Figuring Out Religion

[dualstow]

@Greg, I am not ignoring your thoughtful reply, by the way. I am still taking it in.
Point 3 seems to be approaching Pascal's Wager.

[MediumTex]

*Just a note for WiseOne and other female readers of the forum: I don't walk around saying "fat chick" in my daily life, and I don't see overweight women or men as something to mock or disparage. Still, the specific term is used in this thread for reason. **Ok, now I feel the need to mention that I've met WiseOne and she is not fat, so don't get that idea from note 1. I'll stop digging the hole right now. 

I find women with a little meat on the bone very desirable. 

[MediumTex]

Ha! That is really good. It makes sense now. Earlier, when you admonished me not to tell believers the equivalent of "It's cool that you like fat chicks, as someone has to love them" I agreed with the sentiment. Still, I didn't know where you were coming from, because I didn't say anything like that. I was thinking <<Of course believers don't see a fat chick*, period.>>

However they do see the breaking chair, as you pointed out above. That is an excellent, excellent point. For some people, the whole narrative collapses along with the chair. One example that comes to mind would be abuse suffered by a priest. For others, the narrative continues to exist with additional web weaving (the gymnastics). It was a faulty chair. The priest was a faker and not a conduit of God in the first place.

Yes.  I don't know how anyone can fail to notice the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.  It's like it's not even the same dude.  Similarly, the big prize in the New Testament was going to Heaven, but in the Old Testament the big prize was simply not pissing God off.  You can't possibly reconcile these two entirely different narratives without a bit of mental gymnastics.

This latter group of web weavers can be further bifurcated into those who weave effortlessly, even subconsciously, and those who have to try, perhaps feeling the occasional twinge of doubt.

Yes.  I have always been impressed by people who can effortlessly reconcile a set of apparently contradictory ideas without it bogging them down too much.  Stuff like that shuts me down in a cloud of confusion and frustration.

[dualstow]

(MT) I don't know how anyone can fail to notice the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in general would not be a good toolkit for proselytizing. Imagine peddling those stories around and then adding, "So how'd you like to sign up?" There's a novel, if not Brothers Karamazov then probably The Fixer, in which a Jew is falsely imprisoned. One of the prison guards who is alternately cruel and nice to him gives him a bible on his wife's recommendation. New Testament only, because, as the guard says, "There's too much fu**ing and fighting in your book!"

but in the Old Testament the big prize was simply not pissing God off.

And of course that might not even save you. You don't have to be a Sodomite or a Gomorrhan; you could just be Job.

One thing that always made me smile, though, was a book by native American Lame Deer (the 20th century one) in which he talked approvingly about Moses going up the mountain to receive the Commandments on stone tablets. That, said Lame Deer, is something we Indians can get into.

[Xan]

Here's an example of an Old Testament story being read Christologically:
https://birdchadlouis.wordpress.com/201 ... out-jesus/

All of that good news is in the story of Achan, for every story in the Old Testament is the story of Jesus. Remember what Christ did for those depressed, bewildered Emmaus disciples as He walked with them that first Easter afternoon? Beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He “explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures,” (Luke 24:27). He taught them that all of Scripture, everywhere, deals only with Him. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, along the way, he retold the story of a stoned thief named Achan, whose sad story blossoms into the best of stories when you realize that even Joshua 7 is part of the Gospel of the Old Testament.

The general principle is well-described here:
https://birdchadlouis.wordpress.com/201 ... logically/

Therefore, when we read the OT, we are reading the text from which the Jesus preached about Himself and His Father. Interpretation that somehow “brings Jesus into” the text or superimposes Him on an OT account is not only wrong-headed but unnecessary. If Moses wrote about Christ – as Jesus Himself testifies (John 5:46) – then Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all about Jesus. It is that simple. This is the ABC’s of Christian interpretation. Jesus does not need to be “read into” these texts anymore than He needs to be “read into” the Gospels. He is already part of them. These words testify about Him, to Him, of Him. They tell us who He is and what He will do.

When we read these texts, therefore, we must ask ourselves: How in these words is Christ speaking of Himself to His Church? That is the question that must reign supreme in Lutheran exegesis. For instance, how is the account of creation about Jesus? How is the story of the Flood about Jesus? How is the affliction in Egypt, Passover, the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and everything else in the Exodus about our Lord? These types of questions must be asked of every verse of the Pentateuch, for Moses wrote about Jesus.

[MediumTex]

(MT) I don't know how anyone can fail to notice the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in general would not be a good toolkit for proselytizing. Imagine peddling those stories around and then adding, "So how'd you like to sign up?"

Old Testament Judaism is kind of like one of those Mafia protection rackets.

You go to the business owner and tell him that there is a risk to his business of which he isn't even aware (i.e., the wrath of God) and then offer to take care of it for him for a regular payment (i.e., a contribution to the church).

The government runs a similar protection racket in the form of taxes.  The tax collector comes around and tells you that there is a risk to your business that could shut it down and that all you need to do to prevent it is to pay a regular tribute to the state.  When you look into the matter more deeply, you realize that the risk to your business the tax collector is describing is your inability to continue running your business if you are snatched off the street and thrown in jail for failure to pay taxes. 

[dualstow]

Ha! But of course everyone was "aware" back then. There was no other game in town.

[Fred]

So, taking all that and merging it, if you were about to step in front of an Amtrak train going 150 mph that you were unaware of, would you want me to tell you in a harsh manner because I know I'm right "don't do that", or "strike up a nice unthreatening friendly conversation and chat while you were stepping to your immanent death"?  Silly perhaps, but that is how I view unbelievers whose death will not be over in a couple of seconds but last for eternity when the opposite can be.  Unfortunately, one never knows when the moment of death will come, so the urgency is there to tell of the good news of Christ and his forgiveness for all.  The gift has already been given, do you refuse it?  Of course, you may view it differently and not like presents.

I was a practicing Christian for about 20 years, going to church every Sunday and sometimes even on Wednesday and trying to read the Bible through once a year (which means I probably read it 20 more times than most Christians). I never got into theology or what Early Church fathers  wrote and I couldn't tell you what Calvinism is because I really didn't care about those things (though I have subsequently learned that Calvin was a major asshole who believed in putting heretics to death).

But in my 20 years of reading the Bible I don't see how you can make many of the dogmatic assertions that you do. Things are not nearly as clear as you make them out to be. You can find verses to support your dogmatic claims that everyone is going to hell except for the types of Christians who pass your qualifying test (I know you think it's God's test) but I'll bet I can find just as many verses that would call your claim into question. You probably don't like hearing that the Bible is a book full of contradictions, but I'll make my own dogmatic assertion that it absolutely is a book full of contradictions and Christian doctrines aren't spelled out in nearly the clear way that you claim them to be.

So the bottom line is I don't think you can possibly know the things you claim to know with certainty. I think you only believe what you choose to believe for reasons all your own.

So that's my own version of the standing in front of the Amtrak train and needing to speak the truth analogy. In my case I don't think you are in danger of losing your soul but I think what you believe is not good for your soul, for lack of a better term. If I could do it all over again I would not waste my time on the 20 years of Christianity that I did and I would not have exposed my children to it. I even sent them to Christian school for a few years.

[Mountaineer]

Here's an example of an Old Testament story being read Christologically:
https://birdchadlouis.wordpress.com/201 ... out-jesus/

All of that good news is in the story of Achan, for every story in the Old Testament is the story of Jesus. Remember what Christ did for those depressed, bewildered Emmaus disciples as He walked with them that first Easter afternoon? Beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He “explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures,” (Luke 24:27). He taught them that all of Scripture, everywhere, deals only with Him. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, along the way, he retold the story of a stoned thief named Achan, whose sad story blossoms into the best of stories when you realize that even Joshua 7 is part of the Gospel of the Old Testament.

The general principle is well-described here:
https://birdchadlouis.wordpress.com/201 ... logically/

Therefore, when we read the OT, we are reading the text from which the Jesus preached about Himself and His Father. Interpretation that somehow “brings Jesus into” the text or superimposes Him on an OT account is not only wrong-headed but unnecessary. If Moses wrote about Christ – as Jesus Himself testifies (John 5:46) – then Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all about Jesus. It is that simple. This is the ABC’s of Christian interpretation. Jesus does not need to be “read into” these texts anymore than He needs to be “read into” the Gospels. He is already part of them. These words testify about Him, to Him, of Him. They tell us who He is and what He will do.

When we read these texts, therefore, we must ask ourselves: How in these words is Christ speaking of Himself to His Church? That is the question that must reign supreme in Lutheran exegesis. For instance, how is the account of creation about Jesus? How is the story of the Flood about Jesus? How is the affliction in Egypt, Passover, the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and everything else in the Exodus about our Lord? These types of questions must be asked of every verse of the Pentateuch, for Moses wrote about Jesus.

Xan,

Excellent try, keep on casting those seeds. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

... M

[Xan]

Fred, I think you were doing it wrong.  You wanted to know about God (which is the definition of theology) but then didn't care about theology?  That just doesn't make sense.

And then you'll read the Bible, but not care what anybody but you ever thought it meant?  Especially the early church fathers?  That's like having the source code but not the execution environment.  You're not getting the full picture.

Your experience does illustrate the fallacy of those who claim that they can just read the Bible and bootstrap their own church out of whole cloth based on it.

[dualstow]

So, taking all that and merging it, if you were about to step in front of an Amtrak train going 150 mph that you were unaware of, would you want me to tell you in a harsh manner because I know I'm right "don't do that", or "strike up a nice unthreatening friendly conversation and chat while you were stepping to your immanent death"?  Silly perhaps, but that is how I view unbelievers whose death will not be over in a couple of seconds but last for eternity when the opposite can be.

I'm sure the answer to that is yes on the Amtrak train, no on Hell.

We all agree that the train is dangerous, and you should grab us and pull us out of the way. No time even for a curt "don't do that."
We *don't* all agree on what leads to damnation, and this is the usual response to Pascal's Wager. Even if Perdition is waiting for us, we cannot know that worshipping your God is the path to salvation. Maybe the real God hates people who worship Jesus and only punishes them. It's far trickier than the train.

[Fred]

Fred, I think you were doing it wrong.  You wanted to know about God (which is the definition of theology) but then didn't care about theology?  That just doesn't make sense.

And then you'll read the Bible, but not care what anybody but you ever thought it meant?  Especially the early church fathers?  That's like having the source code but not the execution environment.  You're not getting the full picture.

Your experience does illustrate the fallacy of those who claim that they can just read the Bible and bootstrap their own church out of whole cloth based on it.

Well I was kind of tickled by the Apostle Paul who said he didn't consult with flesh and blood but learned what he did by revelation from Jesus Christ through the scriptures. So I figured if it worked for him, why not for me?

Admittedly, I got too much Bible.

Which left me wondering why you didn't share the whole story of Achan that Mountaineer commended you for. My friend Paul said he didn't hesitate to declare the "whole counsel of truth".

After the mass slaughter at Jericho, the Israelites thought it would be a piece of cake exterminating all of the inhabitants of Ai but it didn't go well and ended in defeat. By casting lots (rolling dice) it was determined that Achan was the cause because he grabbed a beautiful  coat from Babylon that he wasn't supposed to be taking and also a gold bar. He was supposed to be totally devoted to killing for God and nothing more so God was pissed and needed to teach them a lesson. So when they figured it all out by rolling the dice, they took him out to the valley of Achor along with "the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had" and all Israel stoned them all to death.

A beautiful story, isn't it?

So yes, your are probably right. Too much Bible probably isn't good for you.

And if it offends you that I tell that story without putting Christian fluff on it then that is a pretty good part of the explanation of the problem I have with Christianity. They really can't handle the truth. Instead, go find your favorite Christian apologist so you can learn how to rationalize the gory truth of "God's Holy Word".

(Admittedly this a "tell us how you really feel" post but I don't have the Christian constraints I once had about posting such a thing).
 

[Mountaineer]

Fred, I think you were doing it wrong.  You wanted to know about God (which is the definition of theology) but then didn't care about theology?  That just doesn't make sense.

And then you'll read the Bible, but not care what anybody but you ever thought it meant?  Especially the early church fathers?  That's like having the source code but not the execution environment.  You're not getting the full picture.

Your experience does illustrate the fallacy of those who claim that they can just read the Bible and bootstrap their own church out of whole cloth based on it.

Well I was kind of tickled by the Apostle Paul who said he didn't consult with flesh and blood but learned what he did by revelation from Jesus Christ through the scriptures. So I figured if it worked for him, why not for me?

Admittedly, I got too much Bible.

Which left me wondering why you didn't share the whole story of Achan that Mountaineer commended you for. My friend Paul said he didn't hesitate to declare the "whole counsel of truth".

After the mass slaughter at Jericho, the Israelites thought it would be a piece of cake exterminating all of the inhabitants of Ai but it didn't go well and ended in defeat. By casting lots (rolling dice) it was determined that Achan was the cause because he grabbed a beautiful  coat from Babylon that he wasn't supposed to be taking and also a gold bar. He was supposed to be totally devoted to killing for God and nothing more so God was pissed and needed to teach them a lesson. So when they figured it all out by rolling the dice, they took him out to the valley of Achor along with "the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had" and all Israel stoned them all to death.

A beautiful story, isn't it?

So yes, your are probably right. Too much Bible probably isn't good for you.

And if it offends you that I tell that story without putting Christian fluff on it then that is a pretty good part of the explanation of the problem I have with Christianity. They really can't handle the truth. Instead, go find your favorite Christian apologist so you can learn how to rationalize the gory truth of "God's Holy Word".

(Admittedly this a "tell us how you really feel" post but I don't have the Christian constraints I once had about posting such a thing).

Fred, I think Xan's point was the Scriptures are Christocentric.  If one reads the OT through the lens of the NT, there is a good chance a very different interpretation will result - one will see Gospel all over the place - basically God is a God of mercy and love as well as a God of justice.  If one reads the NT through the lens of the OT, one will likely shake out to have a very Law based interpretation of Christianity - basically a rule book of dos and don'ts.  Christ is all over both Testaments.  The main point of the OT is to point to Jesus.  It is a story of how events and people spiraled downward into more and more chaos from Genesis 3 on.  The Israelites and their predecesors were unable to save themselves, unable to adhere to God's commands - thus the need for a Savior - which God provided.  One should not be surprised of all the wars, killings, etc. in the OT.  It is what sinful people do without God.  To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

... M

[MediumTex]

So, taking all that and merging it, if you were about to step in front of an Amtrak train going 150 mph that you were unaware of, would you want me to tell you in a harsh manner because I know I'm right "don't do that", or "strike up a nice unthreatening friendly conversation and chat while you were stepping to your immanent death"?  Silly perhaps, but that is how I view unbelievers whose death will not be over in a couple of seconds but last for eternity when the opposite can be.  Unfortunately, one never knows when the moment of death will come, so the urgency is there to tell of the good news of Christ and his forgiveness for all.  The gift has already been given, do you refuse it?  Of course, you may view it differently and not like presents.

I was a practicing Christian for about 20 years, going to church every Sunday and sometimes even on Wednesday and trying to read the Bible through once a year (which means I probably read it 20 more times than most Christians). I never got into theology or what Early Church fathers  wrote and I couldn't tell you what Calvinism is because I really didn't care about those things (though I have subsequently learned that Calvin was a major asshole who believed in putting heretics to death).

But in my 20 years of reading the Bible I don't see how you can make many of the dogmatic assertions that you do. Things are not nearly as clear as you make them out to be. You can find verses to support your dogmatic claims that everyone is going to hell except for the types of Christians who pass your qualifying test (I know you think it's God's test) but I'll bet I can find just as many verses that would call your claim into question. You probably don't like hearing that the Bible is a book full of contradictions, but I'll make my own dogmatic assertion that it absolutely is a book full of contradictions and Christian doctrines aren't spelled out in nearly the clear way that you claim them to be.

So the bottom line is I don't think you can possibly know the things you claim to know with certainty. I think you only believe what you choose to believe for reasons all your own.

So that's my own version of the standing in front of the Amtrak train and needing to speak the truth analogy. In my case I don't think you are in danger of losing your soul but I think what you believe is not good for your soul, for lack of a better term. If I could do it all over again I would not waste my time on the 20 years of Christianity that I did and I would not have exposed my children to it. I even sent them to Christian school for a few years.

Fred,

Imagine you are talking to a man with an ugly 400 pound woman on his arm who has charmed him into believing she is a sexy supermodel.

What would you say to him about his girlfriend?

What type of message might have the potential to break the charm?  Would you really want to break the charm?  Ultimately, what would be the point?  Who cares if he is being manipulated into believing something ridiculous if it makes him happy.

What may be bugging you is the subtle hint of self-satisfaction that you are detecting that goes something like this: "I'll bet you wish you could hang out with hot chicks like this.  I've got this book that tells you how to do it, and it's called the Bible and every word in it is true."

[MediumTex]

The main point of the OT is to point to Jesus.  It is a story of how events and people spiraled downward into more and more chaos from Genesis 3 on.

I'll bet there were lots of families scattered around the world when the Flood came who would say they were just trying to provide for themselves and survive, and that God killed them for no reason.  I don't see how that points to Jesus.

From my perspective, much of the chaos in the Old Testament came straight from God.  The decision to destroy the world when people don't act the way you think they should act is about as chaotic a response to a problem as I can imagine. 

The Israelites and their predecesors were unable to save themselves.

Save themselves from what?

One should not be surprised of all the wars, killings, etc. in the OT.  It is what sinful people do without God.

I feel like you're pulling my leg.  Wars and killing were not what sinful people did without God, it was what God expected his people to do all the time.  What's the Old Testament story children learn from an early age?  The story of David and Goliath, which was a story about a young thug from a bad family who inflicted a catastrophic brain injury on the member of a rival gang with a rock, and who used that murder to develop street cred that propelled him all the way to the king's throne.  And that's the origin story of one of God's favorite people of all time.  An adulterous murderer thug.

To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

The women and children brought it on themselves?  The women who Moses and his colleagues raped brought it on themselves?  Seriously?  How much worse could any of those tribes have possibly been than the Israelites who seemed unable to follow any of God's instructions, even when he had them inscribed on a piece of stone so they wouldn't forget them.

[Pointedstick]

The Israelites and their predecesors were unable to save themselves, unable to adhere to God's commands - thus the need for a Savior - which God provided.  One should not be surprised of all the wars, killings, etc. in the OT.  It is what sinful people do without God.

But God is the one who told them to do those things.

To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

... M

If God told you to kill me because I did not believe in him, would you do it?

[MediumTex]

If God told you to kill me because I did not believe in him, would you do it?

If he thought that God might kill him and his whole family if he didn't kill you, he might feel like he had to, even if he had mixed feelings about it.

[Mountaineer]

Christocentrics Dudes, Christocentric!  You just don't get it do you?  You really don't understand what that means.  But, if you refuse to go where the Word is proclaimed faithfully and pursue your questions with a trained theologian, I'm not surprised you reject the gifts.  You guys are so stuck in your (I'd say either incomplete understanding or Satan has grasped you firmly with his lies) worldviews it's like you have blinders on.  But then again, you probably think the same of me. 

May God's peace that surpasses all understanding come to you.  Back to my painting now ... several rooms to go.

... M

Edited to add: 

Here is something to occupy your time if you are interested in the subject of Election.  It is from the Formula of Concord, Epitome.  You can google search it if you like, it is part of the Book of Concord - the Lutheran Confessions.

XI. Election.

1] Concerning this article no public dissension has occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is a consolatory article, if treated properly, and lest offensive disputations concerning the same be instituted in the future, it is also explained in this writing.

Affirmative Theses.
The Pure and True Doctrine concerning This Article.

2] 1. To begin with [First of all], the distinction between praescientia et praedestinatio, that is, between God's foreknowledge and His eternal election, ought to be accurately observed.

3] 2. For the foreknowledge of God is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written Dan. 2:28: There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

4] 3. This foreknowledge extends alike over the godly and the wicked, but it is not the cause of evil, neither of sin, namely, of doing what is wrong (which originally arises from the devil and the wicked, perverse will of man), nor of their ruin [that men perish], for which they themselves are responsible [which they must ascribe to themselves]; but it only regulates it, and fixes a limit to it [how far it should progress and] how long it should last, and all this to the end that it should serve His elect for their salvation, notwithstanding that it is evil in itself.

5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18.

6] 5. This [predestination of God] is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed.

7] 6. But the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph. 1:4: He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.

8] 7. This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].

9] 8. Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.

10] 9. But it [the true judgment concerning predestination] must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ. Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2.

11] 10. Whoever, now, is thus concerned about the revealed will of God, and proceeds according to the order which St. Paul has observed in the Epistle to the Romans, who first directs men to repentance, to knowledge of sins, to faith in Christ, to divine obedience, before he speaks of the mystery of the eternal election of God, to him this doctrine [concerning God's predestination] is useful and consolatory.

12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]

13] 12. Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God's Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.

14] 13. Besides, we should use the greatest diligence to live according to the will of God, and, as St. Peter admonishes, 2 Pet. 1:10, make our calling sure, and especially adhere to [not recede a finger's breadth from] the revealed Word: that can and will not fail us.

15] 14. By this brief explanation of the eternal election of God His glory is entirely and fully given to God, that out of pure mercy alone, without all merit of ours, He saves us according to the purpose of His will; besides, also, no cause is given any one for despondency or a vulgar, wild life [no opportunity is afforded either for those more severe agitations of mind and faintheartedness or for Epicureanism].

Negative Theses
False Doctrine concerning This Article.

16] Accordingly, we believe and hold: When any teach the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God to eternal life in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot comfort themselves therewith, but are thereby led to despondency or despair, or the impenitent are strengthened in their wantonness, that such doctrine is treated [wickedly and erroneously] not according to the Word and will of God, but according to reason and the instigation of the cursed Satan. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15:4, whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. Therefore we reject the following errors:

17] 1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.

18] 2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.

19] 3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.

20] 4. Also, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.

21] All these are blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines, whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians, and therefore should not be tolerated in the Church of God.

----------

22] This is the brief and simple explanation of the controverted articles, which for a time have been debated and taught controversially among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. Hence every simple Christian, according to the guidance of God's Word and his simple Catechism, can perceive what is right or wrong, since not only the pure doctrine has been stated, but also the erroneous contrary doctrine has been repudiated and rejected, and thus the offensive divisions that have occurred are thoroughly settled [and decided].

23] May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the grace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly abide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen.

[dualstow]

To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

I know just the organization for you, as you and they would really click! They're called ISIS. Also known as IS and Daesh.

[Mountaineer]

To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

I know just the organization for you, as you and they would really click! They're called ISIS. Also known as IS and Daesh.

Thanks to Desert for the "Luther Quotes".  They may end up covering much of what I might like to respond to various posts.  I can save my brain power for the unique. 

Were you against the heathen Priapus, he would probably pass wind in the face of such well-aimed terror.

From Against the Heavenly Prophets, pg. 205 of Luther's Works, Vol. 40

... M

[Fred]

I feel like you're pulling my leg. 

To the best of my knowledge, all those people that God told the Israelites to wipe out had heard of the Israelite God and refused to accept Him.  They brought it on themselves, just like today for the unbelievers.  My take.

The women and children brought it on themselves?  The women who Moses and his colleagues raped brought it on themselves?  Seriously?  How much worse could any of those tribes have possibly been than the Israelites who seemed unable to follow any of God's instructions, even when he had them inscribed on a piece of stone so they wouldn't forget them.

Sometimes I think certain believers on this forum (mostly one in particular) really are pulling our legs because they act like such perfect caricatures of the worse kinds of fundamentalist Christians imaginable, short of the Fred Phelps clan.

Most Christian apologists try hard to rationalize the genocide in the Bible with theological sounding reasoning but the ones I'm talking about seem to have no problem with it. They were all sinners and they all deserved it. God is holy and thus he can kill anybody he wants in any way he sees fit, so deal with it unbeliever.

I was listening to Christopher Hitchens, the author of "God is not great" (which I haven't read, BTW) in one of his last debates on Youtube before he died, and he talked about a preacher he debated (I think it was Douglas Wilson) who, when asked if he would be duty bound to kill a surviving Amalekite if he were to find one since God ordered their complete extermination, applied in the affirmative.

This, to me, is the very dark side of Christianity and why I want no part of it any more.

[dualstow]

I was listening to Christopher Hitchens, the author of "God is not great" (which I haven't read, BTW) in one of his last debates on Youtube before he died, and he talked about a preacher he debated (I think it was Douglas Wilson) who, when asked if he would be duty bound to kill a surviving Amalekite if he were to find one since God ordered their complete extermination, applied in the affirmative.

Very interesting. I saw his debate with Reverend Al Sharpton. I'd say it was a pleasure to watch, but it was almost painful in some places.

[Pointedstick]

Most Christian apologists try hard to rationalize the genocide in the Bible with theological sounding reasoning but the ones I'm talking about seem to have no problem with it. They were all sinners and they all deserved it. God is holy and thus he can kill anybody he wants in any way he sees fit, so deal with it unbeliever.

I was listening to Christopher Hitchens, the author of "God is not great" (which I haven't read, BTW) in one of his last debates on Youtube before he died, and he talked about a preacher he debated (I think it was Douglas Wilson) who, when asked if he would be duty bound to kill a surviving Amalekite if he were to find one since God ordered their complete extermination, applied in the affirmative.

This, to me, is the very dark side of Christianity and why I want no part of it any more.

I really am interested to know if Mountaineer (or others--Desert? Tortoise?) would kill me if God commanded it on the logic that I'm an unbeliever who has heard the word of God many times but who has not listened to it--the very same logic that God apparently gave to the Israelites when he commanded them to exterminate people.

I get that this is a sort of an uncomfortable question, akin to asking a soldier "would you kill me if your general ordered it?" Obviously the answer to that question needs to be "yes," and it seems to me that the answer to the religious version must be the same (how could you disobey God?). I just want to know if Mountaineer or others are willing to admit they they would commit murder for their religion if they believed it was truly commanded of them by a higher power. This could perhaps help us understand the durability of violent religious fundamentalist movements around the world, most recently ISIS, whose leaders and members claims the exact same thing.

I mean, if I were a devout fundamentalist Christian and God spoke to me directly and told me to kill someone, duh, of course I would have to if I wanted to keep the faith. How could I play God and disobey? That's like, the worst thing ever, right?

[Fred]

I really am interested to know if Mountaineer (or others--Desert? Tortoise?) would kill me if God commanded it on the logic that I'm an unbeliever who has heard the word of God many times but who has not listened to it--the very same logic that God apparently gave to the Israelites when he commanded them to exterminate people.

I don't recall from my reading of the Bible that the word of God was ever preached to the people the Israelites were ordered to exterminate. The impression the Bible gives is that they were just expected to know somehow that the Israelites were doing God's will. How that was, we aren't told

In defense of God, it should be pointed out  that no evidence of this mass genocide has ever been uncovered and historians and archaeologists are well convinced that it is a myth. That fundamentalist Christians argue that it is still true despite the evidence should tell you a lot about fundamentalist Christians.

[dualstow]

I get that this is a sort of an uncomfortable question, akin to asking a soldier "would you kill me if your general ordered it?" Obviously the answer to that question needs to be "yes," and it seems to me that the answer to the religious version must be the same (how could you disobey God?). I just want to know if Mountaineer or others are willing to admit they they would commit murder for their religion if they believed it was truly commanded of them by a higher power. This could perhaps help us understand the durability of violent religious fundamentalist movements around the world, most recently ISIS, whose leaders and members claims the exact same thing.

I said it more succinctly a few posts upstream. Or, I guess I should say, you put it more gently than I did a few posts up.