A Conversation with Ruby

[Ruby]

Hi,

I hope I have not kept you waiting too long. Would you believe I am still trying to recover from the flu? I made a few posts yesterday and then felt really sick and had to rest. I printed out your post and laid in bed last night....while hubby took care of kiddos, and tried to formulate a response. I think it's going to take at least two posts to respond....mainly due to how much I need to say.

I really appreciate your softened tone with me. That certainly makes me more willing to open up.

I hope I can make sense. You don't have to believe a word I say. I cannot prove everything I tell you. I can only say that I will be honest......according to my experience, knowledge, and opinions.

Ruby wrote:
No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.
Maybe I should have used a more evident example. I don't know if you are aware of the test to see if a statement shows prejudice (intolerance, bigotry). The test is very simple. If you stick any group in the statement made and the statement keeps its meaning in tact, then it is bigoted statement.

Such as...."For the record, I don't think Homosexuals, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Homosexuals are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Homosexuals are trapped by fear. I think some Homosexuals are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.[/quote]

Although I still disagree on your viewpoint on this issue. I am curious, since you believe in this "test to see if a statement shows prejudice....", if you would include homosexuals on your list?

Let me show you.

For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

or

For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.


I promise you, I don't want to offend you. I'm not implying or suggesting you are a bigot or any similar. I don't think you are. But the statement is, that is a fact.

Thank you for saying you don't think I am a bigot. Goodness knows, I am not anything of the sort. Admittedly, I would have a problem with the above statements if I came across them..........unless they were written by someone Mexican or Jewish who was speaking from their hurtful experience within that ethnic group. I could not question them since I am not Mexican or Jewish and have not been hurt by either group.

But yes, I could understand another Mexican or someone Jewish being upset and asking them questions. So, I do, to some extent, understand you questioning me....challenging me..........although, the reason I said, "For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips. is because that 1/3 was a rough estimate of the size of the Charismatics within Christianity who are legalistic. My estimate might be way off.

In a way, because of my experience, I view Christianity in the following way. We have devout Catholic Christians. We have liberal Catholic Christians. We have liberal Christians from denominations like Methodist, Episcopalian, or who may not even attend church, but believe in God, Jesus, and the bible, although probably don't view the bible as infallable, and might not believe in hell, or salvation only for Christians. We have fundamental Protestants who believe adamantly that the bible is infallable, and that hell is for real and waiting for all who reject the "gospel" message...who also might be Methodist and Episcopalian, but more likely to be Church of Christ, Church of Nazarene, Baptist, and Presbytarian. I can't think of other denominations, but I know there are others.

Then we have ultra legalistic Oneness Pentecostals (who reject the Trinity) and have strict "holiness standards", and put a lot of emphasis on speaking in tongues. We have Oneness Pentecostals who do not have strict "holiness standards", but still reject the Trinity, and put emphasis on tongues. We have legalistic nondenominational Charismatic Christians who put a lot of stress on tongues and other "gifts of the spirit". Finally, we have a very small group of non-denominational Charismatics who aren't legalistic.

I realize that, in actual fact , there are two major groups in Christianity; Catholics and Protestants. It's just that there are so many subgroups within the Protestant group....and many of them are so diverse. It's hard, sometimes, to see them all as one big group................especially when they don't all agree.

I will explain where I think the problem is Ruby. If you let me explain, I will come from rational place, free from negative emotions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!!
Good. This is exactly what this thread is about (should be about).

You are talking about causation. You are saying that Christianity causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc. and you are offering anecdotal evidence to support your claim.

I don't believe that Christianity as a whole causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc.....although, one could argue that even the salvation message is open to abuse. However, I'm not making that argument.

I just know that if a church has a legalisitc mindset handed to it from it's leaders, then people within that church are going to be effected......which translates into them being drawn in to that mindset, and becoming legalistic and potentially abusive....and certainly abused by the church leaders and even members. I can't say how much of this goes in regular fundamental churches........as I was only in a regular fundamental church a short time. However, I've had some exposure to legalistic thinking amongst regular Fundamentals due to online debates with them.

Anyhow, I can say with certainty that this abuse happens a lot in Charismatic churches and Oneness Pentecostal churches because I lived it so long....I know the doctrines.....i know the manipulations...I know the mindsets.

As you are well aware, anecdotal evidence is suspect at best. If I told you, you should believe in God because I have seen Him, (or if millions of people gave sworn testimony that they have seen Him) would you believe in God simply because of my or their testimony? Of course not.

Making claims to see God is a far cry from someone speaking of their own hurt and/or anger from emotional abuse due to a certain "religious" group within Christianity. But, yes, without proof, my testimony is suspect.

Ok, I must stop here. I am feeling pretty sick again with this stupid flu. I will get back to the rest asap.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Ok, I must stop here. I am feeling pretty sick again with this stupid flu. I will get back to the rest asap.

Don't knock yourself out, Ruby. We'll all be here when you get better.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

If worship is a form of allegiance (as I think it is)-elliotfc






wor·ship
n.

1.

a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.


2. Ardent devotion; adoration.



As a child, I was told to believe that savages were doomed to boil in molten sulfur if they did not accept the "merciful" deity that was described to me, even if they had no opportunity of knowing about him/it! That deity, from what I was told, suffered from many serious defects that I was told to avoid. He/it was capricious, insecure, jealous, vindictive, sadistic, and cruel, and demanded constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties could be very severe. I found, early on in my observations, that religious people were very fearful, trembling and wondering if they'd committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they had to follow. They were — and are — ruled by fear. That's not my style.-James Randi

 

[Ruby]

Don't knock yourself out, Ruby. We'll all be here when you get better.

Thank you. I've been pretty sick. I was overdoing things when the flu had hit me.... so it got a lot worse. I'm getting better....but having to rest, rest, rest. Hubby took off work one day and has been coming home early past two days. That has helped a lot.

I'm still weak.....but on the mend. I hope to be much better by Sunday since it's my birthday!

Be back to posting as soon as I'm able.

 

[Christian]

Ok, happy birthday. I'll wait for your response.

 

[Ruby]

Ok, happy birthday. I'll wait for your response.

Well, thank you!!

Thanks for being patient with me. If I can possibly get to responding this weekend, I will.....but it might not be til Monday.

 

[Yahweh]

Yah wrote:
Christian,

I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning.

Let's get things straight here. My comments in no way are an argument for a belief in God. You are constructing a strawman.

An argument for belief in God, no, but it appeared to me you were creating an argument against an atheist (or people in general) justifying what they believe in terms of intellectual fulfillment.

That was what I gathered from your post, that was the angle from which I was coming from in my above response.

No strawman on my part, but I wouldnt be willing to say that it was impossible for me to misunderstand your post. If I did, the misunderstanding was inadvertant.

Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday.

You are right, but you are wrong.

You have not thought about this carefully. Let me illustrate this mathematically.

x= all the knowledge available to humans
y=knowledge=close to infinity

Let's say "x" 200 years ago= 100

So a person knowing 30 of x could know 30% of all knowledge. This is why there use to be erudites in ancient times.

Now, x=1,000,000 (social sciences, aeronatics, computer science, anthropology, physics, etc.) This is why a person specializes on a sub-set of a sub-set of a subject. e.g. Medicine-Dentist-Orthodontist.

So, a person knowing 200 of x knows much more than a person 200 years ago. That is true. But in terms of all the knowledge available, he know (percentages wise) much, much less.

Make the division 200/1,000,000.

The numbers of course are just illustrations but the idea is correct.

The implications of this, is that we have to rely heavely on others to survive. It would not be possible to check and study for ourselves everything there is to be successful.

So here my comment again.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.

And remember, knowledge has always been infinite.[/b]

I dont understand what you mean by "knowledge" under what you described above.

You appear to be describing knowledge as a finite quantity (or a small part of the totality of something larger), but I dont know what you define as "knowledge" or where you make the distinctions between one "knowledge" and another "knowledge".

I always assumed "knowledge" was something human defined, not something which can be expressed as a physical value.

Now, if you are willing to argue that atheist are more successful than other groups. You would have to tell in what areas and show this evidence.

You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.

I'm dont consider myself an elitist. I am not that arrogant to suggest that I am better than another person intellectually/physically/emotionally/socially for having beliefs different than another. I would not be willing to argue either of those.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Happy Birthday Ruby! Many happy returns!

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Came to this thread late, and have just finished (eventually) working through the posts. So many possible replies! I'll contend myself with just a simple comment - sometimes you're a real ass christian.

You know exactly where Ruby is coming from, and why she makes the comments she does. Do you think your god would approve of the time you are spending on this? Look at your motives for pursing this - we both know this "righteous defence of evil christian stereotypes" argument doesn't justify the way you're treating Ruby. Grow up.

Oh, and happy birthday Ruby!

 

[Christian]

Yah wrote:
No strawman on my part, but I wouldnt be willing to say that it was impossible for me to misunderstand your post. If I did, the misunderstanding was inadvertant.

Ok.

I dont understand what you mean by "knowledge" under what you described above.

You appear to be describing knowledge as a finite quantity (or a small part of the totality of something larger), but I dont know what you define as "knowledge" or where you make the distinctions between one "knowledge" and another "knowledge".

I always assumed "knowledge" was something human defined, not something which can be expressed as a physical value.


Is it theoretically possible to quantify what you know?

I'm dont consider myself an elitist. I am not that arrogant to suggest that I am better than another person intellectually/physically/emotionally/socially for having beliefs different than another. I would not be willing to argue either of those.

Ok.

Loki wrote:
Came to this thread late, and have just finished (eventually) working through the posts. So many possible replies! I'll contend myself with just a simple comment - sometimes you're a real ass christian.

Just sometimes? I would say many times.

Look at your motives for pursing this - we both know this "righteous defence of evil christian stereotypes" argument doesn't justify the way you're treating Ruby. Grow up.

You are right, in the end my motives for pursuing this is vanity. Everybody keeps saying I'm treating her incorrectly. Maybe I blind. Maybe I should just leave it alone.

The worst part is that I still have more comments to make (and await Ruby's).

I told her we could stop but she has decided to continue. I'm glad about that.

You look good in your shining armor.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Just sometimes? I would say many times.

If you say so.

You are right, in the end my motives for pursuing this is vanity.

Your honesty is your best attribute. You blind unquestioning commitment to "the way" is your worst.

Everybody keeps saying I'm treating her incorrectly. Maybe I blind. Maybe I should just leave it alone.

Or maybe you could try dealing with some real world issues rather than playing "defender of the faith" on behalf of anything with the word 'christian' attached to it?

I told her we could stop but she has decided to continue. I'm glad about that.

How generous of you - and I'm glad to see Ruby willing to respond as and when she can.

You look good in your shining armor.

Norse gods don't wear armor. But you sure look good in you lion-wrestling outfit. Does it feel good to be the hero of the coliseum, killing kitties for god?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Your honesty is your best attribute. You blind unquestioning commitment to "the way" is your worst.

My commitment to the way is based on results not blind faith.

Faith is strenthen by results.

Or maybe you could try dealing with some real world issues rather than playing "defender of the faith" on behalf of anything with the word 'christian' attached to it?

So, to you, posting in a forum is real world issues. Oh boy.

How generous of you - and I'm glad to see Ruby willing to respond as and when she can.

Thank you.

Norse gods don't wear armor. But you sure look good in you lion-wrestling outfit. Does it feel good to be the hero of the coliseum, killing kitties for god?

Killing kitties???? What world are you in?

DanishDinamite wrote:
Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

My commitment to the way is based on results not blind faith.

It's a symbiotic relationship, right? You have a little faith, you get a little result, which builds your faith, which increases the results, which increases the faith, which .... is that it?

So, to you, posting in a forum is real world issues. Oh boy.

Not even a good attempot to construct a strawman, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yor just failing to understand, rather than attempting to score cheap points.

Faith is strenthen by results.

Can faith be weakened by results? Which comes first - a drop in faith leads to bad results, or bad results lead to a drop in faith?

Killing kitties???? What world are you in?

Planet Bad Joke, I guess.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?

I'd be prepared to assert that my life is no worse by being a non-believer. Is that enough? It's an assertion, though, because I can't see any real way of measuring this, so it's gonna come down to your opinion against mine I expect.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I can't see any correlation between "christian" and "happy life" ( or between "non-believer" and "happy life", for that matter). The most devote person I know (the sister of a close friend) is dreadfully unhappy, and has been for years. In fact, the unhappier she gets, the more she seeks comfort in the church. She attends mass daily, sometimes several times a day. She works on the church community council. She's terribly lonely, a social recluse, 40 years old, and unhappy with her present and her past.

Where's the result here? Or is she simply not a "real christian"? You'd judge her faith by the results of her life? The results are poor, so her faith must be poor?

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
It's a symbiotic relationship, right? You have a little faith, you get a little result, which builds your faith, which increases the results, which increases the faith, which .... is that it?

No, not like that. Call faith "the last mile." There is only so much humanly possible.

When there is no more that can be done, then faith takes over. You might call it serendipity, luck. I say it is God.

Not even a good attempot to construct a strawman, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yor just failing to understand, rather than attempting to score cheap points.

Naw, just trading at the same level. When you pick it up, so will I.

Can faith be weakened by results? Which comes first - a drop in faith leads to bad results, or bad results lead to a drop in faith?

If the last mile is seldom or never reached. If it is random, I don't see how one can have faith. It is when the impossible/improbable consistently becomes real that faith has any meaning.

Planet Bad Joke, I guess.

Well, you forgot the smiling faces or stuff

I'd be prepared to assert that my life is no worse by being a non-believer. Is that enough?

Sounds good to me.

It's an assertion, though, because I can't see any real way of measuring this, so it's gonna come down to your opinion against mine I expect.

Give me a criteria to measure by, and then it is just not a matter of opinion, right?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I can't see any correlation between "christian" and "happy life" ( or between "non-believer" and "happy life", for that matter). The most devote person I know (the sister of a close friend) is dreadfully unhappy, and has been for years. In fact, the unhappier she gets, the more she seeks comfort in the church. She attends mass daily, sometimes several times a day. She works on the church community council. She's terribly lonely, a social recluse, 40 years old, and unhappy with her present and her past.

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.

Practical Christianity is not about devotion to morality or rituals. By what you describe, no wonder she feels terrible. Tell her I have the perfect solution for her unhappiness. (tongue and cheek)

Where's the result here? Or is she simply not a "real christian"? You'd judge her faith by the results of her life? The results are poor, so her faith must be poor?

I can't judge if she is a real Christian, but if that is all she does, I see no way she can be happy or experience the power of God. (if that is all she does, you tell me very little, but if that is all, I don't see how)

And when you say the results in her life, you mean her personal life. When I say it, I don't mean that. I mean the result of her life.

 

[Ruby]

Back from Flu city!!

Hi,

I'll just start this post where I left off with the other one.

I can think of lots of reasons why you have this perception. Maybe you hung out only with people engaging in this behavior. Maybe you focused a lot on this types of behavior. Maybe you attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior. All of these are just possibilities, I have no idea.

I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

Other than an early marriage (married at 17 then divorced at 21) to a very abusive husband, I never hung out with abusive type people. My adult friends were kind, funny, and great towards me. I rarely met any mean people back then. I stayed away from people who were mean, and backed away from people who became mean.

Even in my childhood, my friends were the very sweet sort. I did know of a few mean kids as a child, but I imagine that most people do.

As a teen, at thirteen, I started blossoming into a somewhat attractive young woman. This led to lots of guys flirting with me..which was both flattering, but in some ways a bit scary. It was just so new. Unfortunately, I endured being molested a couple of times by one guy, and then sexually harrassed for months by another guy...... in the halls of an old school on the way to one of my classes. When I was sixteen, I was flat out (date) raped.

I know the issue you have brought up is not about this type of behavior. But as an analogy......perhaps you could say that I "attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior". The truth is, I was innocent, and well developed. I never ever dressed provocative at that age. In fact, I wore completely buttoned up blouses. I never flirted or did anything intentional to attract a guy. I was still very shy around them. Those are traits (innocence/virginity, and being shapely) that can easily stir up a teenage boy who has raging hormones. I was not strong enough to fight off the attacks, and afterwards, I was so embarrassed that I could not tell a soul. Plus, I did not even know what kept going on was wrong.

Still, this is something I came to terms with long ago. I don't feel any anger or hurt about it.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

Anyhow, I did not become a Christian until I was 27. I had gone through a scary experience with an ouija board...and was desperate for help. I had remembered, previous to this ouija experience, that I had visited a little 1st United Pentecostal church with a friend of mine some years back, and since the church was close, and I remembered the Pastor's wife as being very sweet, I called her to get help. I was going through such hell that I was desperate for release...I was willing to do anything......so, becoming a 1st United Pentecostal Christian with all it's rules did not bother me. Plus, when they taught their doctrine to me, having never read, let alone, studied the bible, I thought I was seeing truth. It made sense.

Once the terror from the ouija experience I was going through ended......I started taking a good look at things in the UPC org......things that had already been said by my Pastor, and things I was hearing and reading. Some things did not bother me.........I thought the pastor's wife was very kind and the daughter was my friend. However other things, over time, began to bug me. Still, it took four years before I left.

I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

Well, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust!


Anyhow, I left the UPC because the person I was inside could no longer handle the condemning crap I was being taught. Also, I could not live by their rules....and I could not go around condemning Trinitarians Christians to hell.

After a break to recover from being in the UPC, I started attending a huge Charismatic non-denominational church because I still believed in speaking in tongues and the "gifts of the spirit". Charismatics do not have rules about what you should or should not wear.....so that was also inviting. I went there on an invitation from a dear friend. My friend was also a very kind, gentle person who would never hurt a fly....she was another victim of charismania.

I never hung out with people who were legalistic until I had the same mindset. Many good, kind people go into abusive churches and get changed. They weren't looking for it. They did not attract abuse on purpose. They don't focus on abusive behavior.....usually far far from it. One church leaves them with a legalistic mindset and if the blinders don't come off, they go into another legalistic church and become more and more harsh and condemning themselves.

The type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.

What I do know is that there is no body of evidence that Christianity causes these behaviors. Surely, it is not the teachings in the Bible.

This is the problem. We have all these denominations running about......all interpreting the bible differently. All accusing each other of doing things that aren't biblical. The fact is, the bible can be made to say anything you want it to. It's chock full of contradictions.

It might be easy to start a new bible based religion. Just pick and choose your verses and build your dogma around it. Then claim you've had some incredible revelation from God, himself, and there you go. It would not be too hard to rent a building or buy an old abandoned church. Then advertise using cleverly put together catchy phrases that sound uplifting, and give the promise of changing people's lives through Christ, and people are bound to come. There's always someone looking for answers..looking for something better and new that their current church isn't giving.

Anyhow, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible. Charismatics have a bit more of a leg to stand on with a lot of their doctrine......but some is also questionable. But I'll get more into that in a bit.

Ruby said:"The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact. Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. ) I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.

Christian said: This is why I said you seemed not to know very much about Christian dogma. The source of your information was the church leaders and members (I suppose). I'm sure of this because the NT (Christian dogma) does not teach any of the things you speak about.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? _"Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, _Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
_And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others were mocking and saying, " They are full of sweet wine." But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: "


So, here we have the day of Pentecost. All the disciples plus some waiting for the promise that Jesus said he would pour out. They were all filled with Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages.

Then it goes on to say Acts 2:37-39


Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."


This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

So, you can have repentance and water baptism in Jesus name covered, but if you have not received the Holy spirit baptism and spoken in tongues, you are still on your way to hell. Needless to say, there are many UPC members without the Holy spirit baptism who are living in fear that the rapture (another doctrine that does not exist in the bible) will come and leave them behind, or they will die and go to hell. It's nuts!!

I went through the repentance....but not really like they want you to................however, there was no way for any of them to hear if I was wailing or carrying on because all the women of the church were surounding me (while I laid at the altar terrified of them and hiding), and they were making the loudest noises you ever heard in your life. I think they did all the wailing for me.

I got baptized. I had no idea what it meant at the time. They did not bother to tell me..they were just so excited to get a new convert. After that, I found myself too terrified at the idea of "speaking in tongues".....so I did not seek after it. This gave my Pastor, and his wife fits. Besides having little talks with me, they also preached horrible sermons about hell and how we are "living in the last days" in order to scare me into seeking for the Holy spirit baptism. They harped on and on about the last days. I expected it to happen a second....but I was still too afraid to speak in tongues. I was too damn honest to fake it.

So, I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!!

My pastor also took something from my "scary" experience that had led me into church in the first place, and he preached on it from the pulpit. He did this...knowing that I was still struggling with this scary experience...in order to terrify me enough into seeking for the holy spirit baptism. This was very very cruel. I was shocked.....but I did not seek to be baptized.

I had been at the church about eight months when I finally did seek for it. We had two other new members, so I was not alone, and that felt so good. That meant I did not have to go to the altar alone. Despite the insistance of most UPC members that only highly emotional demonstrative praying would cause one to be baptized with the Holy spirit and speak in tongues, I proved that quiet praying and being very still could also cause one to be baptized and speak in tongues. It was a surprise when it happened to me. I was in my right mind....not hypnotized or acting zany. It really sounded like a real language that I was speaking, I thought it was for real, I thought so for many years. I am no longer of that belief........even though I can still "do it".

The reason the UPC rejects baptism "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit" is because they have determined that Jesus is the "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit". (That is also part of the reason they are Oneness and reject the Trinity.) They say that Father, son and Holy spirit are just titles for Jesus....but they are not his name. They say His name is power.......and it is only through Jesus we are saved. Therefore, only the "Jesus" baptism counts.

They say that in the following passage, Jesus was specifically addressing his disciples; Matthew 28:18-19 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ". They say that the disciples knew that Jesus was "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", and that is why when they carried out Jesus' commision concerning baptism, they did it in Jesus name. Most baptisms mentioned in Acts and the Epistles say it was done "In Jesus name". They take this quite literally.

It wasn't until years later, after a bit of study, and reading my bible, that I came to the conclusion that the scriptures did not mean that either "in the name of the Father, son, or Holy Spirit" or "in Jesus name" had to be spoken, like a magic spell over someone who was baptized. It was a custom...part of the culture (during biblical times) for people to tell others to do things in "so an so's name". It was a figure of speech. I came to the conclusion that so long as someone "had Jesus in their heart" it did not matter what was spoken over them in baptism, because the committment to Jesus in the heart, meant that the baptism had occured in Jesus name or in the name of Faher, Son and Holy spirit.

As for the Charismatic dogma, Ill get to that in my next post!!

 

[Ruby]

Happy Birthday Ruby! Many happy returns!

Thank you!!

 

[Ruby]

Oh, and happy birthday Ruby!

Thank you!!!

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Naw, just trading at the same level. When you pick it up, so will I.

Ok. I'll try to raise the level.

If the last mile is seldom or never reached. If it is random, I don't see how one can have faith.

I agree. If the universe is random, then faith has little meaning.

It is when the impossible/improbable consistently becomes real that faith has any meaning.

I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Give me a criteria to measure by, and then it is just not a matter of opinion, right?

I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.

I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Practical Christianity is not about devotion to morality or rituals.

"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

I can't judge if she is a real Christian, but if that is all she does, I see no way she can be happy or experience the power of God. (if that is all she does, you tell me very little, but if that is all, I don't see how)

I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

And when you say the results in her life, you mean her personal life. When I say it, I don't mean that. I mean the result of her life.

Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

 

[Christian]

Ruby,

Your post needs a proper response. I will do that, thank you for sharing this information with us (me). Please wait for my response.


Loki wrote:
I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.

I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying? (don't forget my last mile explanation)

Originally posted by me

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.

I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Only if this is not true, but I will show you evidence it is.

"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

Results, the Bible says works, deeds.

I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

I don't see how she can experience God from your description. If she were to experience God, she would feel succesful and joyfull, no doubt about that. And she could point out the source of her hapiness, palpable, tangibly. Yes, there is objective criteria.

You said she felt lonely, if she feels the power of God, she could not feel this way. There is an objective formula that does not fail, that is like the laws of the physical world. This is available to anyone who uses the formula. An atheist will feel this joy and togetherness if he or she were to use it.

Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

Here is my evidence that you are prejudice. You think that I'm talking about selective choosing. To you, I'm talking about counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I'm not talking about that at all. I make the distinction of the inner and outer results.

What we accomplish for ourselves is, at the end, vanity, superfluos. Selfishness is a the street that leads to the darkest place.

No, let's see what she has done in her life for others. What is her contribution to other people? How does she enrich the lives of others. I see none of that in your account of her.

What has she done in her life, means what has she contributed to her fellow human? What does she do more, take or receive?

Loki, your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggleling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

People who live in abundance of all this world has to offer are mostly on the give. It is always about how others can benefit, how others can be helped. There is so many people waiting to bless us with their needs.


This is the core of practical Christianity.

I'm sorry, I know I'm preaching but had to.