Charity

Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. I saw the darkness, I saw the darkness No more safety, no more light Now I’m so shameful, no trusting in sight Thanks to him, I saw the darkness

Your post was helpful, especially what I highlighted in blue. Idiot is what a stupid person is called. Being so judgmental is where arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities) and being condescending (having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority) comes in. Someone else recently shared with me the idea that they are also not responsible for what other people believe so I guess it's been confirmed for me that I shouldn't either . Lesson being simply to share why I no longer believe in the god of the bible and how that has made my life better.

After almost a year, I got to revisit the links above thanks to your post.

I thought Catholics had to take their doctrine from what the current Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, has to say. Once saved/always saved is not one of those doctrines. Your reference to "many mysteries," I think is their doctrine around salvation.

The "that" in your reply is referring to whether once saved/always saved is true or whether only those who "remain faithful" will be saved. So, you think God purposefully left believers to be guessing/wondering/worried/fearful about whether they will go to a place called heaven or a placed called hell for all eternity. I don't get why an all-loving God/Father would do that to his children. Why wouldn't he make it absolutely clear how to be saved without there being any contradictions within "his word?"

What makes Christian Love Different John Piper makes an impressive argument in this article for Christian love, clearly showing it as being superior to "secular" love. He is definitely promoting an "in group" and an "out group." It's interesting, though, that he does not call it "agape/agapao" love, but the verses he quotes do. The article is in response to a question he was asked which was, "What would you say is the difference between the kind of love that is produced in the Christian’s heart for others through the new birth (1 John 4:7; 1 Peter 1:22–23), compared to the charitable and often self-sacrificial love that we often see demonstrated in the world among non-Christians? How would you explain this difference?” His opening paragraph says, "The difference between secular love and Christian love is that secular love is not rooted in the cross of God’s Son, and is not sustained and shaped by the power of God’s Spirit, and is not acted for the glory of God the Father. So the source of it is different, the sustaining power of it is different, and the goal of it is different." What he writes in this link is backed by other preachers and is what I believed all my life as a Christian. *************** On the other hand, another ministry (Christianity without the Religion) says something different. Do only Christians Love with Agape (1 John 4:16) Brad Jersak writes, "The idea that imagines agape love (the self-giving love that comes from God) is the sole property of Christians is a rather horrendous misinterpretation of John’s point. Indeed, such a notion is itself uncharitable (i.e., not agape) in its contempt for all those who have laid down their lives for the other, even apart from faith in Christ. It is disturbing to imagine the implications of such superior-than-thou thinking that diminishes the quality of love in those who have not joined our insiders’ club." *************** Since you have Christians disagreeing on a doctrine, I'll look outside of the bible to learn about agape (which I just learned began to be used as an English word in the 1600's meaning unselfish giving). One website I found is Agape Love: The Art of Loving Unconditionally . I'm also looking into the recommended writings of Scott Peck and his "Road Less Traveled" trilogy. Will they reach the height of how Piper describes Christian love? I don't know, but it doesn't really matter, because I don't accept there is evidence for God, let alone "the cross of God's son. I just want to override the parts of my mind that still holds onto this emotional, but irrational, concept.

I'm interested in the phrases you used above (highlighting is by me) because it implies a concern you have about the way an atheist might be communicating their viewpoint - perhaps with a little too much conviction/boldness/emotion or with a condescending/judgmental tone. (This is obviously an assumptions on my part). I ask because I am an atheist posting on a board with Christians and often find it a challenge in how to express myself. (I find Raf walks this line more effectively than I do.) What I mean is that as someone who spent decades as a Christian, steeped in the study of the word, there are times when my posts as an atheist are simply about questioning the doctrines in the bible, and then there are times when I give a knee jerk reaction to a post or outright denounce what the bible says. I try to keep the latter to threads on the Atheism subforum but am not always successful. A recent example of reacting is how I replied on the About the Way forum to something JoyfulSoul had written where I assumed he meant supernatural stories that are recorded in the bible. JS - Jesus was accused of everything. We have accounts of supernatural stories. There are a million more. My reply - What proof was there of any of them being supernatural - because a book said they were? Anyway, getting back to my opening sentence, can you share your thoughts explaining the phrases you used.

Sometimes, I ruminate on a post after I've sent it as to whether my thoughts and intentions were clear. This is one of those times. I think the post above can be read as me getting honest with myself concerning my beliefs about God and his promises. I think it could also be read as me implying that those who do not agree with my conclusion are not being honest with themselves. (I also think it's possible that nobody even cares about what I wrote.) So to clarify, the questions (all except the one stated in the conclusion) were meant to invite discussion. As for the conclusion, I'd like to change to read: The honest thing for me was to conclude that an untrustworthy God cannot be a real God.

I lived for years with the pain and fear than my unbelieving adult children and grandchildren, who being ineligible for a ticket for the rapture trip, would have to resist the mark of some dreaded beast all the while they were experiencing the great tribulation when God's wrath is poured out and life becomes worse than anything in the history of mankind. And if they were lucky able to survive all that, they would then have to face annihilation or the lake of fire or an eternity in hell or whatever God's judgment had planned for them. But, when I realized that there was no evidence that this bogeyman of a god even existed, that fear vanished.

This thread was started because one specific man (William Barlow) did not want to be gullible about what one specific group (twi) was teaching. Instead, he wanted his questions to be open for honest discussions. He learned the hard way that this was something the deceivers and manipulators leading twi did not want in the least bit, so they "upped and awayed" him from the corps training program and demanded that he attend fellowships under one assigned leader so they could control him once he was back home. Point being is that to avoid being deceived or manipulated by religious people who are out for your loyalty, time, money and ability to think rationally, one needs to gain a good understanding of what gullibility, critical thinking and skepticism are all about.

Test your gullibility. Watch the clips above. Let me know how you scored.

Point taken - thanks. One way to get rid of a scandal.

I've read it as well (years after the fact), but I have no interest in discussing it now. I was just wondering if anyone remembers the push back/warnings against reading it at the time or just being able to bring up the topic of adultery without any mention of the paper. Being in Canada, I don't think it was well-known that the paper even existed, but then again I was out by 1986.

It's so true - Mike Bickle was the worst of them. If you listen to his link above, it sounds like he's doing stand-up comedy when he talks about his visit to heaven. What's even more sickening is that Bickle used his "golden chariot" prop from his story to help groom a 19-year-old female into having an affair with him by prophesying she would one day ride with him in it. I realize I have gotten far off the topic of this thread but William Barlow and his parents were leaders in twi when John Shoenheit's paper on adultery was covertly being circulated. I wonder if any of his pages of questions were about twi's stance on adultery since the paper got John fired for writing it. twi actually threatened the corps to not read it. Some here might have experienced this. So much for asking questions.

Ah, hence the word "trip" in your post. I haven't heard anything so far about drug use with these guys but adultery and/or CSA was committed by all of them except Rich Joyner (as far as what's been reported). However, he and his church has recently been named in lawsuits for turning a blind eye to sexual grooming and assaults by a former youth group leader volunteer. The man went on to plead guilty to 10 counts to sexual conduct with a minor and assault and battery and was sentence to nine years in prison.

Good point. DNR (that one I know) - your condition was even more serious than what I had thought before. So, so thankful you are still here Waysider.

My mind has gone in search of what DMT means in the Land of Acronyms and Text Abbreviations. Help bring in back home to me please. Thanx Also, your highlighted line above - a wise person I know once told me "the one claiming to speak for God is surely the one who does not."

I listened to the video below again and I think it's all about being honest with yourself like I mentioned to Raf. This One Failed Promise Should Stop Christians In Their Tracks! "And The Sick Will Be Made Well" On one hand, you have the apologist saying: “Why does God heal some and why he doesn’t heal others is God’s sovereign will his choice. We might not understand. The question is are we going to trust him? So please don’t think that if you’ve asked God and he hasn’t healed you, it’s necessarily because you have a weak or lack of faith. That’s bad theology.” On the other hand, you have Brandon calling God on not keeping his promise. Which of the two ways is the most honest? God gives specific instructions for what to do when you’re sick (James 5:13-15) - if you do this, you will be healed. So, when God does not heal you after you've followed the instructions, it rightfully becomes an issue of God's trustworthiness. Like with any human who regularly does not follow through on their word, it is rational to lose trust in that person. But with God, the fallacy of special pleading gets applied (aka selective adherence when someone claims an exception to a general principle or rule without sufficient justification). Is this being honest? Shame also enters the picture when you're told (however gently) "how dare you question God?" God's ways are not man's ways. Just keep trying and trusting. But where is the honesty in that when you compare it to what James clearly says? Is it being honest to believe without question in salvation that is prescribed in Romans 10:9-10 but turn around and not hold God to what he prescribed about healing in James 5:13-15? There is no difference - they are both clear promises. One can put all their faith in "the abstract, unverifiable and unfalsifiable" biblical claim of eternal life, and yet make excuses for every biblical claims of healing (see below) that is demonstrated not to work. How is this being honest? Is not the honest thing to say is that an untrustworthy God cannot be a real God? ********************* More verses in the video about healing: Psalm 41:3; Isaiah 38:5; Mark 6:13; Exodus 15:26; Psalm 30:2; Jeremiah 17:14 Verses in the video about what God says about asking for things: Matthew 7:7-8; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24 (faith the size of a mustard seed is all that’s needed – Matthew 17:20); John 14:13; 1 John 5:14

I identify with how honest you were wanting to be with yourself during that time. It fits in with what I heard in the video I mentioned above.

Many self-proclaimed modern prophets, infected with the need for sensationalism, have given reports of out-of-body experiences, trips to heaven and hell, and face-to-face dialogues with angels, God and Jesus Christ. A few are Mike Bickle, Chris Reed, Todd Bentley and Bob Jones who are all close past or present associates of Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries and have all given detailed descriptions of their visiting heaven. Supernatural Story: Chris Reed Visits Library in Heaven Jesus took Todd Bentley to the Gates of Hades (Rick Joyner on stage with him) Mike Bickle: Heavenly Encounter Rick Joyner I find it interesting that in the past, preachers would preach scripture. Nowadays, for more and more preachers, the preaching of God's word comes through retelling their visits to heaven. Why is this becoming the norm for so many churches?

This is NOT a criticism. I am wondering, though, how much study you have given to the topic of NDEs and whether you use skeptical and critical thinking when reading the studies or while listening to people describe their experiences? The reason I'm asking is because I rarely did this when I was a Christian. However, during my deconversion and since then, I have learned the necessity for doing so. The important question to ask is how much does one care whether what they believe is actually true or not? Are NDEs simply a matter of interest for you or is it something you base important beliefs upon? ************* This is an example of what I mean. After seeing your post, I read Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality by Jeffrey Long, and I had some questions about a few things and decided to look into them. I checked and learned that he is a Christian who wrote God and the Afterlife which could mean that he has a biased perspective about NDEs. I also researched whether his work was peer reviewed and found two reviews of his popular book Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences . One was by Wendy Cousins and the other by J. Kenneth Arnette, both of whom have highly educated fields of study. Arnette makes a number of critiques, a few of them being: - a problem with Long's repeated use of the words "proof" and "the afterlife." "Proof" because Arnette claims, "At this point, the survival of consciousness cannot, through science, be established as a fact." "The afterlife" because "NDEs actually provide very little information about the nature of “the” afterlife, except perhaps for its initial appearance" and that the term “afterlife” is a loaded term, with much attached baggage and potentially a variety of interpretations." Arnette uses the term "survival of death.” - explains ways in which Long's methodology is problematic - that Long omits the research on "distressing NDEs" in his book (other than a mere mention of it and a referral to his website.) Arnette writes, "the likely result of Long’s detailed attention to pleasurable NDEs and virtual omission of attention to distressing ones is that readers come away with a simplistic impression of the range of possible experiences that might await them at death." I could go further by looking up information about Arnette and his support of the "reality, meaning, and implications of NDEs" since his credentials include his involvement with the "Transpersonal Institute for the Scientific Study of the Paranormal" - oh my!

Thanks Oakspear! I spent the whole day online yesterday only to come up with what you so efficiently shared in three points. I'll still share my longer version with its links so I'll have something to show for my time . 1. “What agape means in ancient Greek writing somewhat differs from the word's contemporary use. The earliest references to agape in Greek writing use the term to refer to a deep love for a spouse or a close family member. Agape's Greek origin is the verb agapao ” Agape Love Meaning, Uses & Examples 2. "Agapē (αγάπη in Greek) is one of several Greek words translated into English as love. Greek writers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to, if not with a totally separate meaning from, philia (an affection that could denote either brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros (an affection of a sexual nature, usually between two unequal partners, although Plato's notion of eros as love for beauty is not necessarily sexual). The term agape with that meaning was rarely used in ancient manuscripts, but quite extensively used in the Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible." New World Encyclopedia 3. "The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. It is not impossible that the Greek concept even originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint<ref>Agape as a term for love or affection is rarely used in ancient manuscripts." Art and Popular Culture 4. "The verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead".[2] Wikipedia I enjoyed reading The Odyssey, so I'll share this as well. Art and Popular Culture above also mentions Homer. It reads, "Although some sources claim Agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means 'beloved' or 'well-loved' (referring to Odysseus and Penelope feelings for their son Telemachus). Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 (Nausicaa saves Odysseus when he is starving, battered and naked after washing ashore on her island) and 17 (lines 30-45 when Odysseus' nurse Eurycleia saw him at first upon his return and 'with a burst of tears she came straight toward him' and the other maids gathered 'and they kissed his head and shoulders in loving welcome') of the Odyssey and means 'to treat with affection." (Words in Italics are added to the quote) Pretty cool methinks .

Thanks for your reply Oakspear. I agree with both of the reasons you gave. Being heartbroken because of unanswered prayers could also fall under a "feeling" reason similar to being mad at God. For me, it was this hurt that made me go back to the bible to study what I was getting wrong about prayer and eventually came to the conclusion that the biblical promises had too many loopholes and that prayer was always going to be a hit and miss concept - ignore the misses and count the hits. It's like the time I was on an errand outdoors and it looked like it might rain, so I prayed to God that it wouldn't because I had no umbrella. When it started to rain, I prayed that it would be a light drizzle so I wouldn't get drenched. When it became a downpour, I prayed I wouldn't catch a cold and I didn't. Praise the Lord - God was real. (True story ) This One Failed Promise Should Stop Christians In Their Tracks! "And The Sick Will Be Made Well" I listened to this 30-minute video once and thought it was excellent. I'll listen to it again today to confirm whether my first impression was correct.

I have started two previous threads about love; Love when I believed in the biblical God and Sin and the Need for Perfect Love when I had stopped believing in this god Now, I am beginning a third one as a result of my post today in the Fruit of the Spirit thread where I wrote, "Although there is no specific "in crowd/out crowd fallacy," there is the bandwagon fallacy which "presumes that because a position is popular, it must therefore be correct. Bandwagon Fallacy (includes a comic about Aristotle to make the point ). It's been my experience that being told something (e.g., agape love) is not available to you (a non-Christian) that is available to others (Christians) seems to fit in with this fallacy." I admit that the topic of love has always been an emotional one for me and this time, it is no different. I had been taught about God's love since I was a child growing up in the Roman Catholic faith, and this foundation was what led me to search for it again in my troubled teens where I eventually ended up in a twi fellowship, experienced their initial lovebombing and remained for over a decade. At times, it has proven difficult as an atheist to let go of this indoctrinated beleef concerning the supernatural/spiritual origin and source of unconditional love. During those times, I did feel inferior about my own ability to love myself and others without "any" conditions. In the extreme, this feeling of inadequacy can lead to some mental health issues. It sometimes did for me and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this. So what's the deal here? Is agape love only available to Christians because biblical writers (who wanted to sell their idea for a necessary savior from God's wrath due to man's sin nature) claimed it was and millions of people have since jumped on this bandwagon and so it must therefore be true? Do Christians manifest agape love all the time and if not, then how is that different from non-Christians who do not manifest unconditional love all the time? How was the word "agape" used in ancient Greek before it took on the meaning given to it in the new testament?