False ‘Message Bible’ Creator Changes Mind on Homosexuality, Says He Would Officiate

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
He retracted what he said about gay marriage:

Actually, Eugene Peterson Does Not Support Same-Sex Marriage

A day after a Religion News Service interview portrayed retired pastor and author Eugene Peterson as shifting to endorse same-sex marriage, the evangelical leader retracted his comment and upheld the traditional Christian stance instead.

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything,” he said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

Peterson, best known for creating the paraphrased Bible translation The Message, also regrets the “confusion and bombast” in the fallout of his remarks, which were widely shared and commented on online yesterday.

Peterson stated:

Recently a reporter asked me whether my personal opinions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage have changed over the years. I presume I was asked this question because of my former career as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA), which recently affirmed homosexuality and began allowing its clergy to perform same-sex weddings. Having retired from the pastorate more than 25 years ago, I acknowledged to the reporter that I “haven’t had a lot of experience with it.”

To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.

RNS columnist Jonathan Merritt had asked Peterson, “If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?” Peterson had responded with one word: yes.

The interview was published Wednesday under this headline: Best-selling author Eugene Peterson changes his mind on gay marriage.

In his retraction, the 84-year-old said that in nearly three decades as a pastor and in the years since, “I’ve never performed a same-sex wedding. I’ve never been asked and, frankly, I hope I never am asked.

“This reporter, however, asked a hypothetical question: if I were pastoring today and if a gay couple were Christians of good faith and if they asked me to perform their wedding ceremony—if, if, if. Pastors don’t have the luxury of indulging in hypotheticals,” said Peterson. “And to be honest, no is not a word I typically use.”

Peterson went on to state that because of the biblical view of marriage, he would not marry a same-sex couple:

When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.

A 2016 LifeWay Research survey found that only 1 in 10 Protestant pastors had been asked to officiate a same-sex wedding. Presbyterian pastors received the most requests, at 1 in 4, followed by Lutheran pastors at 1 in 5.

77833.jpg


While mainline pastors were predictably more likely to receive such requests than evangelical pastors (18% vs. 6%), older pastors had been asked more often than younger pastors: 14 percent of those 55 and older, compared to 7 percent of those 54 and younger.

In a post about the retraction, Merritt explained that he asked Peterson about homosexuality after hearing privately that he affirmed same-sex relationships. Their conversation took place last week by phone and lasted about 30 minutes.

“It is possible that Peterson felt he had been placed on the spot and offered an answer that doesn’t reflect his true conviction,” Merritt wrote. “But it is also important to note that in the week prior to the publication of his answers, there was no attempt to clarify or change his answer to these questions.”

He dismissed claims that Peterson was too senile to respond accurately, and added that the author’s views on same-sex marriage “have no bearing on my respect for him or his ministry.”

Merritt later posted links to comments made by Peterson at Western Seminary in 2014, where Peterson said he “started to change my mind” on the status quo of gays being “really bad.” He also says that he “helped several families accept their children as gay,” finding that “this can be a flourishing thing.”

Peterson also addressed the observations he had shared with RNS about the gay congregants he had known and served over the years.

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who ‘seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,’ I meant it,” he stated. “But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

“We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior,” he stated. “It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth.”

Peterson continued:

There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them. This work of pastoring is extremely and essentially local: Each pastor is responsible to a particular people, a specific congregation. We often lose sight of that in an atmosphere so clouded by controversy and cluttered with loud voices. The people of a congregation are not abstractions, they are people, and a pastor does a disservice to the people in his care when he indulges in treating them as abstractions.

Following the RNS interview, Christians on both sides of the LGBT debate cited Peterson as one of the most high-profile evangelicals to publicly change his stance on sexuality.

LifeWay Christian Stores had reached out to “confirm with Eugene Peterson or his representatives that his recent interview on same-sex marriage accurately reflects his views.” A spokesperson said that because of his retraction, they will continue to sell his books, which include dozens of versions of The Message as well as A Long Obedience in the Same Direction and The Pastor. The store stopped selling Jen Hatmaker’s books last year after she also affirmed same-sex marriage in an interview with Merritt.

Peterson’s followup warned against pastors “getting clouded by controversy and cluttered with loud voices” rather than focusing on the specific needs of their congregations.

“I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered,” he said. “It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate.”

In the interview series with Merritt, Peterson also stated that he will no longer be writing, teaching, or speaking publicly. In his retraction, he reiterated his desire to avoid public statements and to restrict his communication to personal correspondence.

I wonder if this new stance he has is sincere, or is in response to lifeways threat to stop selling his books and resources.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
LifeWay Prepared to Stop Selling The Message Over Eugene Peterson’s LGBT Comments

The Message Bible, The Pastor, and the rest of Eugene Peterson’s catalog may no longer be sold at America’s largest Christian retail chain due to the retired pastor’s revisited views on same-sex marriage.

In an interview published Wednesday, Peterson told Religion News Service columnist Jonathan Merritt that the “debate about lesbians and gays might be over” and that he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony if he were pastoring today.

As Christians on both sides of the LGBT debate acknowledged Peterson as one of the most high-profile evangelicals to publicly change his stance on sexuality, LifeWay Christian Stores stated that if the popular author indeed supports same-sex marriage, its stores can no longer sell his books.

“LifeWay only carries resources in our stores by authors who hold to the biblical view of marriage,” stated a spokesperson for the affiliate of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). “We are attempting to confirm with Eugene Peterson or his representatives that his recent interview on same-sex marriage accurately reflects his views. If he confirms he does not hold to a biblical view of marriage, LifeWay will no longer sell any resources by him, including The Message.”

The LifeWay website currently lists 135 titles by Peterson, including dozens of versions of his Message Bible, his memoir The Pastor, and his popular book on discipleship and the Psalms, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction.

The 84-year-old served for decades in the Presbyterian Church (USA), which now permits same-sex marriage and openly gay clergy. But Peterson has been widely read, celebrated, and respected among generations of evangelicals, including pastors.

After Christian author Jen Hatmaker affirmed same-sex marriage last year, also in an interview with Merritt, LifeWay stopped carrying her books, citing “significant changes in her theology of human sexuality and the meaning and definition of marriage … which contradict LifeWay’s doctrinal guidelines.”

As CT previously reported, LifeWay, which draws in 2.7 million customers a year, has chosen not to stock or to discontinue several prominent Christian authors, including Joel Osteen, William P. Young, and Joyce Meyer, due to its doctrinal standards. The chain has pulled titles from Mark Driscoll and books about heaven tourism. And despite remarks from Rachel Held Evans, it does not ban all books with the word vagina.

When influential evangelicals change their beliefs—or, in a different context, betray them with ethical or moral failures—followers who disagree are left wondering how it affects their relationship with the leader’s past work.

Will evangelicals who support traditional marriage still read The Message? Sure, some never got on board with Peterson’s paraphrase in the first place. But his evangelical fans will have to decide how much this shift impacts his overall teaching and body of work.

“I love Eugene Peterson. He’s a pastoral hero of mine. I disagree with him on the issue. I grieve how he’s being slandered,” tweeted Rich Villodas, pastor of New Life Fellowship, a multiethnic evangelical congregation in New York.

Jason Kovacs, pastor of care and counseling at the Austin Stone church, said he will continue to read Peterson, seeing his shift as a humble reminder that people inevitably change their minds for reasons good and bad.

“I also take it as a sobering call to think seriously about how to hold onto orthodox biblical truth while care well for the souls of people in our churches and cities in this day and age,” he said. “We cannot afford to lose the kind of pastoral imagination and practice that Eugene Peterson has blessed us with.”

Russell Moore, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), addressed Peterson’s legacy for The Gospel Coalition, likening his news to Wendell Berry’s shift on the same issue.

Moore said that to avoid confusion, he probably wouldn’t give Peterson’s books to a new believer or invite him to speak at his church. Still, “I can’t un-highlight or un-flag my Peterson books,” he said. “I can’t erase from my mind all the things he has taught me.”

When asked about his views on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, Peterson said, in part:

I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.

Some evangelical leaders stated they were not surprised by the news; others were sad and disappointed at his remarks.

“How sad that a creative voice like Eugene Peterson would forsake the Scriptures and the Tradition that he so eloquently wrote of,” tweeted Andrew Walker, director of policy studies for the ERLC.

In the interview series with Merritt, Peterson also stated that he will no longer be writing, teaching, or speaking publicly.

And lifeways new stance after he retracted his gay marriage claim:

Southern Baptist-Owned LifeWay Stores Won’t Pull ‘Message Bible’ After Author’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Retraction

LifeWay Christian Stores, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, says that it will not pull the “Message Bible” or any of Eugene Peterson’s other writings now that the author has retracted his initial statements about same-sex “marriage.”

“Based upon Eugene Peterson’s retraction, we will continue to sell his resources,” Carol Pipes, the director of corporate communications for LifeWay Christian Resources, told Christian News Network in a statement.

The company had said last week that if Peterson indeeds supports homosexual “marriage,” as he seemingly indicated in his recent interview with Religion News Service, it would pull his products.

“LifeWay only carries resources in our stores by authors who hold to the biblical view of marriage,” it advised. “We are attempting to confirm with Eugene Peterson or his representatives that his recent interview on same-sex marriage accurately reflects his views. If he confirms he does not hold to a biblical view of marriage, LifeWay will no longer sell any resources by him, including The Message.”

LifeWay had pulled Jen Hatmaker’s books after she came out in support of same-sex nuptials last year.

As previously reported, on Wednesday, Religion News Service released an article entitled “Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind About Same-Sex Issues and Marriage.”

“I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over,” he told reporter Jonathan Merritt.

Peterson, who led Christ Our King Presbyterian Church in Maryland for nearly 30 years before his retirement in 1991, explained that he never made “a big deal” about homosexuality in his congregation, and that he was pleased at how his members never questioned the allowance of an openly homosexual man to serve as music director.

The man had applied for the position as the former worship leader left her post at the same time Peterson retired.

“When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, ‘I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay,’” Peterson recalled. “We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.”

He said that he thinks that the Church is in a “transition for the best” on the issue, and doesn’t see it as a matter of right and wrong.

“People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church,” Peterson stated. “So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

When asked if he would be willing to officiate a same-sex ceremony for “Christians of good faith” if he were pastoring today, Peterson replied in the affirmative.

However, the following day after the interview was published, Peterson, 84, walked back his answer, remarking that he had been put on the spot with a hypothetical question.

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything,” he said in a statement. “I’ve never performed a same-sex wedding. I’ve never been asked and, frankly, I hope I never am asked.”

“This reporter, however, asked a hypothetical question: if I were pastoring today and if a gay couple were Christians of good faith and if they asked me to perform their wedding ceremony—if, if, if. Pastors don’t have the luxury of indulging in hypotheticals,” Peterson explained. “And to be honest, no is not a word I typically use.”

He acknowledged that he did respond yes (that he would officiate a same-sex ceremony) during the interview, but said he only did so “in the moment” and felt the need to retract his answer upon praying about the matter.

“When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that,” Peterson said. “That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.”

The former author and speaker also softened his remark that homosexuals “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do.”

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who ‘seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,’ I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things,” Peterson stated.

“We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth,” he said.

Peterson outlined that there have been homosexuals in the various venues where he has served and noted that his “responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.”

He said that he regretted the problems caused by the matter, pointing again to the question being hypothetical.

“I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered,” Peterson stated. “It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate.”

As previously reported, Peterson’s “Message Bible” does not specifically mention homosexuality, but instead reads as its paraphrase for 1 Corinthians 6:9, “Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in His kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.”
 

Stuu

New member
:nono: You went past 'skeptic' with that dictionary. Romans 1:19-22 It is intellectually counter-intuitive to assert what you just asserted. It is Certainly, by no means skepticism. Doubt is forgivable. Repression is something altogether different and a sin against your very own soul/self. You are 'harming' yourself by such a statement.

I KNOW there is a God. You've never asked me why or how BECAUSE you don't want to know. That's not skepticism. Your dictionary is the dictionary of denial and repression my friend, and it will only hurt yourself. God is, in fact there. If you are ever interested, ask me how I know. :e4e:
I think if you reflect on your answer, it is one that betrays fear, possibly guilt, and a major dose of knowing that these beliefs really are ridiculous.

Of course that part is important, isn't it. The meme, of whatever variety, requires a strong commitment and has a brilliant way of hijacking the human brain: it makes you commit to concepts that are really absurd because the more absurd the idea you have committed to, the less likely you are to backtrack and risk that high-stakes investment.

The 'you are harming yourself' statement is a classic strategy, painting yourself as being a bit hurt that I would question your concern for my well-being.

You do also try throwing the vitriol of Saul of Tarsus at me, which is a mixed strategy. It might be better to stick to either threats or pathos, but not both in the same post.


Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Best be double-checking that dictionary of yours then.

He is risen.

Not a platitude.

:plain:
Your strategy is much better than Lon's (sorry Lon, but it is). Just stick with the same platitude and repeat it until the person at whom it is aimed starts to double-guess and wonder if actually there might be something in it.

Of course there isn't. If you mean to claim that ancient Jews that were successfully executed by the Romans can get up and walk, then your belief of that is a major achievement by the meme that has hijacked your mind. How do you get out of that one? It would be a significant volte-face, as they say en France.

Not sure what to suggest. Maybe just honesty with those who might have also committed to the idea. Just say, you know, had a rethink and clearly dead Jews don't just up and walk. You might lose some friends, or they might just say, yeah I was wondering about that too.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Atheists boards are more likely, after they whine on christian forums that they are treated like second class citizens, then they chomp at the bit to ban you outright on their boards. IIDB ended because of that very thing.
That's interesting. I posted on an atheist forum many years ago (can't remember the name of it now) and they didn't look like they were banning anyone. I also posted on a christian forum at the same time, and they only seemed to ban christians, never the resident atheists!

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Homosexuality is Against God's Law

Homosexuality is Against God's Law

Shalom.

Homosexuality is against God's Law. It should not be practiced, permitted, or approved of by anyone. Homosexual acts are punishable by death. Homosexual tendencies can be corrected by God. I am not sure why they exist, but though these are not the acts that are punishable by death themselves, they may be indicative of sin, having been in the presence of sin, even lustful thoughts or behaviors, or even something beyond the individual's control such as something that cannot be seen but still affects or effects the way the person thinks and the way that the mind works. It is a shame that the righteous or angels would be called upon by God to kill those who commit homosexual acts, according to the manner as prescribed in Torah Law. For then they would be in the presence of this sin. God may kill the person by Himself. If no one knew about it, nothing would have ever been done about it. But all sin is known to be sin. Nothing escapes God's notice, though sin should not be and is said to not be permitted in the presence of God. In fact, if there has ever been sin in the presence of God, whatever the presence of God is, it is not allowed or permitted in is punished just as with all other sin committed against God and our fellow man, our neighbors, from those of Israel, to the United States of America, and around the world. If you have ever participated in homosexual sin or been around homosexual sin (homosexuality is sin), or had a tendency perceived to be homosexual in nature, repent that you would be forgiven this sin, and repent of all your sins that you would be forgiven all your sins, and trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and the free gift of eternal life (if God would permit this for the sin of homosexuality, is a question), put your faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and you will be forgiven... though you may die for your sin. God holds everyone accountable for what they do, every sin, every idle word, every thought or every lustful thought, even the angels for that which they should have done something about I believe, and so some people will not be forgiven for their sin. Repent, and if God grants you repentance or salvation, with your faith in God, live your life according to God's law, to the glory of God. May your good works be known to all men. May God be praised for the work of salvation that He has done in your life. May that which is not of and from God, though God created the world in which we live, for us to enjoy, and that we would please and glorify God, cease to exist. May it be eradicated from the face of the earth. May the righteous flourish, and may the wicked come to their end.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Lon

Well-known member
I think if you reflect on your answer, it is one that betrays fear, possibly guilt, and a major dose of knowing that these beliefs really are ridiculous.
It is like arguing with a blind man about the color of red. You CAN wish with all your might, but you are arrogantly stubbornly wrong, sport. Einstein said atheism was 'lame' specifically because of the arrogance, audacity, and blindness of turning off part of one's brain, literally. If you want to go through life deaf to that part, you can try and accomplish it but as I told you, I 'know' there is a God. I EVEN invited you to ask me. What did you do? :think: (seriously, THINK). :think:

Of course that part is important, isn't it. The meme, of whatever variety, requires a strong commitment and has a brilliant way of hijacking the human brain: it makes you commit to concepts that are really absurd because the more absurd the idea you have committed to, the less likely you are to backtrack and risk that high-stakes investment.
Er, Einstein didn't think so. I don't think so (my IQ isn't quite his though). It frankly, is counter-intuitive to everything "logical" and "evident" to say otherwise else Einstein wouldn't have said "Lame."

The 'you are harming yourself' statement is a classic strategy, painting yourself as being a bit hurt that I would question your concern for my well-being.
It doesn't matter if it is classic. You are literally becoming brain-dead. I don't say stupid because it is thrown out in wrong contexts, but you ARE dumbing yourself down to hold to this. Every atheist is. You aren't a skeptic (agnostic), you are an atheist as in ANTI-Theist. It is you killing off your own imago deo inquiry that 'naturally' existed in you before you went this direction. It is mental seppuku. God says so, Einstein says so, I say so. You? Go ahead. There are a few like less-minded on the planet. Have at it, it is burying your head and entirely for preference and NOTHING else. Did you think that laudable? :think: It isn't. It is much worse than that frankly. It is ignorant arrogant is what it is. I know there is a color red. I could give a rip what a blind man thinks about that. In true reality, he is only harming himself, if somehow he doubts a red light with his walking stick. Same for you. You can do as you like. Warnings are about all I'm going to be interested in giving you, when you get obnoxious. If you were close, I would knock you on the ground to stop the truck from hitting your ignorant backside. I'm not heartless, just can't knock you on your backside this side of the internet. Your demise will be upon your own watch. If you live near me, I'll do my best on the street.

You do also try throwing the vitriol of Saul of Tarsus at me, which is a mixed strategy. It might be better to stick to either threats or pathos, but not both in the same post.
No, for me it is a bit beyond that. The blind man will rant that he is hurt or wet when I knock him out of the way and not thank me. It is understood, Stu. You can take it anyway you like. I'm not stepping in to hear my own voice. ONLY a bit of concern had me responding at all. Yes, I think you exactly like a few arrogant/ignorant blind folks I've come across and helped. Why were they so chagrined over a well meaning 'sight' warning? Yeah, he stumbled and while I had room to chuckle because he wasn't seriously hurt 1) He did indeed get hurt for his arrogance and 2) He did indeed naysay what I KNEW and he could not. Same here. You can be as chagrined or arrogant about it, but I'm the one that CAN see in this exchange. AGAIN, you didn't bother to ask. I'll not knock you down until it is your life in my hands, and then I won't be playing games. "IF" I can stop it, I will, regardless if you thank me for it. That really doesn't concern me. Your actual well-being does. And yeah, I'd risk my life to do so. Tough noogies, even if you complain because you didn't see it coming and completely missed it in real life. For you, Pascal's wager is worth your reconsideration. Don't think it was the only thing Pascal had, he was coming up with something 'for you' (the other guy). -Lon
 

Epoisses

New member
I disagree with the pastor, Eugene Peterson, just like you. So did,does Truster. Why fight on an issue where he and I happen to agee with the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and you? Can it actually be a "Calvinist" issue when a good many of us Calvinists disagree with Eugene Peterson?

Romans 9 "globs of clay" John 15:5 "no personal responsibility"
It 'seems' the Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:17) were Pavlovian/Skinnarian. I don't think you have to be Pavlovian or Skinnarian (B.F. Skinner) but I 'think' you have to keep verses in your bible and believe them. Proverbs 16:9

You, yourself, said some pretty awful things to me. Do you take responsibility for those things adverse to the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ? :think: It seems to me, you protest too much. If God doesn't make you a better person, this is all you will ever be, and according to your theology, all on your head. Would you be happy if He leaves you exactly as you are? No change? Don't knee-jerk so much. Don't cuss so much. It is you still stuck in your flesh. The 'GOOD' news about Skinnarian/Pavlovian psychology, is that it means theologically, as well, someone better than you and I, is working on us to get a 'different' response out of us. How much is God, "God" of your life? Imho, the whole way. That makes me Calvinist. Do you pray for Him to work in your life? Mellow you? Cause you love and grace? "IF" you pray for these things, no Calvinist, who is in Christ, does anything less and in those respects, you also are Calvinist by faith in Him and His ability to change you and me. It is Faith. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Calvinists do have a lot of redeemable qualities, even if we are wrong about some things, in your mind. This Calvinist isn't against you. I'm very much for you, and God working Sovereignly in your life. I pray that He changes you, even against your desire or helplessness contrary. Jeremiah 29:11

My bark is much worse than my bite. :DK: Lon if you were honest you would admit that not only yourself but every other Calvinist makes personal decisions or choices in their every day life. These choices can never save us but they can affect our walk with Christ especially if he is directing us elsewhere.
 

Stuu

New member
It is like arguing with a blind man about the color of red. You CAN wish with all your might, but you are arrogantly stubbornly wrong, sport.
That would be the fear and the knowledge of ridiculous beliefs talking. Don't forget I'm not the one with the burden of proof over claims that are prima-facie crazy. People don't walk again after they have been successfully executed, people aren't born of only one biological parent and people don't walk on the surface of water. Just placing yourself amongst others who have also had their minds hijacked doesn't make the crazy true.
Einstein said atheism was 'lame' specifically because of the arrogance, audacity, and blindness of turning off part of one's brain, literally.
More knowledge that the beliefs are ridiculous. Not sure what part of the brain you are referring to there. I know Einstein dissociated himself from the word atheist; he was agnostic and a fan of Spinoza's god, but was atheist in all but name. Spinoza's god is a metaphor for awe at the comprehensibility and beauty of the universe. Tell us what Einstein said about religious beliefs...
If you want to go through life deaf to that part, you can try and accomplish it but as I told you, I 'know' there is a God. I EVEN invited you to ask me. What did you do? (seriously, THINK).
Now the fear is making you put your hands over your ears and shout 'I can't hear you'. You invited me to ask you what, again? What is particular about your special pleading?
Er, Einstein didn't think so. I don't think so (my IQ isn't quite his though). It frankly, is counter-intuitive to everything "logical" and "evident" to say otherwise else Einstein wouldn't have said "Lame."
Do you actually know why he used the word 'lame'? I'll leave it to you to look it up. And I wouldn't use a christian website to do it, they always lie about Einstein, or at least entirely misunderstand him. Ok, here's a clue: he called himself a 'religious non-believer'.

It doesn't matter if it is classic.
Ok, call it a hackneyed strategy then.

You are literally becoming brain-dead. I don't say stupid because it is thrown out in wrong contexts, but you ARE dumbing yourself down to hold to this. Every atheist is. You aren't a skeptic (agnostic), you are an atheist as in ANTI-Theist.
Yes, I would put myself in the category of anti-theist. Remember it's not me claiming absolute knowledge of the existence of invisible sky friends.

Here you are placing me in the out-group, based on the fear that everything (whatever that is) will collapse if doubt starts to catch on.

It is you killing off your own imago deo inquiry that 'naturally' existed in you before you went this direction. It is mental seppuku.
I think you're overplaying your hand there. Why not just go back to Saul of Tarsus? If you stuck to that then others reading this would find some common ground with you, not just be alarmed by your naked fear. I note we haven't got to guilt yet. Interesting.

God says so, Einstein says so, I say so. You? Go ahead.
Einstein thought your kinds of beliefs were 'naive'.

Of course, Einstein was wrong about things, so I'm not sure why you are putting so much store in what he said. Some very capable people have been very wrong.

There are a few like less-minded on the planet. Have at it, it is burying your head and entirely for preference and NOTHING else. Did you think that laudable? It isn't. It is much worse than that frankly. It is ignorant arrogant is what it is. I know there is a color red. I could give a rip what a blind man thinks about that. In true reality, he is only harming himself, if somehow he doubts a red light with his walking stick. Same for you. You can do as you like. Warnings are about all I'm going to be interested in giving you, when you get obnoxious. If you were close, I would knock you on the ground to stop the truck from hitting your ignorant backside. I'm not heartless, just can't knock you on your backside this side of the internet. Your demise will be upon your own watch. If you live near me, I'll do my best on the street.
So we are back to looking hurt that your good intentions are being spurned. We could discuss the immorality of the offer. If there is such a metaphorical truck, then given the alternative, the only ethical option is to be hit by it.

No, for me it is a bit beyond that. The blind man will rant that he is hurt or wet when I knock him out of the way and not thank me. It is understood, Stu. You can take it anyway you like. I'm not stepping in to hear my own voice. ONLY a bit of concern had me responding at all. Yes, I think you exactly like a few arrogant/ignorant blind folks I've come across and helped. Why were they so chagrined over a well meaning 'sight' warning? Yeah, he stumbled and while I had room to chuckle because he wasn't seriously hurt 1) He did indeed get hurt for his arrogance and 2) He did indeed naysay what I KNEW and he could not. Same here. You can be as chagrined or arrogant about it, but I'm the one that CAN see in this exchange. AGAIN, you didn't bother to ask. I'll not knock you down until it is your life in my hands, and then I won't be playing games. "IF" I can stop it, I will, regardless if you thank me for it. That really doesn't concern me. Your actual well-being does. And yeah, I'd risk my life to do so. Tough noogies, even if you complain because you didn't see it coming and completely missed it in real life.
Boy, you're really doing it tough at my lack of interest.

For you, Pascal's wager is worth your reconsideration. Don't think it was the only thing Pascal had, he was coming up with something 'for you' (the other guy).
Pascal's Wager is one of the most spineless pieces of philosophy ever devised. What god worth worshiping would be fooled by that??

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
That would be the fear and the knowledge of ridiculous beliefs talking.
:nono:


Pascal's Wager is one of the most spineless pieces of philosophy ever devised. What god worth worshiping would be fooled by that??

Stuart
:doh: Again, it was for 'your' benefit that he even tried, you little self-centered freak. "IF" God is going to talk to you, it is going to have to be through an incredibly thick head first. Paul said the man without the Spirit could not grasp this stuff. It really pushes past IQ and all this posturing and reaches to what really matters and what does not. "IF" the flesh is all you've got, you don't have room for any of the rest of this and have killed it off in yourself.

I've left off the rest. Your real need is seeing the miraculous, things that only God 'could' do. You never have. That makes you blind and anyone else that has seen them, having sight. For some reason, you 'think' blind is natural for the rest of us. The analogy is appropriate. Don't be so ignorantly arrogant. It has everything to do with your lack. We could compare IQ's but God isn't really interested in knocking your brains in or out. He opposes the proud. Until you reach a point where you recognize you are creature, not god, you'll never be ready for Him. The blindness is your own. How does one prove to a blind man he is the only one blind if he ignorantly refuses red can even exist. To that poor man, he is left alone with his ignorant arrogance. That is why you never ask how I know. You've discounted the existence of 'red' (by analogy) long ago. Sorry, your problem. I will not stay and rub your nose in it, just feel bad for you. There is nothing left for me to say to you about it. Contemplate or not Stu, your call. -Lon
 

Stuu

New member
Again, it was for 'your' benefit that he even tried, you little self-centered freak.
Boy, personal abuse. Look at all you are doing for me, and see how ungrateful I am. Atheism must really be beyond the pale, eh readers?

"IF" God is going to talk to you, it is going to have to be through an incredibly thick head first.
This is better politics from you. Now you are persisting with spin and ignoring the question of how ridiculous the beliefs are. And a further touch of abuse. That will play really well with some, but the others who don't like it will be brought into line by their personal fear.

Paul said the man without the Spirit could not grasp this stuff. It really pushes past IQ and all this posturing and reaches to what really matters and what does not. "IF" the flesh is all you've got, you don't have room for any of the rest of this and have killed it off in yourself.
Again, much better. Saul of Tarsus and 'what really matters'. No messing around now. The beliefs are ridiculous but somehow that seems less important when you can really step in and tell it like it is (or isn't).

I've left off the rest. Your real need is seeing the miraculous, things that only God 'could' do. You never have. That makes you blind and anyone else that has seen them, having sight. For some reason, you 'think' blind is natural for the rest of us. The analogy is appropriate. Don't be so ignorantly arrogant. It has everything to do with your lack. We could compare IQ's but God isn't really interested in knocking your brains in or out. He opposes the proud. Until you reach a point where you recognize you are creature, not god, you'll never be ready for Him. The blindness is your own. How does one prove to a blind man he is the only one blind if he ignorantly refuses red can even exist. To that poor man, he is left alone with his ignorant arrogance. That is why you never ask how I know. You've discounted the existence of 'red' (by analogy) long ago. Sorry, your problem. I will not stay and rub your nose in it, just feel bad for you. There is nothing left for me to say to you about it. Contemplate or not Stu, your call. -Lon
Miracles, blindness, arrogance, brains, pride, and pity. You've undone all your previous 'good' work.

It looks to me like you don't just believe in the belief in a god, you really believe in this god. From what you write, it is a vengeful god that you really fear. From the preachy tone you take, it's clear that you also fear the consequences of people starting to doubt this god is really there. You have to cling to this no matter what, and that includes trying to head off any challenge of it. In particular you have shunned my offer to discuss the morality of the christian proposition. You fear being exposed, and I'll bet you don't post on atheist websites. But I think you don't have a clear strategy in dealing with me, and you have weakened your position by not addressing my criticisms honestly.

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
That is a rule of your christian club.


Fair enough that you warn other christians about the rule, but why should the rest of us have to follow your club rules?

Stuart
Shalom.

I am not a Christian. I am a Jew, of Israel, and a citizen of the United States of America. I read, study, observe, keep, and teach Torah. I am a proselyte and a convert to Israel and Judaism. I serve the one true God, the God of the Universe, the God of Israel, the Jew, and the Gentiles, the Nations, whose name is Yahveh, and Jesus Christ, Yeshua HaMashiach, His Son, my King, Master, Lord, and Savior, my Messiah, the Messiah of all Israel, and the world. As a man and a citizen of the United States of America of age 36 I am able and willing to serve the American people as President of the United States of America if I am someday elected President by the Electoral College. I am studying and training to be a Rabbi. It is in Jesus Christ alone that you will find salvation, the forgiveness of your sins, and the free gift of eternal life. There is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. I accept the TaNaKh and Matthew through Revelation. I have read the Bible. I am a former Christian. It is possible to be a Christian and believe, follow, and obey God's Law, being of Israel, and not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is God's law written on minds and hearts, in Yeshua HaMashiach who died for you.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 NASB - 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB - 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Acts 4:12 NASB - 12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 16:31 NASB - 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Acts 15:19-32 NASB - 19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." 30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Stuu

New member
Shalom.

I am not a Christian. I am a Jew, of Israel, and a citizen...
Thanks for your personal introduction and clarification of your position. Are you sure that you are not a christian just because of a lack of belief in the trinity? There are plenty that don't believe that doctrine who call themselves christian.

In any case, can I recast my question in the light of your reply?

Fair enough that you warn other Abrahamists about the rule, but why should the rest of us have to follow your club rules?

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Thanks for your personal introduction and clarification of your position. Are you sure that you are not a christian just because of a lack of belief in the trinity? There are plenty that don't believe that doctrine who call themselves christian.

In any case, can I recast my question in the light of your reply?

Fair enough that you warn other Abrahamists about the rule, but why should the rest of us have to follow your club rules?

Stuart
Shalom.

You do not need to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. You can be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity.

I do not know what you are asking about club rules. I am referring to and talking about God's Law, which is not up for negotiation.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
That is a rule of your christian club.


Fair enough that you warn other christians about the rule, but why should the rest of us have to follow your club rules?

Stuart

You don't have to, you can worship demons and yourself all you want in this life, but do know one day you will bend your knee to God and confess Him as God.
 
Top