Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[North Washington Republic]

As a former Pentecostal, i have to agree. Proselytizing is encouraged in Pentecostalism. There is heavy amount of peer pressure when a non-Pentecostal attends a service. Pressure to speak in tongues, to be “slain in the spirit”, etc. VERY cult like

Also a former Pentecostal.

Let's not paint with too much of a broad brush here. Things like the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are encouraged in the denomination, yes (although they seem to only focus on tongues and prophecy), but I was never really pressured to do these things in the congregation I was in. Granted, my quietness stood out in the congregation, but I was never treated unkindly for it. My mom and my sisters are still Pentecostal/Non Denom, but aside from one of my sisters, they've been supportive of me converting to Catholicism and remaining Catholic.

Like almost any denomination, you can have good sorts and bad sorts. People who are motivated by their faith to be positive and good people, or the alternative. This is as true of Pentecostalism as it is of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It depends on the congregation. I was involved with the COGIC and the UPCI(even got the “Jesus name” baptism). I was not raised Pentecostal, I went became Pentecostal when I was a teenager. The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues. They believe that all trinitarians are going to hell.

[Salus Maior]

Also a former Pentecostal.

Let's not paint with too much of a broad brush here. Things like the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are encouraged in the denomination, yes (although they seem to only focus on tongues and prophecy), but I was never really pressured to do these things in the congregation I was in. Granted, my quietness stood out in the congregation, but I was never treated unkindly for it. My mom and my sisters are still Pentecostal/Non Denom, but aside from one of my sisters, they've been supportive of me converting to Catholicism and remaining Catholic.

Like almost any denomination, you can have good sorts and bad sorts. People who are motivated by their faith to be positive and good people, or the alternative. This is as true of Pentecostalism as it is of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It depends on the congregation. I was involved with the COGIC and the UPCI(even got the “Jesus name” baptism). I was not raised Pentecostal, I went became Pentecostal when I was a teenager. The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues. They believe that all trinitarians are going to hell.

Ah, well.

Excuse me while I dial up the Spanish Inquisition.

[North Washington Republic]

It depends on the congregation. I was involved with the COGIC and the UPCI(even got the “Jesus name” baptism). I was not raised Pentecostal, I went became Pentecostal when I was a teenager. The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues. They believe that all trinitarians are going to hell.

Ah, well.

Excuse me while I dial up the Spanish Inquisition.

Be careful to dial the right number, or else you might accidentally call the Palmarians.

[Suriyanakhon]

The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

[Kowani]

The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

what, do baptists speak with their noses?

[Suriyanakhon]

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

what, do baptists speak with their noses?

Yes, but don't tell my aunt I told you.

[Narland]

The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

A benefit to being baptist is that the pastor can hold the convert under the water until they really do repent. My Baptist neighbor told me that one.

[North Washington Republic]

The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

Baptists and Pentecostals have historically not gotten along. This feud was largely put aside when the cultural wars became more prominent.

[Lower Nubia]

Also a former Pentecostal.

Let's not paint with too much of a broad brush here. Things like the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are encouraged in the denomination, yes (although they seem to only focus on tongues and prophecy), but I was never really pressured to do these things in the congregation I was in. Granted, my quietness stood out in the congregation, but I was never treated unkindly for it. My mom and my sisters are still Pentecostal/Non Denom, but aside from one of my sisters, they've been supportive of me converting to Catholicism and remaining Catholic.

Like almost any denomination, you can have good sorts and bad sorts. People who are motivated by their faith to be positive and good people, or the alternative. This is as true of Pentecostalism as it is of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It depends on the congregation. I was involved with the COGIC and the UPCI(even got the “Jesus name” baptism). I was not raised Pentecostal, I went became Pentecostal when I was a teenager. The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues. They believe that all trinitarians are going to hell.

Well. I don’t like them either!

[Lower Nubia]

The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

Raised Baptist. The common belief Baptists are the only “saved” individuals is really unpalatable now. That Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans (oh no!) and other denominations would be allegedly doomed for idolatry. Not to my 15 year old self, of course.

[North Washington Republic]

It depends on the congregation. I was involved with the COGIC and the UPCI(even got the “Jesus name” baptism). I was not raised Pentecostal, I went became Pentecostal when I was a teenager. The UPCI believes that in order to be saved, you must be able to speak in tongues. They believe that all trinitarians are going to hell.

Well. I don’t like them either!

The great majority of Christians don’t like Oneness Pentecostals , thats if they’re familiar with their theology.

[Suriyanakhon]

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

Baptists and Pentecostals have historically not gotten along. This feud was largely put aside when the cultural wars became more prominent.

Yeah, I never knew their specific denominational name as a child, but I knew them as the folks who spoke in tongues that we didn't like.

Y'know, sometimes I'm glad to have just been raised Baptist.

Raised Baptist. The common belief Baptists are the only “saved” individuals is really unpalatable now. That Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans (oh no!) and other denominations would be allegedly doomed for idolatry. Not to my 15 year old self, of course.

I mean, that's pretty much the position of all world religions though.

[Lower Nubia]

Baptists and Pentecostals have historically not gotten along. This feud was largely put aside when the cultural wars became more prominent.

Yeah, I never knew their specific denominational name as a child, but I knew them as the folks who spoke in tongues that we didn't like.

Raised Baptist. The common belief Baptists are the only “saved” individuals is really unpalatable now. That Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans (oh no!) and other denominations would be allegedly doomed for idolatry. Not to my 15 year old self, of course.

I mean, that's pretty much the position of all world religions though.

Yes, and no. Baptists had a black and white view of salvation. Salvation had to be done in a specific way, and non-baptists very rarely, if ever, did that - so they had to be evangelised too so they could get "saved". Anglicans have a generally more utilitarian view, because we're softer, and Catholic's have a sliding scale within Christendom of the quality of the faith and of the Churches fostering that faith.

I'd agree, Salvation outside Christianity is not a thing that Christians see as happening outside of a few possible cases to many denominations. However, within Christendom, which are different religions (Baptists and Catholics do not have the same 'faith' per se, it may be dressed in the same language, though it is fundamentally different) there are a large number of views of salvation of those between denominations and even individuals beyond Christianity.

[Australian rePublic]

Seriously though, why does God pretend to hate conflict? God can talk all He wants about hating conflict, but in the end, words are words are absolutely usless, especially for an omnipotent. I mean us humans could use words in order to try to achieve or hope for something, or work together to achieve something, but God is different as he's omnipotent. As I was always say, words are useless and actions are what matters.

God's actions are those of someone who loves conflict. It's one thing to allow conflict and another to actively encourage it. God's actions seem to do that later. Why doesn't He jist admit He loves conflict, and stop pretending that He doesn't. God's actions actively encourage conflict, and words are uselsss in comparison to actions. So why pretend He hates conflict? I don't get it

If God loved conflicts then the end supposed in revelation would be a new conflict, rather than the total eradication of conflict. God himself utilises conflict to do his will, but conflicts themselves arise because the people in the creation are evil and engage in conflict quite naturally. When God utilises a conflict, it’s quite clear that God means to first not to engage in conflict, and then only does so when the grace “period” is over. An example is prior to the Israeli conquest of the promised land, God states to Abraham:

“And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”

I.e, Abraham cannot conquer/settle the land because those living their were not actually evil enough to be dealt with. This actually gave the Amorites (and their descendants when Moses arrives) 400 years to change and, of course, they did not leading Joshua to conquer the land some time later. Of important note, again, the Israelites wander a desert for 40 years prior to the invasion, giving plenty of time for those states in the land to leave or for families there to leave and flee to other land before conquest. Of course, we know again, they did not leave and believed they could, foolishly, win.

When the conquest finally happens plenty of city states continue to remain in the land rather than fleeing, even as news of a conquering army from the south permeates the entire area, they remain. Time and time again plenty of time is given to those present to leave the land, they simply refuse to do so, which is a classic example of pride.

The whole of the Holy land could of been taken Without a drop of blood, and those smart enough would of seen that and left, but, again, we know they did not, and continued to believe they could win, which was obviously foolish.

In all the tales of conquest, it’s not God waltzing into a Christian neighbourhood and cutting heads. Each case is a genuinely evil place. Even from a secular perspective the Canaanite were evil. They were considered evil even by the Babylonians and the Egyptians, and those two didn’t fuck around when it came to innovative nastiness. Think of it like the national guard walking into a riot of murderers, rapists, and looters. We wouldn’t have too much concern if the rioters are attacking an innocent group and the guard attacked the rioters to defend that group. Yet the guard in this instance would kill the rioters, and that is still conflict - even though it may be for a good cause.

It’s simply a necessity of our condition. When the conflicts fail, or evil is done within them, it’s because the people (and all their sinfulness) have perpetuated further evil within the conflict, rather than something by Gods hand.

I'm not talking about the wars against the Caninities. I am talking about things like extended Covid lockdowns, poor distribution of natural resources, etc. These things lead to conflict. The poor distribution of natural resources is one of the biggest causes of war and conflict. Think of how easily it would have been avoided if God had designed the world in a manner that would better distribute natural resources. The world would be much more peaceful. Even things like slavery probably would have been less prominent had natural resources been better distributed. There are wars over oil, food, water, etc. Historically, colonialists expelled natives from their lands for things such as spice. Spice was a big cause of conflict in South-East Asia. All of these things avoidable if there was better distribution of resources. In the future there will be wars over water. Whilst some places experience server drought, others will never have issues with water. The Middle East has an abundance of oil, but can't find a drop of water to drink. Australia has plenty of land, but no water, but all the world's natural resources are here whilst other places with plenty of water have no natural resources. The only place that really has natural resources and water is Antarctica, which is currently unihabbital, but in the future, will most likely be the cause of many conflicts. This is a very, very poor method of distributing natural resources, and one of the biggest contributers to global conflict, which again, begs the question of God- why?

Further, if we're supposed to believe that God designed us to be good and our society/world turns us evil, then how did the Canaanites end up so evil

[Lower Nubia]

If God loved conflicts then the end supposed in revelation would be a new conflict, rather than the total eradication of conflict. God himself utilises conflict to do his will, but conflicts themselves arise because the people in the creation are evil and engage in conflict quite naturally. When God utilises a conflict, it’s quite clear that God means to first not to engage in conflict, and then only does so when the grace “period” is over. An example is prior to the Israeli conquest of the promised land, God states to Abraham:

“And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”

I.e, Abraham cannot conquer/settle the land because those living their were not actually evil enough to be dealt with. This actually gave the Amorites (and their descendants when Moses arrives) 400 years to change and, of course, they did not leading Joshua to conquer the land some time later. Of important note, again, the Israelites wander a desert for 40 years prior to the invasion, giving plenty of time for those states in the land to leave or for families there to leave and flee to other land before conquest. Of course, we know again, they did not leave and believed they could, foolishly, win.

When the conquest finally happens plenty of city states continue to remain in the land rather than fleeing, even as news of a conquering army from the south permeates the entire area, they remain. Time and time again plenty of time is given to those present to leave the land, they simply refuse to do so, which is a classic example of pride.

The whole of the Holy land could of been taken Without a drop of blood, and those smart enough would of seen that and left, but, again, we know they did not, and continued to believe they could win, which was obviously foolish.

In all the tales of conquest, it’s not God waltzing into a Christian neighbourhood and cutting heads. Each case is a genuinely evil place. Even from a secular perspective the Canaanite were evil. They were considered evil even by the Babylonians and the Egyptians, and those two didn’t fuck around when it came to innovative nastiness. Think of it like the national guard walking into a riot of murderers, rapists, and looters. We wouldn’t have too much concern if the rioters are attacking an innocent group and the guard attacked the rioters to defend that group. Yet the guard in this instance would kill the rioters, and that is still conflict - even though it may be for a good cause.

It’s simply a necessity of our condition. When the conflicts fail, or evil is done within them, it’s because the people (and all their sinfulness) have perpetuated further evil within the conflict, rather than something by Gods hand.

I'm not talking about the wars against the Caninities. I am talking about things like extended Covid lockdowns, poor distribution of natural resources, etc. These things lead to conflict. The poor distribution of natural resources is one of the biggest causes of war and conflict. Think of how easily it would have been avoided if God had designed the world in a manner that would better distribute natural resources. The world would be much more peaceful. Even things like slavery probably would have been less prominent had natural resources been better distributed. There are wars over oil, food, water, etc. Historically, colonialists expelled natives from their lands for things such as spice. Spice was a big cause of conflict in South-East Asia. All of these things avoidable if there was better distribution of resources. In the future there will be wars over water. Whilst some places experience server drought, others will never have issues with water. The Middle East has an abundance of oil, but can't find a drop of water to drink. Australia has plenty of land, but no water, but all the world's natural resources are here whilst other places with plenty of water have no natural resources. The only place that really has natural resources and water is Antarctica, which is currently unihabbital, but in the future, will most likely be the cause of many conflicts. This is a very, very poor method of distributing natural resources, and one of the biggest contributers to global conflict, which again, begs the question of God- why?

Further, if we're supposed to believe that God designed us to be good and our society/world turns us evil, then how did the Canaanites end up so evil

The criticism for this is that there are enough resources in current circulation to house, feed, water, and build again several times over for every. Single. Person. We just like money. Lots of money. Nor are we efficient with it.

This was even true, though to a much reduced state, thousands of years ago. You know how expensive a castle is? Why do castles exist? To stop invaders, why are their invaders? People, people are greedy - people want land, money, peasants.

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good! Is that a good reason? No! But we did it anyway because we're all fucked in the mind.

All the problems you list are not to do with God, there are plenty of resources to feed around 20-25 billion, and space to house many more billion on top of that, the issue with resources is purely a human issue.

[Australian rePublic]

I'm not talking about the wars against the Caninities. I am talking about things like extended Covid lockdowns, poor distribution of natural resources, etc. These things lead to conflict. The poor distribution of natural resources is one of the biggest causes of war and conflict. Think of how easily it would have been avoided if God had designed the world in a manner that would better distribute natural resources. The world would be much more peaceful. Even things like slavery probably would have been less prominent had natural resources been better distributed. There are wars over oil, food, water, etc. Historically, colonialists expelled natives from their lands for things such as spice. Spice was a big cause of conflict in South-East Asia. All of these things avoidable if there was better distribution of resources. In the future there will be wars over water. Whilst some places experience server drought, others will never have issues with water. The Middle East has an abundance of oil, but can't find a drop of water to drink. Australia has plenty of land, but no water, but all the world's natural resources are here whilst other places with plenty of water have no natural resources. The only place that really has natural resources and water is Antarctica, which is currently unihabbital, but in the future, will most likely be the cause of many conflicts. This is a very, very poor method of distributing natural resources, and one of the biggest contributers to global conflict, which again, begs the question of God- why?

Further, if we're supposed to believe that God designed us to be good and our society/world turns us evil, then how did the Canaanites end up so evil

The criticism for this is that there are enough resources in current circulation to house, feed, water, and build again several times over for every. Single. Person. We just like money. Lots of money. Nor are we efficient with it.

This was even true, though to a much reduced state, thousands of years ago. You know how expensive a castle is? Why do castles exist? To stop invaders, why are their invaders? People, people are greedy - people want land, money, peasants.

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good! Is that a good reason? No! But we did it anyway because we're all fucked in the mind.

All the problems you list are not to do with God, there are plenty of resources to feed around 20-25 billion, and space to house many more billion on top of that, the issue with resources is purely a human issue.

Spice was food. And in either case, what about water?

[Lower Nubia]

The criticism for this is that there are enough resources in current circulation to house, feed, water, and build again several times over for every. Single. Person. We just like money. Lots of money. Nor are we efficient with it.

This was even true, though to a much reduced state, thousands of years ago. You know how expensive a castle is? Why do castles exist? To stop invaders, why are their invaders? People, people are greedy - people want land, money, peasants.

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good! Is that a good reason? No! But we did it anyway because we're all fucked in the mind.

All the problems you list are not to do with God, there are plenty of resources to feed around 20-25 billion, and space to house many more billion on top of that, the issue with resources is purely a human issue.

Spice was food. And in either case, what about water?

It literally falls from the sky and yet one nation will horde it to stop another nation from having it (Ethiopia and Egypt). Wells with decontamination are dirt cheap but corrupt governments stop distribution of safe drinking water, and pocket the cash. Nestle drains fresh water from local poor communities and then sells it back to them beyond their means. The ocean itself is perfectly drinkable through desalination which is expensive but perfectly doable, but we don’t because it’s just expensive.

[Australian rePublic]

Spice was food. And in either case, what about water?

It literally falls from the sky and yet one nation will horde it to stop another nation from having it (Ethiopia and Egypt). Wells with decontamination are dirt cheap but corrupt governments stop distribution of safe drinking water, and pocket the cash. Nestle drains fresh water from local poor communities and then sells it back to them beyond their means. The ocean itself is perfectly drinkable through desalination which is expensive but perfectly doable, but we don’t because it’s just expensive.

That's only enough to have a river. In other places, such as USA or Australia, it's difficult to trabsport water. And in either case, that's only very new technology which didn't exist in the past

[The Archregimancy]

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good!

Not quite.

It's because it allows Guild Navigators to fold space and Bene Gesserit reverend mothers to access their ancestral other memories; that's why the spice must flow.

[The Blaatschapen]

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good!

Not quite.

It's because it allows Guild Navigators to fold space and Bene Gesserit reverend mothers to access their ancestral other memories; that's why the spice must flow.

Bene Gesserit reverend mothers are the original spice girls.

[Pasong Tirad]

Ah, well.

Excuse me while I dial up the Spanish Inquisition.

Be careful to dial the right number, or else you might accidentally call the Palmarians.

I just looked up who the Palmarians are. Now I wish I didn't.

[The Blaatschapen]

Be careful to dial the right number, or else you might accidentally call the Palmarians.

I just looked up who the Palmarians are. Now I wish I didn't.

1500 members.

That's like what, one concert in a medium sized venue.

Trivial.

[Lower Nubia]

It literally falls from the sky and yet one nation will horde it to stop another nation from having it (Ethiopia and Egypt). Wells with decontamination are dirt cheap but corrupt governments stop distribution of safe drinking water, and pocket the cash. Nestle drains fresh water from local poor communities and then sells it back to them beyond their means. The ocean itself is perfectly drinkable through desalination which is expensive but perfectly doable, but we don’t because it’s just expensive.

That's only enough to have a river. In other places, such as USA or Australia, it's difficult to trabsport water. And in either case, that's only very new technology which didn't exist in the past

It’s not difficult to transport water though, just expensive. The Libyan Great Man-Made River is an example of vast water in the desert. We just don’t like paying for it. That’s a human quality.

[Lower Nubia]

Take spice, why did we kill for spice? Because it smells good!

Not quite.

It's because it allows Guild Navigators to fold space and Bene Gesserit reverend mothers to access their ancestral other memories; that's why the spice must flow.

[North Washington Republic]

I just looked up who the Palmarians are. Now I wish I didn't.

1500 members.

That's like what, one concert in a medium sized venue.

Trivial.

I just find the Palmarians to be one of the most interesting Christian oriented cults. I don’t know why. They have zero influence on society and they’re the butt of jokes in Southern Spain from what I heard.