Cogent discourse and a good rational human explanation for an “acceptable moral behaviour” for God.

(Un)fortunately, God is no so easily defined.

To reduce God to a human scale is our particular need of delusional understanding defining Who and What God is, so that we can establish a relationship with.

We worship a God of all things, great, small or perverse. He judges, we just live and have a journey pleasing to him…….

…….And because I am happy, & dance & sing,
They think they have done me no injury:
And are gone to praise God & his Priest & King
Who make up a heaven of our misery

from Chimney Sweeper - William Blake

There is an upcoming talk on euthanasia for Christians. Not sure can I publicise it here, but if not, blogpastor will know what to do.
If interested, do attend or correspond with the panelists:

Euthanasia: A Christian Perspective

19th January 2009
7.30pm-9.30pm

Venue: 420 North Bridge Road, #05-04 North Bridge Centre

“What is ‘Euthanasia’? A Public Issue”
Speaker: Dr. Alastair Campbell
Director of Centre of Biomedical Ethics at National University Singapore.

“Euthanasia for Christians: Why, How and Because”
Speaker: Dr. Alex Tang
A paediatrician at the Johor Specialist Hospital and the Director of the Spiritual Formation Institute, Malaysia.

“Hospice & Palliative Care: Importance, Challenges, and Christians’ Vocation”
Speaker: Rev. Dr. Tan Soo Inn
Chairman & Training Consultant of Graceworks and Grace@work.

http://szezeng.blogspot.com/2008/12/euthanasia-christian-perspective_01.html

This should also be tak boleh - NO?

Seems like the “self professed evangelical christians,” are evolving into rabid intolerants, defending like frenetic quixotic defenders against all imagined (misunderstood) threats that might jeopardise their idea of heaven.

Stop using your computers or internet as they are products of decimal based mathematics!!!

Fatwa, Edict, Decree, Dispensions….all potential power tools for enslaving fellow humans.

Beware purveyors of such views.

Now, we might use it as an analogy but it would not be hermeneutically correct to claim that this passage teaches the blood of Jesus Christ rescues us. Am I denying the latter?

Aiya, you had to make me respond…you ar….last post and then…hahhahah

Sorry if you felt I was poking fun at your snake and Jesus in the same breath. I surely am not! My pt is that if you insist that the logic is correct, then, try teaching it to a hokkien or teochew. You would come across absurd and more importantly, they would tell you exactly what you are telling me, don’t poke fun at my Jesus, He is no snake ‘chua’!

1.You said I quote “Somehow I get the sense that some (because of their theological training…head knowledge) seem to despise those without theological training especially when they calim “revelational knowledge”.”

If this is true. I am sorry for them because the Word of God reminds us that we are to receive and teach the Word of God with meekness. Despising another brother for his inadequacies is not Christian brotherly-love; head-heart knowledge or otherwise. But then, my pt is, if we are to present the Word of God accurately and claim to be God’s spokeman, the least we could do is to go get trained. Btw, I suspect you and I probably have two different sets of definitions for ‘revelational knowledge.’

Moreover, on a reverse note, those teachers not trained should admit and see their weaknesses, instead of continuing to teach teachings that are not accurate. Getting offended is not the proper response either. I think we all need to cultivate humility when corrected with the Word of God. Issues are issues, people are people. Love covers the sinner not cover up the sin.

2. You said, I quote “You will appreciate that centuries of theological training has given rise to so many different streams of thinking, each able to defend their positions. Hence it depends on the school and traditions that you come from. Further they evolve too over the years.”

I dun disagree with you that there are many doctrinal ‘differences’ throughout the centuries. For example, Calvinism and Arminianism, etc,. But the fundamental theological grid on core beliefs pertaining to soteriology; for example, Salvation is Grace+Nothing, Repentance, etc,. still find common grounds within these traditions.

But Doctrinal differences is not the same as Deviant teachings; for example, Jesus took on a sin-nature ‘the demonization of Jesus.” …etc,. I can discuss heatedly over how much free-will or predestination with my Arminian brother, but we agree that Jesus is the Author of Salvation, but I cannot pretend why I heard teachers twist the Word of God to mean another thing. Would you?

3. You said I quote “Hence what makes you so sure that your positions are the ultimate truth?”

I dun claim that I have the ultimate truth. I do claim that the Bible doesn’t teach what is prevalently taught at W-F churches. A theologically-sound approach is the basis not any esoteric claims. That is why I posted an invitation for anyone serious about the Word of God to engage in a diligent search of Scriptures.

4. You said I quote “In my own experience I know that certain truths in Scriptures do suddenly become clear to me even though I may have read the passages many times before. (Again, I am not saying I am the first to “see” the truth or it was uniquely mie [sic!].)”

I think you have the ‘Application’ and ‘Truth’ (what the original intent of the writer) mixed up. There is only one intended meaning to any Bible texts; for example, the red scarlet rope used to rescue Rahab of Jericho means exactly that, a red scarlet rope. It doesn’t refer to the blood of Jesus Christ. Now, we might use it as an analogy but it would be hermeneutically correct to claim that this passage teaches the blood of Jesus Christ rescues us. Am I deny the latter? No! I could easily point to other clear and plain passages teaching this truth. So, dun make the Bible say something it didn’t intend to say. The Olive Oil and Lord’s Table are 2 outstanding examples.

Before you accuse me of strict literal interpretation. I qualify… there is only one intended meaning to any Bible texts, UNLESS SCRIPTURES IN OTHER PARTS CLEARLY CONNECTS THEM. For example, Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, we know the virgin was referring to Mary, Olive Oil anointing, John’s epistle’s Holy Spirit, Lamb of God and John the Baptist’s declaration, etc,.

My personal example. I ‘KNOW ABOUT” (information-head-knowledge) that the Bible teaches Jesus is the Way, Truth and the Life. I have memorised it, quoted it and taught it. But recently, I was struggling with some issues that required a solution I couldn’t find in men or myself. Then ’suddenly’ (like your suddenlys) I was reminded that Jesus is THE WAY. So I begin claiming the promise.

My point? John 14:6 teaches that Jesus is the WTL (abbrev) in the context of salvation. He is the bridge-builder between God and Man for eternal life and heaven. This is the intended meaning of the author and Jesus. But the application I received was Jesus will make a way for you. I might share my experience but I wouldn’t tell people “this is a new revelation’ Jesus promised to make a way for you in every difficult situations. Does He? Sure He does, plenty of others passages teach that. But I was reminded of John 14:6 because I memorised it and it came to my mind.

So, the intended meaning is only one. But I recalled it as an extended application. My ‘new’ application does not give rise to a SECOND MEANING to the text. It is simply an application.

So. the Olive oil is the blood of Jesus who if can cleanse surely also can heal, bring wealth and health? Are there any other clearer Scriptures equating the two? No. You would need to do a hermeneutical gymnastic to derive at the equation, which, I am sorry, W-F teachers often does. For example,

a. God is Father. We are His Children.
b. God is King, We are prince and princess (true..peter teaches that).
c. A King is rich materially. So We are rich materially (or at least, we cannot be materially poor).

This is illogical fallacy.

Again. All lebsians are women. So all women and lesbians? All dogs have 2 ears and a tail. So all animals with 2 ears and a tail are dogs? I think you get the pt.

Finally, you might say… who cares la!? I do, and any other serious LOVERS (punt again) of the Word of God should (1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 2:15; Titus 1:9; Jude 3) . Or else, we might as well thrown the whole Bible into the lokang and just wait for “God told mes.”

Thanks. And yes. You are loved by Jesus.

I agree with you that we need both “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge”.
Somehow I get the sense that some (because of their theological training…head knowledge) seem to despise those without theological training especially when they calim “revelational knowledge”.

You will appreciate that centuries of theological training has given rise to so many different streams of thinking, each able to defend their positions. Hence it depends on the school and traditions that you come from. Further they evolve too over the years.

Hence what makes you so sure that your positions are the ultimate truth?

The scriptures do speak of what eyes have not seen and ears not heard being revealed to us by the Spirit. In my own experience I know that certain truths in Scriptures do suddenly become clear to me even though I may have read the passages many times before. (Again, I am not saying I am the first to “see” the truth or it was uniquely mie.)

History (eg Montanist etc)can teach us to be careful but if what was not right in the past prevent us from growing in the fullness of the LOrd - then we may have missed something good from the Lord.

BTW I dont appreciate your joke about the snake and Jesus. If you see, no need to poke fun at my Lord and your LOrd and His teachings.

Shalom,

IPS I still love you!

thanks

Like that..I would not continue then. It is never right to air our family disagreements for others to later cast aspersion to. Thanks for the fellowship. I actually read the review and I appreciated it.

I think JP and many W-F teachers teach the way they do because of their lack of theological training. Not that you must have a PHD to know God’s Word but to accurately exegete God’s Word requires a fair amount of training in hermeneutics, languages, etc,. Employing Vine’s dictionary is most elementary. All of you do know that Vines’ is inaccurate, right?

Basing one’s teachings on an esoteric experience is also not the best any teachers of the Word could offer their audience. Btw, could anyone GENTLY correct me, but how come I keep hearing similarities to these “God-told-me” new revelations and the writings of Hagin, Copeland, Yonggi, etc,. Shouldn’t it mean “God told me-second-hand?” Plagiarism without proper footnote or referencing is cheating.

Back to the original pt, who is the standard authority to validate an experiential claim? The Pope? Buddha (punt..Buddhist-lover?)? Results, Good Intentions, , Fruits, Church Numbers, Miracles, etc,? Maybe the Word of God? Hmmnnn….

I was told that Benny Hinn is called to be an evangelist not a theologian, so, this supposedly absolves him from being theological grounded. Anyone heard of a theologically-flawed evangelist’s message lately? deviant theology+good intentions = go to heaven? My discipler used to say to me “No-one goes to heaven on a heart of sincerity or good intentions, any more than, justifying falsehood by feigning ignorance.”

Sometimes, I get the feeling that we wrongly equate HEAD-KNOWLEDGE to lack of intimacy with Jesus, and HEART-KNOWLEDGE as the alternative. We actually require both. Head-knowledge without Heart-knowledge is mere information and the reverse is equally true, howbeit, it is a mere emotional experience. I get the feeling also that some Christians actually think that ‘faith’ ’spiritual’ means to leave our rational minds at the door before entering worship. They wrongly equate objective truth and mysticism.

Btw, claiming higher forms of revelation is not new either. The Montanist movement through their prophets Montanus and Priscilla did exactly that in the 2nd century, the basic premises of Gnosticism also. Hey? Is Christianity regressing?

I might be accused of wrongly judging people’s intentions but believe me, where truth and falsehood are concerned, this is farthest from the truth. But since it concerns the Word of God and what believers BELIEVE UNTO ETERNAL LIFE, I think, it behooves us all to be a little more diligent rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim 2:15).

ok. I will keep silence liao.