Picking and choosing which evidence you want, and throwing away anything that doesn't fit, lets you build any theory you like.
Transgender Rights
- Thread starter almostinsane
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate trans transgender
Picking and choosing which evidence you want, and throwing away anything that doesn't fit, lets you build any theory you like.
That's also true.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Modern atheism emerged from the same social sector, at the same time, and with many linguistics match-ups, to other forms of human-deifying ideology.
Even if it didn't start as a cult from within that mileau of human supremacists that became atheistic and went from there, there's definitely some link/spawn point between raging egoism and atheism, and I think that's the most likely real origin of it.
King Arts
Well-known member
A lot of what you said is right but there are two mistakes first Christian’s don’t see the Jews as gods chosen people anymore. The church/community of believers/christians is gods chosen people now. Only heretic evangelicals think Jews are still the chosen.
The second thing is Jews think that Muslims do worship the same god as them. According to Tovia Singer Muslims are true monotheists and don’t do avoidably zorah. Also he says that Christians are idol worshippers. Thats why Jews can pray inside of a mosque but aren’t even allowed to step into a church.Jews don’t think Muhammad was a real prophet of course but they do seem to see most monotheists as worshipping their god.
With the exception of Christianity they see the trinity and worship of Jesus as god as idol worship and pagan polytheism.
Nowhere in the New Testament, especially not in the Epistles, does God or Christ indicate that the blessing and Promise of Abraham was annulled or voided. The Law is fulfilled by the Death and Resurrection of Christ, but that only completes the Mosaic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, which is the primary covenant Blessing the Decedents of Abraham as Chosen, was a separate matter.
And most Evangelicals are not heretical by any sane definition of the word, unless you consider all Protestant heretical, as Evangelical theology is very much in line with pretty much all pre-20th century Protestant theology. And seeing how the Evangelical movement came from the Fundamentalist movement which was a REJECTION of the ACTUALLY heretical Modernist movement, they likely have better theology than the Mainline and Establishment Protestants Denominations in the world.
King Arts
Well-known member
The traditional Christian doctrine has been that the new covenant supersedes the old. Dual covenant theology is a modern innovation just like women preached and gay marriage. So yes traditional Protestants that are Lutheran or Presbyterian or whatever are more correct than evangelical as long as the Lutherans aren’t woke or whatever.
There are also quite a few passages in the Bible that point to the Jews no longer being blessed as they are not obeying god. One of them is Jesus saying “no one comes to the father but through me.” Gods blessing were on Israel and it was contingent upon them being faithful.
Let’s pretend for the sake of the argument that the blessing to the Jews still applies. If a Jew aka a boood descendant of Abraham is faithful to god god will bless him. Assuming Christianity is true and Jesus is god then that means the only Jews who get the benefit of the blessings are Jewish Christians the Jews for Jesus folks are the biggest example and they are a small minority. Because the other argument that evangelicals try to make is not backed by scripture that god always blessed the Jews. Did he bless them when they were serving moloch and he had the Babylon conquer them?
Could you explain what you think gods promise to Abraham is?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You know, your consistent ability to fabricate and select straw men to argue against is pretty impressive.
I'll leave this one to S'task for now.
King Arts
Well-known member
What do you mean? When Christian’s say Jews are the chosen people they are saying that that faith is salvific. That those who follow it are blessed and will enter paradise no need for them to believe in Jesus. How is that not rank heresy? It’s either that or some kind of racism.
Genesis 17? This isn't some obscure part of the Bible:
Genesis 17:1-14 said:
Note this is sworn by God as an "everlasting" Covenant, and the decedent's of Abraham's part to uphold is pretty simple overall, in fact, this Covenant is why circumcision is a critical religious rite to Judaism at all. This being a separate covenant from that of the Mosaic Law was even recognized by the earliest Christians, see Acts 7:
Acts 7:4-8 said:
That said, I'm not espousing or defending dual covenant theology. The Jews were, and are under the Abrahamic covenant, God's Chosen People. You're misinterpreting my statement calling the Jew's "God's Chosen People" as supporting Dual Covenant theology, which is not something I was meaning in any way, shape or form by that statement, rather that statement was meant to establish that Christianity does believe that Jews worship the same God and that it was through the Jews that God chose to bring Salvation to All into the World in the form of Christ and His sacrifice. Saying that the Jews were "God's Chosen People" is not saying they are saved under the Old Covenant, just that they historically were and further hold special blessings under the Abrahamic covenant.
Also... you really need to learn some modern Church history before you go off spouting things. The Modernist / Fundamentalist split are about little things like the historicity of Jesus, Jesus' divinity and authority, little things like that. The Modernists holding that Jesus likely DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXSIST and if he did HE WAS NOT GOD and just a Good Moral Teacher. While the Fundamentalists held onto the idea that, yanno, Jesus was a Real Person and God Incarnate, etc. Basically, the Modernists mythologized the Bible and rejected anything supernatural or even necessarily authoritative (hence why those denominations are becoming Woke), whereas the Fundamentalists adhered to traditional interpretation and understanding.
That said, I suspect your dislike of Evangelicals comes from a different place: you are an adherent to High Church style and because of how the Modernist/Fundamentalist split happened in the US, it was the Low Church that remained Orthodox while the High Church became heretical. This was due to Institutional Capture by the Modernists who proceeded to drive out any Fundamentalists from those major Institutions (you know... like Harvard and other major academic institutions as well as Church hierarchies), and thus those academic Fundamentalists ended up founding a bunch of smaller religious colleges around the country that are never considered as prestigious and thus are all middle or lower class oriented. This also meant that those Pastors who remained Orthodox tended to, if not driven out from the denominations entirely, end up in backwater churches rather than prestigious positions. Thus the Evangelical movement in the US is decidedly much more Lower and Middle class, and oriented towards them in a more common style.
King Arts
Well-known member
Ok if THAT is what you mean when you say that Jews were the chosen people then you are 100% correct. That is the right Christian doctrine, the only quibble is that again the Jews were chosen past tense because God chose and then Jesus came. The thing they were chosen for already happened.
No I do understand that for the Protestants modernists fundamentalist split happened and Modernists did take over the high churches. But there are still high church people who believe that Jesus was real and God incarnate, and they haven't gone woke. I have met traditional Lutherans, and Redeemed Zoomer on youtube is someone I can point to part of the PCUSA a very liberal group, that is trying to change that, he is one of the people that sticks to the traditional beliefs before the 1900's of Presbytarians. Whereas the Evangelicals don't have that many of their mega church's came about in the last 20 years.
So you gave me the passage but you did not say in your own words what you think it means. I mean you do realize that not everything is clear. I'll show you how I interpret that.
So I see three promises directly that God gave. Abraham would be the father of MANY nations, this does not apply to just Jews, but also all the Arab nations which there are many. Second that Abraham would be the ancestor of Kings, this was seen in David, Solomon, etc. The third promise I see is that Abraham's progeny would inhabit the land of Israel, again this can be fullfilled many ways it could be Abraham's blood descendents whether Arab or Jew. But that's not neccesary according to Matthew. After all God can raise stones to be Abraham's children. So the gentiles who accept God can be the heirs of the promise
Matthew 3:9 - Wikipedia
As for what Abraham had to do. He had to get circumcised. Also his descendants had to until the new covenant where we are now circumcised in the heart and soul and not the body. Also baptism replaced circumcision.
I think we should all remember the distinction between God's promises to Abraham, and the much later covenant at Mt Sinai with Moses and the 12 tribes of Israel.
It is the latter thing - the Mosaic Covenant, that had the Levites as the priests who offered sacrifices, that has gone bye-bye with the destruction of the Temple and the ending of the Aaronic line.
The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians makes this plain.
It is the latter thing - the Mosaic Covenant, that had the Levites as the priests who offered sacrifices, that has gone bye-bye with the destruction of the Temple and the ending of the Aaronic line.
The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians makes this plain.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
This is exactly what I mean. I have never met an evangelical, and I certainly do not myself, who believes that Judaism as a religion is salvific.
You are literally saying, 'here is a heresy, you all believe in it, so you're heretics.'
...No, I do not believe in such a thing, and nor do any of the other evangelicals I have ever met. I'm sure you could find some fringe group if you wanted, but that doesn't mean anything more than the nonsense Westboro Baptist is famous for.
King Arts
Well-known member
Ok, if you acknowledge that is heresy then you aren't a heretic on this issue. And I'm glad that you realize that it is heresy. However you are incorrect about Evangelicals not believing this. I'd point to John Hagee one of the largest Mega Church pastors and the leader of CUFI, this is not some small werido like the Westboro Baptists.
"I'm not trying to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith... In fact, trying to convert Jews is a waste of time. Jews already have a covenant with God and that has never been replaced by Christianity." (Houston Chronicle, April 30, 1988, sec, 6, pg. 1)
"There are right now Jewish people on this earth who have a powerful and special relationship with God… They have been chosen by the 'election of grace' in which God does what he does without asking man to approve or understand it. Let us put an end to the Christian chatter that 'all the Jews are lost' and can't be in the will of God until they convert to Christianity... There are a certain number of Jews in relationship with God right now through divine election." (Source: Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, Pages 124-25, 127)
"The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses… I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption." (Source: Julia Duin, "San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism," The Houston Chronicle)
"The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation. And God has not." (Source: Julia Duin, "San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism," The Houston Chronicle)
"If God blinded the Jewish people to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, how could He send them to hell for not seeing what he had forbidden them to see?" (Source: John Hagee, personal faxed correspondence to CRI, 18 October 1994, Page 3)
"Jesus refused to produce a sign because it was not the Father's will, nor his, to be Messiah." (Source: Hagee, In Defense of Israel, p 138)
"The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah." (Source: Hagee, In Defense of Israel, p. 140)
"They wanted him to be their Messiah, but he flatly refused." (Source: Hagee, In Defense of Israel, p. 141)
"Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed." (Source: Hagee, In Defense of Israel, p. 145)
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Bigger than Westboro Baptist, but he is literally an 80's Televangelist who's still coasting around.
I had never heard of him before, and he leads a church named after himself. Even if it's got a few thousand members, he's still one charismatic dude leading a small splinter, not an entire denomination.
You would be right though, in calling him a heretic.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
How many times. Do you have to be told. That it is not one thing. You totalizing MORON.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Your blinders are so intense that you take an example of me talking about a plethora of similar but non-identical ideologies, and take it as an example of me being a 'totalizing moron.'
Also, I was clearly using a literary device to point out the flaw in Jormungandr's argument; you shouldn't really have been taking that as a serious argument I was mounting in the first place. Even if it ended up fitting better than I'd first expected it to.
King Arts
Well-known member
I googled him, and he has almost 20,000 active members at his Church. For nondenominational evangelicals that's pretty big, and I've met Evangelicals that do fetishize Israel.
I'm sorry to say this to you @LordsFire but humans are a group based species we judge based on belonging to a group, even though American Protestantism tries to make individualism work it doesen't work people end up falling under demagogues. And the most popular and well known define your group. And as long as you and your leaders/ the largest most successful non denominational pastors hold hands with heretics like this and pray together and be friendly. Then other Christians will group you all together. That's why the high Church model with actual Bishops in authority is better we can have people to define the faith and say THIS IS HERESY. Then we are either part of the faith or not.
@S'task
This is why I said that Evangelicals are heretics and not real Christians and it's on the same level or possibly worse than liberal modernists. I mean let's use protestant logic, they say Catholics aren't real Christians because they rely on "works instead of trusting in Christ's sacrafice" It's wrong but let's go with it. Then you have the liberal modernist Christians that are unitarian universalits they say "Everyone goes to heaven God is love Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and atheists!" This is obviously false and not Biblical.
But then we have evangelicals like Hagee with those quotes are basically saying "No the only way to be saved is by beliving that Jesus died for your sins AND THAT'S IT YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE IF YOU THINK YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO GOOD DEEDS OR REFREAIN FROM BAD ONES YOU AREN'T SAVED, OR if you are born with the right DNA. Every other faith Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists are going to hell."
This is also false, and kinda racist to be honest.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The declaration of my opinion to you is with respect to your nonsense about evolution first and foremost making it extremely clear that your own ideological framework makes thoroughly unreasonable demands of completeness to consider things valid.
The point of the post is that you have almost never made a valid statement about "atheism" because you always treat it as one thing. Your comparison is nonsense because all the other "human-deifying ideology" is still "atheism", because that's just a descriptor of one thing they lack which is in common between virtually all of the clusterfuck you are motioning to rather than a descriptor of a feature they do have. There's utterly atheistic variants of Buddhism that, as they are still Buddhism, espouse detailed opinions of the supernatural and existence after death.
You actively refuse to comprehend this, every single time it is pointed out.
Yes, for a single Church, that is big. But bear in mind there's over 50 MILLION "Evangelical Protestants" in the United States, here's a good survey with data that I'll be referencing. Some of those grouped into what really should be considered their own denominations but have not been for reasons I've never really grasped.
The largest Evangelical Protestant group is the Southern Baptist Convention, with 17 million members. The next largest is the Assemblies of God at 3 million. The Churches of Christ have around 1.4 million.
The vast bulk of Evangelical Protestants, especially of the non-denominational kind, tend to be small churches with less than a hundred members, in fact, per that data members of such smaller churches without major affiliations that are otherwise Evangelical Protestant are the LARGEST group with 21 million members.
They just don't make waves or get media attention like the megachurches do, and because of that they have no voice. Just because you see some televangelist of megachurch pastor spouting off heresy don't assume that applies to other Evangelicals, as those people don't speak for or are even even marginally associated with the vast majority of Evangelicals in the United States, heck many smaller Evangelical churches DO try and call out and teach against the heresy found in other Evangelical megachurches, but they do it from the pulpit, and since you're not attending those churches and those churches don't get massive media attention you never hear from them.
Evangelicals tend to get lumped together because they're "not Mainline Churches" but to hold all Evangelicals to the teachings of some random megachurch pastor is as foolish as holding Presbyterians somehow accountable for holding the same beliefs as Methodists. Or Lutherans having the same views as Episcopals. There is considerable width theologically, organizationally, and temperamentally to the various Evangelical churches just as their is with "Mainline" Churches, in fact, that is how you should understand the term "Evangelical" as a larger "tradition" of Churches in the US that, fundamentally means "Non-Mainline Protestant Protestant Churches"... which yes, is such a ridiculously overbroad category as to be near useless, but that is, for some reason, how they've decided to group things together.
Not very relevant to the Western ideologies of the era under discussion.
More relevant here, is that you've allowed yourself to be baited by an argument that was an obvious parody, and intended to be understood as such.