Dutch Protestant Pastor Does Not Believe In God, In Jesus, In Resurrection, In Nothing!

[mfbukowski]

It is almost negative faith. It never leads to the truth, but always to error. How in the world these two "methodologies" can be considered equivalent is beyond my comprehension.

I think the answers we get are dependent on "where we are" spiritually and are designed to move us closer to Christ- that is, to point us in the right direction, toward the next step we need in our lives.

You are a drunk on skid row. You have had no religious faith in your life- ever. You have hit rock bottom. Someone who is a member of the Salvation Army finds you, takes you to the mission and cleans you up, and preaches to you from the Bible.

You are wondering if you should believe in this person's message. In desperation, you pray to God to find out if you should follow the path this person has put you on.

God sends you an experience which you feel confirms to you without a doubt that he exists, and you should follow the path the Salvation Army has given you.

You begin to study the bible- your life changes dramatically. In a few years, you get sober and have a job and a family.

Was your message from God?

Now two missionaries show up at your door. They give you some silly book and some story about the Indians or something you don't quite understand. You throw the book under the bed and never pray about it, thinking that you already have found your church. "God told me what path to take" you think and never give it another thought.

You go on a Mormon board and see a lot of people arguing about stuff. You go ask your pastor about the Mormons. He gives you a pamphlet by Walter Martin. "Man, these folks are nuts!" you think.

This is the position, I think of those who believe that they have prayed about their churches, and say that they have "spiritual confirmation" which is different from ours. I think they might be right- but the question they were praying about, and the answer they got was not necessarily the "answer" for them for all times.

So for example, the Pastor in Holland at least is looking for a spiritual confirmation that what he has is "better" than being Athiest- now at least he is what we might call an "agnostic". He has moved an inch in the right direction. Of course WE know it is not far enough, but he has gotten "stuck" moving just a little when he could have gone all the way to the celestial kingdom.

THAT is what I meant, and why I think some people could get valid answers to prayers- even though they are not praying about say, the Book of Mormon.

God leads and directs us from where we are to where he wants us to be- it is up to us though, to keep praying and being guided by the Spirit- to keep moving forward.

[mfbukowski]

His "methodology" is based on no faith. It is absolute zero faith. His starting premise is that there is no God, no Jesus Christ, nothing supernatural, nothing beyond the grave, no life after death. It is almost negative faith. It never leads to the truth, but always to error. How in the world these two "methodologies" can be considered equivalent is beyond my comprehension.

I think those were not his premises, I think they were his wrong conclusions. At least he understood that God teaches through "experience".

He failed to take the small amount of light he DID receive and take it further.

[Gervin]

There is a false dichotomy there. I wonder if you can understand and find it? If you say that Christ has blond hair and I say Christ's physical attribute is black, does that make you unchristian?

The analogy fails. I'm not talking about physical attributes but attributes of substance related to the character of Christ.

If I embrace you as a brother in Christ even with your strange and outrageous belief in blond hair, realizing that we seek to do His will, even as our approaches may differ. That we seek to care for our brethern as Christ commanded of His followers, even as my strange belief in His eyes being dark rather than blue.

Same as above.

One supposes we should clarify what importance charity has with the importance of physical attributes. To Christians the answer is simple.

Sadly hoow difficult it must be for some.

??

[Gervin]

I would also add, that there is no exclusivity to those perspectives, it is recognized as distinct by the many churches and views that sprang up both anciently and in the reformation period. Do we worship the same Christ? I would say you worship the one in your mind and create an artificial exclusion to those who do not meet the parameters you have arbitrarily placed in your mind, or the mind of your group. As such one is forced to question the lack of charity and artificial clarity within your definition.

The same could be said for the LDS; an LDS poster on this thread has placed me in Satan's church. I've made no such pronouncements.

Did Joseph Smith receive a vision of Christ? Is there something in the teachings of Christ that would disallowed such communication? Perspectives differ.

I would say that Jos Smith did not receive a vision of Christ, that nothing in Christ's teachings preclude a vision, but that this vision and the purported words of Christ do not jibe with the New Testament Christ.

It becomes dangerous when we begin to place limits to that acceptance.

I believe it is dangerous - perhaps more dangerous - when we decide to place no limits to that acceptance.

Is one who is ignorant of all knowledge regarding Christ except the desire of follow Christ and make every attempt to live as He does worthy of being called Christian, or for his ignorance or error would you deny him the hope and faith you seem to so easily judge others?

I don't understand how one can have no knowledge of Christ and yet desire to follow Him and live as He does.

I don't believe I've judged anyone here other than myself.

When we do so, showing love for our fellow man and seeking to do God's will we are Christians. When we deny the recognition to those who choose to follow God with their greatest understanding of virtue, we take away a key part of the virtue we claim, that is charity, and without charity, can we be called Christians?

I don't believe I've tried to deny anyone anything but have, rather, tried to explain how I reject the Christ of the First Vision. I don't necessarily agree with the definition of Christian you provide but I also recognize that it may not be a fully formed definition you are presenting.

[mfbukowski]

The same could be said for the LDS; an LDS poster on this thread has placed me in Satan's church. I've made no such pronouncements....

I don't believe I've judged anyone here other than myself.

Incredible!

If I say I worship Christ and claim that the Christ of Joseph Smith's First Vision is the Father of Lies would you say that you and I worship the same Christ? Just curious.

As a Christian I don't take exception to what is claimed that Christ said to Joseph Smith as much as I take exception to the claim that it was Christ speaking to Joseph Smith. I don't worship that Christ. I would call that a false Christ (and more). A Latter Day Saint claiming that he and I worship the same Christ only makes the claim for himself, not me. Perhaps he could rectify the dichotomy of calling Christ the Father of Lies while calling Christ the rock on which I worship and giving my entire being; that type of double-mindedness seems (to me) to favor the former.

Guess again Mr. "Christian".

Matt 23:

²³Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. ²⁴Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

²⁵Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

²⁶Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

²⁷Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

²⁸Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Edited August 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Actually, Matt 23 gets even more relevant:

²⁹Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, ³⁰And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

³¹Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

³²Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

³³Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of h***?

³⁴Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

³⁵That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

³⁶Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

³⁷O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Some are still stoning the prophets. Gosh, I wonder why this scripture is here for us in the latter days? Who could it possibly be speaking of?

Edited August 7, 2011 by mfbukowski