christianity is under Attack!!

[vossler]

My concern is that by pointing to verbal attacks and inferring that such is a sign of rightness, one is measuring correctness by unpopularity. But not everything that is unpopular is right. Clearly, there are some things that are unpopular that are wrong. Even things that people infer from Scripture... Especially things that people infer from Scripture. But if they tell themselves that because their ideas are attacked that they must be right, they'll never receive correction.

In some sense this becomes a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing contest (can I say that?) for who can come up with the weirdest thing to believe and calling it faith.

Without a doubt this is true and has been true for many people who are unpopular with mainstream society.

I don't think Jesus or the evangelists ever intended that we should measure the rightness of our ideas by their popularity or unpopularity. Merely, that we should not be surprised by persecution even if we were right because even he was persecuted. That said, even the most extreme ridicule isn't persecution. I'm not usually this blunt, but the fact of the matter is that Ken Ham isn't hurting. If he wants to call it persecution, he can cry the whole way to the bank.

I would agree that rightness shouldn't be measured by popularity or lack thereof, but it can certainly be a strong indicator. BTW, just because someone has financial resources and endures ridicule doesn't minimize or call into question whether persecution has taken place.

 

[Willtor]

Without a doubt this is true and has been true for many people who are unpopular with mainstream society.
I would agree that rightness shouldn't be measured by popularity or lack thereof, but it can certainly be a strong indicator. BTW, just because someone has financial resources and endures ridicule doesn't minimize or call into question whether persecution has taken place.

I don't think that it's an indicator at all. No doubt, you've heard about the arrests in and persecution of the fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints on account of polygamy and child abuse? If persecution is a strong indicator of rightness then they have a strong indicator that they are right. Not that they _are_ right, but there is a strong indicator that they are.

Instead, I think that there are some that are right that are persecuted and some that are not persecuted. On the other side, there are some that are not right that are persecuted and some that are not persecuted. Persecution is a terrible indicator of rightness. The context of the gospel is a society in which persecution was a strong indicator of wrongness and Christ refutes that by telling his followers that we can take heart when we are persecuted. But I don't think he meant to say that it was an indicator of rightness. On the contrary, there were plenty of failed messiahs that Jesus probably thought were wrong and the persecution of their followers was not a sign of their rightness.

I will concede that mammon is not always a block against persecution. But it is a buffer that limits it significantly. I certainly wouldn't compare any persecution of the wealthy (who don't have their wealth taken away) and the free (who don't have their freedoms limited) with any persecution of the poor and the oppressed.

Suffice to say, I would not use any such thing as an argument for young-earth creation. I didn't use it when I was a YEC. I thought it was a dishonest way to argue and I always cringed when I heard my YEC brethren use it in our defense. I still do when I hear any of my Christian brethren use it as a defense of Christianity. Instead, I like when I hear it used by missionaries who visit and say that their friends are (somehow) able to take heart in spite of their persecutions. They try to follow Jesus and they don't fall away because of abuse.

 

[Mallon]

Far from it, if only it were that easy. All I was saying is that most people who call themselves Christian didn't hold to a narrow view of Scripture.

Not sure how that relates to Matt 7:13, but I'll let it slide.

 

[vossler]

Suffice to say, I would not use any such thing as an argument for young-earth creation. I didn't use it when I was a YEC. I thought it was a dishonest way to argue and I always cringed when I heard my YEC brethren use it in our defense. I still do when I hear any of my Christian brethren use it as a defense of Christianity. Instead, I like when I hear it used by missionaries who visit and say that their friends are (somehow) able to take heart in spite of their persecutions. They try to follow Jesus and they don't fall away because of abuse.

I guess it all depends on your definition of perscution. Regardless of financial position, I believe if someone is inhibited or prevented from speaking the truth or Word of God, that is a form of persecution. It would appear that you do not.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I guess it all depends on your definition of perscution. Regardless of financial position, I believe if someone is inhibited or prevented from speaking the truth or Word of God, that is a form of persecution. It would appear that you do not.

But how is Ken Ham defending the truth or the word of God here?

 

[vossler]

But how is Ken Ham defending the truth or the word of God here?

The Bible is under attack from many different sources and probably the most brutal and severe attack is on the book of Genesis. Ken Ham strongly defends the Bible, more specifically Genesis.

 

[Technocrat2010]

The Bible is under attack from many different sources and probably the most brutal and severe attack is on the book of Genesis. Ken Ham strongly defends the Bible, more specifically Genesis.

Actually, he is defending his own interpretation of the Bible and specifically the literal interpretation of Genesis. Has he verified that it is the truth? If so, how?

 

[vossler]

Actually, he is defending his own interpretation of the Bible and specifically the literal interpretation of Genesis. Has he verified that it is the truth? If so, how?

I can certainly see how you see this argument.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I can certainly see how you see this argument.

Oh? What do you mean?
Also, do you have any responses to my questions?

 

[Willtor]

I guess it all depends on your definition of perscution. Regardless of financial position, I believe if someone is inhibited or prevented from speaking the truth or Word of God, that is a form of persecution. It would appear that you do not.

I think if someone is prohibited from finding a public setting to speak his mind - truth or not - it is persecution. Is Ken Ham inhibited or prevented from speaking his mind? Ridicule and even parody are not prohibition. Ken Ham is perfectly free to speak his mind... even so far as to open a museum, if I'm not mistaken. He has a popular website that is frequently cited by creationists. He publishes books that are widely read in conservative circles. He's interviewed on the radio.

If this is persecution, sign me up. If you're talking about ridicule for ideas, I've already got that! I want the other part. I want the part of persecution that involves museums and the lime light!

 

[NathanCGreen]

The Bible is under attack from many different sources and probably the most brutal and severe attack is on the book of Genesis. Ken Ham strongly defends the Bible, more specifically Genesis.

I am glad that there are still Christians like yourself on these forums Vossler. Stand strong on God's Word and you won't go wrong my friend.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Oh? What do you mean?
Also, do you have any responses to my questions?

I would like to ask you a question 'Technocrat2010'.

Why do you have a satanic inverted cross as your avatar? Are you trying to be that transparent?

 

[vossler]

Oh? What do you mean?

Rather than give you my own personal interpretation, I'll let you see if you can decipher what is meant with Scripture itself. 2 Timothy 4: 1-4 summarizes this issue quite well:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.​

People will pay a price for turning away from the truth of Scripture. The phrase 'will turn away' in Greek is in the active voice, which means the people willfully chose to turn away from the truth. That part of the verse they have control over. It's the next part that reads 'and wander off into myths' is in the passive voice that means that part they don't consciously choose. It's simply a result of their first choice. It describes what happens to them as a result of their first choice to follow teaching that will satisfy their desires with what they want to hear. So then having turned from the truth by choice, they then become unwilling victims of deception and pawns of Satan.

Also, do you have any responses to my questions?

If you're asking me to speak for Mr. Ken Ham, no I don't have a response because it isn't my position to do that. I can say for myself though that I have verified that it is the truth. Sadly, it really isn't that difficult to do.

 

[vossler]

I think if someone is prohibited from finding a public setting to speak his mind - truth or not - it is persecution. Is Ken Ham inhibited or prevented from speaking his mind? Ridicule and even parody are not prohibition. Ken Ham is perfectly free to speak his mind... even so far as to open a museum, if I'm not mistaken. He has a popular website that is frequently cited by creationists. He publishes books that are widely read in conservative circles. He's interviewed on the radio.

What you say is true, but don't forget this, there are few people in America today that are as vilified as Ken Ham is.

If this is persecution, sign me up. If you're talking about ridicule for ideas, I've already got that! I want the other part. I want the part of persecution that involves museums and the lime light!

It's quite easy for us to say we'd like to walk in the shoes of another, however I would tell you that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the daily attacks on my name and who I represent the way he does, limelight or not.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I would like to ask you a question 'Technocrat2010'.

Why do you have a satanic inverted cross as your avatar? Are you trying to be that transparent?

The inverted cross is used, in Catholic tradition, as the cross of St. Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter

Educate yourself.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Rather than give you my own personal interpretation, I'll let you see if you can decipher what is meant with Scripture itself. 2 Timothy 4: 1-4 summarizes this issue quite well:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.​

People will pay a price for turning away from the truth of Scripture. The phrase 'will turn away' in Greek is in the active voice, which means the people willfully chose to turn away from the truth. That part of the verse they have control over. It's the next part that reads 'and wander off into myths' is in the passive voice that means that part they don't consciously choose. It's simply a result of their first choice. It describes what happens to them as a result of their first choice to follow teaching that will satisfy their desires with what they want to hear. So then having turned from the truth by choice, they then become unwilling victims of deception and pawns of Satan.

This doesn't answer my question. I asked what you meant by saying you knew how I saw this argument. I didn't ask for a Biblical exegesis. Do you have a response to that question?

I can say for myself though that I have verified that it is the truth. Sadly, it really isn't that difficult to do.

Indeed? Please show me how you did it, then. If you have found it to be the truth, by all means, tell us, because I for one would not appreciate holding to a lie.

 

[vossler]

This doesn't answer my question. I asked what you meant by saying you knew how I saw this argument. I didn't ask for a Biblical exegesis. Do you have a response to that question?

Just that whenever someone here says "his own interpretation of the Bible" it most certainly is a challenge to the truth and almost always implies in some shape or form the ability for each of us to have our own interpretation. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the exegical analysis, I will remember not to do so again.

Indeed? Please show me how you did it, then. If you have found it to be the truth, by all means, tell us, because I for one would not appreciate holding to a lie.

My coming to the Truth isn't something that can be adequately summarized in a post. It didn't happen overnight and therefore could never be described through such a limited vehicle.

I am encouraged by the statement that you are seeking the Truth. To that I can only say: humble yourself before the Lord and He will clearly and unequivocally show it to you.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Just that whenever someone here says "his own interpretation of the Bible" it most certainly is a challenge to the truth and almost always implies in some shape or form the ability for each of us to have our own interpretation.

Well, that's what we see in the Christian church today, do we not? Each denomination with their own interpretations, and even individuals with their own interpretations. Your claim that the reference to individual interpretations is a challenge to truth is a non sequitur.

I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the exegical analysis, I will remember not to do so again.

Oh, I appreciate exegetical analyses; I just didn't ask for one here.

I am encouraged by the statement that you are seeking the Truth. To that I can only say: humble yourself before the Lord and He will clearly and unequivocally show it to you.

I agree. Advice we should all take.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I have. I just don't buy into lies. The Vatican is satanic, so anything coming from them is not trustworthy.

The Bible is not trustworthy then, I take it?

And just how is the Vatican satanic?

 

[troodon]

I have. I just don't buy into lies. The Vatican is satanic, so anything coming from them is not trustworthy.

So you don't think that Peter asked to be crucified upside down?