Protestantism

» Roger Saunders - Avowed christianists

In response to Avowed christianists posted by pink101:

First, Thank you for even reading my article on Mary Dyer, and much more for recommending it. I would like to add to this discussion by saying that I think what Mary Dyer was trying to say to the Massachusetts Court, (and by the way, I think you might classify her as an avowed Christianist, although I may not be assigning your definition, please set me straight if that is the case)could actually be summed up in a scripture from 2 Timothy 1 in the New Testament. (NLT)

"I know that same faith continues strong in you. This is why I remind you to fan into flames the spiritual gift God gave you ... For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline."

I have not followed this discussion enough to know why the "fear factor" has been introduced here so maybe someone could explain that if they didn't mind but I do believe that faith can be strong enough to, as another New Testament challenge from 1 John 4 that I think inspired Mary Dyer,

We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. THERE ID NO FEAR IN LOVE. But perfect love drives out fear, because FEAR HAS TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

I added the caps, not to yell but to show emphasis and I have not figured out how or if I can format text here. ;)

Now, don;t get me wrong, I am not saying that enduring faith is easy or that I personally have somehow mastered it. BUT I do know that Jesus also said that faith as tiny as a mustard seed could move a mountain, so I don;t think He is going to totally wipe out the human race for their lack of faith. Based on the fact that mountains aren't moving all over the earth, I do think anyone trying to successfully base their life on faith probably isn't running on anything more than fumes in their gas tank of faith.

So I seem to detect a disdain for faith in this discussion, and if that is correct, it is very understandable. In this world where what the Puritans did to Mary Dyer is happening every day and multiplied may times over, faith has a very bad rap. All over the world we see that "true faith" is being used to excuse extermination of "infidels" in many Islamic areas of the world.

Not much better even in our own "Christian" society of America, we see that "faith" is used to keep people in bondage to their fears and to wipe out their very personhood that God created them with, and while Islamic extremists are killing the bodies of their enemies, "Christian" extremists are killing the very souls of their "friends". Which is worse?!?

But ... honestly, can't we say with great confidence that neither of these extremists are practicing the faith of Mary Dyer that was inspired by those writings in the New Testament?

Again, I am not aware of all of the complexities of this discussion so please forgive me if I have gone on too long and none of what I have said applies here.

I just wanted to jump in and say that although there is a lot of reason in this world to have a healthy distrust of faith, I really think that all of us deep down inside hope that we can find our "severed arms" and it won't be some alien piece of hardware that is really an evil force that wants to destroy us.

I believe in the faith of Mary Dyer (although I am not a Quaker, but I do hope I am "friend"ly) and the faith that is pretty clearly defined in the Bible when you read it without the jaundiced eye of some human's religious interpretation.

OK, I have gone on long enough. If you have been patient enough to continue to read to this point then you are probably someone who could have the love and faith of Mary Dyer, and I hope I can somehow find just a little bit of your endurance in my life too!

Thank you very much!

Roger

» Migisi - It Wasn't Necessary

In response to It Wasn't Necessary posted by redback:

.
Is this the right place for this discussion:
.
Hey, maybe Yeshy can regrow Wendell's lost arm? Tee hee.
.
I'd retitle the thread 'Enduring Delusion'.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Avowed christianists

In response to Avowed christianists posted by rogerws76:

.
"I have not followed this discussion enough to know why the 'fear factor' has been introduced here so maybe someone could explain that..."
.
I'm probably the one that introduced the "fear factor" here.
.
My point was that some christianists** are people that are afraid to let their beliefs be challenged with information from outside the bible; thus, "monsters under the bed in the dark".
.
** christianist -- a person that gives up their on their own thoughts in exchange for what they are learning that it means to be a true believer.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Women martyrs

In response to Avowed christianists posted by pink101:

.
"[The Spirit speaks:] Desire not to die in bed, nor in delivery of children, nor by enervating fevers, but in martyrdom, that He may be glorified who has suffered for you."
.
--- Tertullian, De Fuga 9.4; cf. Tertullian De Anima 55.5.)

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Women martyrs

In response to Women martyrs posted by Migisi:
.
Your Tertullian quotation opens doors for thought.
.
"...that He may be glorified who has suffered for you."
.
I think about that prhase that I have made bold.
.
Presumably, Tertullian was speaking of Jesus; so, I am focused on his execution on the cross on behest of the Temple Rulers of Judaism.
.
There is little talk I can recall in discussions regarding the purposes behind the Temple Rulers demands that Jesus be put to death for what ever reason by the Roman ruler, Ponteus Pilate.
.
What WAS there about the Gospel of Jesus that infuriated them so much so that they wanted him dead and gone? I do not think we can allow the christianist doctrine that it was for blasphemy. What ever on earth did the Temple Rulers care a hoot about god one way or the other? Their entire profession had to do with their authority in society--their only real concern. Any concern they had about blasphemy was feigned; otherwise, it was all about their license to control the thinking of the common people--to keep them in bondage to their rule.
.
Why were they concerned about keeping the people in bondage? Because the Roman rulers had superimposed their majesty over the temple in sectarian affairs? Up and until then, the Temple Rulers had complete control over the identity of the people.
.
Jesus was no threat to the Romans; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.", is the original statement of the secular. Jesus only threat was to the Temple Rulers.
.
Luke 17: 21, 22. "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it."
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - MPD Salvation

In response to It Wasn't Necessary posted by pink101:

.
I really think you and Red might get a chuckle from this 'sermon'. I sure did...
.
Mulitple Personality Salvation Disorder
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/m...
.
Teaser:
.
"Friends, what you are about to hear has caused more controversy and more griping and moaning' within the body of the Lord than any other subject. "If someone is diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and he is saved, and his other manifest personality is not.. then how do you get the latter into church?" There are so many tangents we could take with this issue. We could ask the question, "What if the one personality made a salvation decision and the other personality is a pagan, or a Catholic, or maybe even a Satanist? If that person dies while the satanic personality is presently dominant, will that person go to hell? We think so, otherwise we wouldn't be so concerned here."...
.
The rest is funny.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Follow the money

In response to Women martyrs posted by pink101:
.
Jesus was no threat to the Romans; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.", is the original statement of the secular. Jesus only threat was to the Temple Rulers.
.
Pondering.... And render unto the Temple Rulers that which they considered theirs. Follow the money.
.
The coversion of thousands of Jews to Christianity meant less in the Temple coffers.
.
We know that Jesus received financial aid from some rather influential people who'd converted: Lk 8:3 "Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means." Were the Temple Rulers jealous of this?
.
I wonder if Judas - Jesus' ministry treasurer - solicited and collected 'donations' after Jesus performed miracles? Passed the hat while Jesus was preaching, so to speak. If so, would this have triggered jealousy in the Temple Rulers? After all, the corrupt and greedy rulers did love their riches.
.
In Mark 12, we read 'The Widow's Offering', where Jesus sat down across from the Temple's donation jar and watched the 'crowd' throw in money. Why was Jesus sitting there taking note of who was donating, and how much they dropped in? And is there any verse in the New Testament which indicates that Jesus ever donated money to the Temple?
.
If Jesus' disciples collected money and then distributed it to the poor (as we're told), wouldn't those poor folk follow Jesus? And they, like the poor widow, would give whatever they had to Jesus instead of the Temple?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Women martyrs

In response to Women martyrs posted by Migisi:

.
First off, I think we should make a distinction between christians and Christians, christianity and Christianity. Big C and little c.
.
I don't think Jesus was into getting free money for teaching. Maybe I'm wrong?
.
The entire idea of Jesus' Gospel has everything to do with the individual having a direct relationship with God in the manner of priesthood of Melchizedek. In this sense, the Levite priesthood is left completely out in the cold. The Temple Rulers wanted Jesus out of the way; because he was putting them out of business.
.
Today, it is the churchies that are so heavily against the slippery liberals.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Women martyrs

In response to Women martyrs posted by pink101:
.
The Temple Rulers wanted Jesus out of the way; because he was putting them out of business
.
Yeah, in more ways than one.
.
I don't think Jesus was into getting free money for teaching. Maybe I'm wrong?
.
Jesus said "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matthew 6:33) . Jesus taught that God will provide, no?
.
The gospels do tell us about Jesus and money (Jesus talks about its use and misuse), but they don't say whether or not he carried any himself. We're told that Judas carried the moneybag for the group. So, it's clear to me that Jesus delegated that responsibility, and they bought the bread (or whatever they needed) for themselves and Jesus.
.
John had nothing good to say about Judas, accusing him of being a thief. So, in my movie, Judas is slipping through the crowd with his hat out, collecting whatever he can... not for Jesus, but for himself. Nonetheless, the ministry did collect and keep enough money for their needs, and to distribute some to the poor, in addition to satisfying Judas' greed.
.
Is it any different today in Jesus' churches?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - With Holes In It

In response to Women martyrs posted by Migisi:
.
The disciples might have performed various tasks in order to earn money. That seems to make sense to me. Maybe they sold some of the fish they caught. When you consider they caught a boatload that nearly sunk their craft, you know they either gave the excess away or they sold it?
.
I know the apostle Paul expressed a belief for accepting free money in return for preaching; but, it seems he earned his main income as a tent maker.
.
None of this is to say that I begrudge any preacher from earning money through their profession--especially in churches where the preacher performs so many different tasks that keep them away from some other regular trade. They deserve to be paid; but, that's not the point I'm making. I know preachers who do work on the side to earn additional income.
.
Rather, my point is that Jesus' Gospel put the Temple Rulers out of business by way of the relationship he taught was available to every single individual. The person would not need a preacher if God could enter into a personal relationship with him or her. You either accept that teaching or you reject it--nothing in between.
.
What I see in christianity is the drive toward an organized religion based on very strict interpretations of biblical text with no regard for the power of any Spirit that indwells the individual. That turns christianity into a swiss cheese religionism.
.
.

-- posted by pink101