redemption would take place regardless of whether soldier x or y pierced Him or whether 50 people or 500 people witnessed His death.

 

[godrulz]

Sorry, it was in an exchange between godrulz and mustardseed. I get you rightwing Christian fanatics mixed up sometimes since you all seem to spout the same one-size-fits-all theological formulas.



I'm apparently an egghead. Philosophizing and theorizing come naturally to me, it's just my cognitive style. The more I learn about the world and how different philosophies and religions view it the more I realize that fundamentalist interpretations are incomplete visions.

Mormons are not Christians. Notice how many disagreements the rest of us fanatics still have (open theism; Calvinism, etc.)? Revelation > reason. You have no authority or objective truth about God without His divine revelation.

 

[godrulz]

Buzzard: Is your view 4 point Calvinism? Is it the one taught at Dallas TS? (Amyraldian).

 

[Sarcastikus]

Don't have much Buddhist stuff. We already have a gas starter for the fireplace and a good stock of Charmin, so the pages of that false teacher's writings are totally unnecessary.

In what way was Siddharta Gautama a false teacher? Since he lived and taught prior Jesus then I suppose Jesus could be viewed as a false teacher, but I don't view Jesus in that way. The historical Buddha was vilified by the Brahmins due to feeling threatened by him and his teachings in much the same way as the Pharisees and Sadducess felt threatened by Jesus.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the theology of John Hick, but his ideas have had a major impact on broadening my world-view,and a deeper appreciation of other belief systems. Hick's own fundamentalist evangelical beliefs began to evolve after moving to take a teaching position in a city that had large Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities. Here's a brief excerpt from an article about Hick:

As Hick met Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, as well as attend services at their places of worship, his thinking began to change. Reflecting on that time in his life, Hick later wrote,

"And occasionally attending worship in mosque and synagogue, temple and gurdwara, it was evident that essentially the same kind of thing is taking place in them as in a Christian church--namely, human beings opening their minds to a higher divine Reality, known as personal and good and as demanding righteousness and love between man and man."

Hick came to the realization that all religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same ultimate reality and that contact between people of different religions should be done, ‘Not to displace but to deepen and enlarge their relationship with God’.

If I offended you with my earlier comments, I apologize. I wasn't implying that you were a simpleton!

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Buzzard: Is your view 4 point Calvinism? Is it the one taught at Dallas TS? (Amyraldian).

I did my ThM at DTS. My views are pretty strong on the four points (true Amyraldian) and see saving faith as a gift given by God (monergism). Some DTS profs are more Cal/Minian than I. And there have been a few 5 pointers at DTS.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

In what way was Siddharta Gautama a false teacher? Since he lived and taught prior Jesus then I suppose Jesus could be viewed as a false teacher, but I don't view Jesus in that way. The historical Buddha was vilified by the Brahmins due to feeling threatened by him and his teachings in much the same way as the Pharisees and Sadducess felt threatened by Jesus.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the theology of John Hick, but his ideas have had a major impact on broadening my world-view,and a deeper appreciation of other belief systems. Hick's own fundamentalist evangelical beliefs began to evolve after moving to take a teaching position in a city that had large Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities. Here's a brief excerpt from an article about Hick:



Hick came to the realization that all religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same ultimate reality and that contact between people of different religions should be done, ‘Not to displace but to deepen and enlarge their relationship with God’.

If I offended you with my earlier comments, I apologize. I wasn't implying that you were a simpleton!

You don't offend me at all... heck, this is TOL (tough hides required).


Jesus was/is not simply a teacher, He is God and is eternal. He was incarnated at Bethlehem but He taught His own pre-existence. So your dude may have been born before Bethlehem but he ain't eternally God.

Both Jesus and Buddah may have been vilified, but Jesus is the only one to rise from the dead and is now exalted at the right hand of the Father. Jesus didn't point out the way, He said I AM the Way, I am the truth, I am the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but by me.

What a narrrow minded fundy Jesus was/is! The ONLY way -- not Buddah or Mohammed or Joe Smith or any other robe wearing dude from the past , present or future.


Sounds like your Hick friend is hardly a biblically directed thinker today and has broken away from Jesus. Denial of the exclusivity of Jesus name as the sole means of salvation is not enlightenment, it is a slap in the face of Jesus and calling Him a liar. The path may be broad, my friend, but it leads to destruction.

There will be loads of people in the Lotus position in the Lake of Fire. And the mantra repeated there is ...


OUCH!

 

[Sarcastikus]

Jesus was/is not simply a teacher, He is God and is eternal. He was incarnated at Bethlehem but He taught His own pre-existence. So your dude may have been born before Bethlehem but he ain't eternally God.

The Buddha never claimed to be a God, merely an enlightened man. Jesus was also quite clearly an enlightened man (and obviously more in your theology.)

I have a couple of questions - when did you receive your degree(s) and when you were studying theology how were people like Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, Tillich, and Thomas Altizer viewed?

I used to work with some people who attended a local Bible college which is (as far as I can tell) conservative and used to get into some interesting discussions with them. When I mentioned Bultmann one of them said, "Oh, the heretic!", which I thought was funny. They seemed to admire Bonhoeffer, were undecided about Tillich. Maybe they hadn't gotten far enough in their studies to have much of an opinion about Tillich. They were pretty much a tough group to have theoretical discussions with, except for one who was going to become a minister, he was more philosophical.

Thanks!

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The Buddha never claimed to be a God, merely an enlightened man. Jesus was also quite clearly an enlightened man (and obviously more in your theology.)

I have a couple of questions - when did you receive your degree(s) and when you were studying theology how were people like Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, Tillich, and Thomas Altizer viewed?

I used to work with some people who attended a local Bible college which is (as far as I can tell) conservative and used to get into some interesting discussions with them. When I mentioned Bultmann one of them said, "Oh, the heretic!", which I thought was funny. They seemed to admire Bonhoeffer, were undecided about Tillich. Maybe they hadn't gotten far enough in their studies to have much of an opinion about Tillich. They were pretty much a tough group to have theoretical discussions with, except for one who was going to become a minister, he was more philosophical.

Thanks!

BS (71) , ThM (76), PhD (88)


I spent a semester at Candler School of Theology (Mythology ??) at Emory University -- where Altizer taught. They were gaga over liberals and neo-orthodox. Emory profs were quite hostile to anyone affirming the inspiration of Scripture -- the place was a theological morgue fit for turning out social workers.

I transferred to Dallas Seminary. Night and day difference academically and spiritually. I read Bultmann, Tillich and Bonhoffer but found them less stimulating than Calvin, Warfield and Hodge.

You need to read some solid evangelical works. Grab something by Cornelius Van Til or John Piper.

Philosophy might swell your head, but you need sound biblical theology. Get to know Jesus and both man and God -- He's your only hope.

Reject Jesus as Savior and you can spend eternity in the Lake of Fire talking philosophy with Altizer and Bultmann.

"Altizer is Dead."​

~GOD~

 

[Sarcastikus]

You need to read some solid evangelical works. Grab something by Cornelius Van Til or John Piper.

I've heard of Van Til, but not Piper. I'll look into them.

"Altizer is Dead."​

~GOD~

Now THAT is funny! :chuckle:

 

[Mustard Seed]

Mormon Theology is so whacko and vile.

Don't forget to send Heavenly Mother a Mother's Day card.

The mockery you so freely exude is that which is vile. You think it's more reasonable for God to have created male and female in HIS image if such did not have a feminine part? Do you think you can try to defame the potentiality of a feminine side of the divine without doing such to God Himself? Profane souls, such as yourself, are the kind that keep so much of the world from being able to see that which truly is divine.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

--Gen 2:24

Beliving God has a wife is far better than thinking you have a Heavenly Father who begets children outside of wedlock.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The mockery you so freely exude is that which is vile. You think it's more reasonable for God to have created male and female in HIS image if such did not have a feminine part? Do you think you can try to defame the potentiality of a feminine side of the divine without doing such to God Himself? Profane souls, such as yourself, are the kind that keep so much of the world from being able to see that which truly is divine.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

--Gen 2:24

Beliving God has a wife is far better than thinking you have a Heavenly Father who begets children outside of wedlock.

How come you Mormons rarely discuss Heavenly Mom?

She kinda like Ross Perot's Crazy Aunt in the basement...

Everybody knows she's there but no one wants to talk about her.

Guess keeping women out of sight, silent and pregnant is the Mormon maternal ideal.

 

[godrulz]

I did my ThM at DTS. My views are pretty strong on the four points (true Amyraldian) and see saving faith as a gift given by God (monergism). Some DTS profs are more Cal/Minian than I. And there have been a few 5 pointers at DTS.

Which part of TULIP do you disagree with (I suspect it will be limited atonement/general redemption since Calvin did not believe that either).

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Yep, I'm a Christmas Calvinist -- No-L

Calvin did not directly address the extent of the atonement. It was a later discussion.
I have no problem with the logic, I just can't get there exegetically (2 Peter 2:1 for example).

 

[Mustard Seed]

How come you Mormons rarely discuss Heavenly Mom?

She kinda like Ross Perot's Crazy Aunt in the basement...

Everybody knows she's there but no one wants to talk about her.

Guess keeping women out of sight, silent and pregnant is the Mormon maternal ideal.

Respecting the divine.

There are lots of things we don't share, not for shame, but because they are sacred. Are you ashamed of the female body? Is that why you don't discuss or publish such abroad? You have a twisted, perverted view of why things are not published abroad. Those who established the foundations of this country kept the discussion of the formation of it's foundational documents from the general public by forming a solemn covenant amongst themselves to not discuss their doings outside the walls of the chambers. Does that mean they were ashamed of the constitution? Do you openly broadcast the most special and intimate reactions you have with the person closest to you to the rest of the world? Does that mean that that relationship is like the one Ross Perot has with his alleged 'crazy aunt in the basement'?

Your words condemn that, if there's anything, of which you hold sacred enough to not discuss openly. But then such would explain alot if there is nothing you hold to such a level of sacredness.

It's easy to openly pontificate on the lack of openess in others discourse, and lives, if nothing is sacred in the life of the one spouting such open pontifications.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Is there ONE Heavenly Mom or a harem?

Is God Polygamous?

====

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Heavenly Mom:

===

NAH, taint right! Just a Mormon speculation, like life on the Sun and moon men dressed as Quakers.

 

[kmoney]

Are we still talking about if those forums banned Christ??

 

[Asian-American]

I've been a regular member of Christianforums.com for the last 2 years now, I really like it: they have a huge audience and there is very little censorship. I'm sure this forum is just as good, but it is just a pit-stop for me, my main home is Christianforums.com. Anyway, I think I may just be too politically incorrect for this forum: I hope not, but I am a bit concerned that I probably will get banned. This is still a good forum though, hats-off to the owner.

 

[no avatar]

Know why I'm glad this isn't ChristianForums?

YOU CAN'T PROMOTE DISCUSION OF THE BIBLE OR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ON CF'S CHAT BOARD!

I did explain before why that type of discussion wasn't allowed, and you even conceded the point. Because the chatbox is (almost) live, it would need a dedicated moderator 24 hours a day if heavy discussion is allowed, and there is no way to provide that kind of moderation, so the rule is light chat, only. Why would you want to have a heavy theological discussion in a chatbox, anyway, when your words are gone in a matter of minutes and people come and go in short order because they are just passing through? I would think if you really wanted to have a discussion, you would do so on one of the discussion boards where proper discussion can take place.