Idolatry

[Willie-T]

Something interesting I read just this morning:

“Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the 'correct opinions about God' - 'fundamentalism' is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry - but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us. Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of 'doubt'.”

 

[Grandpa]

I am absolutely certain that faith in Christ is the only way to be 'right' with God.

I have no doubts about that.


I suppose the phrase 'faith is idolatrous' must have meant faith in some sort of sacrament instead of Christ Himself... ??

 

[Willie-T]

"Doubt" in the absolute certainty of many of my 'views', is probably one of the greatest gifts God has ever blessed me with. It has helped me understand, for instance, that "homosexuality" is not what is really undermining family values.

 

[Grandpa]

"Doubt" in the absolute certainty of many of my 'views', is probably one of the greatest gifts God has ever blessed me with. It has helped me understand, for instance, that "homosexuality" is not what is really undermining family values.

You're right.

Family values were probably undermined already before homosexuality entered.

 

[Willie-T]

"Doubt" in the absolute certainty of many of my 'views', is probably one of the greatest gifts God has ever blessed me with. It has helped me understand, for instance, that "homosexuality" is not what is really undermining family values.

You're right.

Family values were probably undermined already before homosexuality entered.

When you think about it, how does someone else grooving on a queer lifestyle really affect the way we teach our children and react with them on a daily basis? Not very much.

Sure we have the school's warped teaching to straighten out in their little minds. And the "movement" makes some noise on TV. And a few of our tax bucks now have to go to supporting their odd unions. But, when it comes to family values, those predominately come directly from us and the kind of people we are in front of our kids.

 

[maxwel]

Something interesting I read just this morning:

“Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the 'correct opinions about God' - 'fundamentalism' is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry - but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us. Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of 'doubt'.”

Willie,

If you're going to quote John D. Caputo from a book called "What Would Jesus Deconstruct: The Good News of Postmodenism for the Church", ummm... how can I just let that go without a comment?


Ya know, I really agree with your politics, and I really appreciate your "old school" ethics and common sense... we're on the same page about a lot of things. I think that's important, and I really appreciate that.

You're a very practical, reasonable guy.

That is why I cannot, for life of me, figure out why you'd be referencing a book that is wholly predicated upon two philosophies which are both logically untenable.

Deconstructionism, as a philosophy, is absurdist, and wholly untenable logically.
Postmodernism, which is built on relativism (also absurdist), is also wholly untenable logically.


You baffle me bro.

 

[Willie-T]

Willie,

If you're going to quote John D. Caputo from a book called "What Would Jesus Deconstruct: The Good News of Postmodenism for the Church", ummm... how can I just let that go without a comment?


Ya know, I really agree with your politics, and I really appreciate your "old school" ethics and common sense... we're on the same page about a lot of things. I think that's important, and I really appreciate that.

You're a very practical, reasonable guy.

That is why I cannot, for life of me, figure out why you'd be referencing a book that is wholly predicated upon two philosophies which are both logically untenable.

Deconstructionism, as a philosophy, is absurdist, and wholly untenable logically.
Postmodernism, which is built on relativism (also absurdist), is also wholly untenable logically.


You baffle me bro.

Silliness like this..... the staunch dogma that if someone holds a different view from mine, I can't possibly find anything worthwhile in their writings...... is exactly why I only mentioned that I had simply read this, and did not say where it came from.

It is almost laughable how many things I have "semi-quoted" Joseph Prince on this forum, and people who have taught themselves to automatically decry anything he says as FALSE TEACHING, have liked the post, and even agreed with his words. However, IF I had mentioned his name in connection with what I wrote, they would have been instantly throwing stones at me.

You don't baffle me.... your "head-in-the-sand" attitude disappoints me.

 

[Willie-T]

BTW, Jesus didn't just "deconstruct" the ancient order of animal sacrifices as actual worship of God.... He utterly decimated it and destroyed it by fire.

 

[maxwel]

Silliness like this..... the staunch dogma that if someone holds a different view from mine, I can't possibly find anything worthwhile in their writings...... is exactly why I only mentioned that I had simply read this, and did not say where it came from.

It is almost laughable how many things I have "semi-quoted" Joseph Prince on this forum, and people who have taught themselves to automatically decry anything he says as FALSE TEACHING, have liked the post, and even agreed with his words. However, IF I had mentioned his name in connection with what I wrote, they would have been instantly throwing stones at me.

You don't baffle me.... your "head-in-the-sand" attitude disappoints me.

1. I'm glad to hear Caputo's views are different than yours.

You could have just said that.

You could have said, "Here is this guy with different views than mine... but here is one interesting thing he said."

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that.
I'd be fine with that.


2. Thank you for the kindness of saying my head was in the sand... many people would place it in a much more uncomfortable location.

 

[Willie-T]

1. I'm glad to hear Caputo's views are different than yours.

You could have just said that.

You could have said, "Here is this guy with different views than mine... but here is one interesting thing he said."

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that.
I'd be fine with that.


2. Thank you for the kindness of saying my head was in the sand... many people would place it in a much more uncomfortable location.

And are you saying you disagree with what I posted?

 

[Willie-T]

I think we have all seen ideas posed, and we were !00% in agreement with the ideas.... UNTIL the poster added the point of who it was that originally wrote those words.

Does not THAT really bother you? That you have to base YOUR conclusions of a thought or idea upon it only coming from a person whom you have been told it is acceptable to find wisdom in?

It would make me wonder just how much of a puppet I had let myself become.

 

[maxwel]

And are you saying you disagree with what I posted?

I think there are a couple of different ways, in a Christian sense, to define the word "doubt".

It can refer to different types of things.



Whether or not I agree with you depends on how you're using the word "doubt".


1. We can "doubt" what God says... whether his words are true.
(This is not a biblical position.)

2. We can "doubt" our understanding of what God says... whether our understanding is accurate.
(This is a biblical position.)


Christ never doubted what God said, but he doubted that the Pharisees understood what God said.
So, it's perfectly fine to reexamine scripture, and study it, and reevaluate our understanding.
Nothing wrong with that.

That does however bring up the whole issue of hermeneutics...
WHAT METHODS, and WHAT APPROACH will we use to reexamine the scripture.
This is really where we all veer off in different directions I think.

But as far as "doubting" our understanding of scripture, and reevaluating it...
I think that's perfectly fine, and biblical.
I don't think we are to doubt the same issues endlessly,
and assume there ARE NO definitive answers,
but it's fine to reexamine things.

 

[Desertsrose]

BTW, Jesus didn't just "deconstruct" the ancient order of animal sacrifices as actual worship of God.... He utterly decimated it and destroyed it by fire.

Hi Willie,

The ancient order of animal sacrifices was not destroyed, it was fulfilled in Jesus.

It was Herod's temple that was destroyed by fire.

 

[Willie-T]

I think there are a couple of different ways, in a Christian sense, to define the word "doubt".

It can refer to different types of things.


Whether or not I agree with you depends on how you're using the word "doubt".


1. We can "doubt" what God says... whether his words are true.

2. We can "doubt" our understanding of what God says... whether our understanding is accurate.


Christ never doubted what God said, but he doubted that the Pharisees understood what God said.
So, it's perfectly fine to reexamine scripture, and study it, and reevaluate our understanding.
Nothing wrong with that.

That does however bring up the whole issue of hermeneutics...
WHAT METHODS, and WHAT APPROACH will we use to reexamine the scripture.
This is really where we all veer off in different directions I think.

But as far as "doubting" our understanding of scripture, and reevaluating it...
I think that's perfectly fine, and biblical.
I don't think we are to doubt the same issues endlessly,
and assume there ARE NO definitive answers,
but it's fine to reexamine things.

So, someone has to use only the precise and exact words you want or expect to hear used, or else you lack the ability to hear them in a variety of ways? THAT is what I would see as douting my, perhaps, impulsive interpretation of something I already know can be meant in a variety of ways.

I know what a word like, say... "repent" means. But I often read the word used here, and understand the way the writer is using it.

 

[Willie-T]

Hi Willie,

The ancient order of animal sacrifices was not destroyed, it was fulfilled in Jesus.

It was Herod's temple that was destroyed by fire.

Gosh. Poor ol' helpless God.... He had no ability to use the Romans to light fires, nor to crucify a man on a cross?

 

[maxwel]

Willie, I need to roll.

Have fun in your thread.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but if you will give sources for your quotes, I'll will try to be fair about what you draw from them.
I always prefer sourced to be quoted.

Sometimes knowing the source helps us to do things like DEFINE TERMS before we start discussion...
as the author may have very different definitions of things.

You and I are not deconstructionists in the literary sense, so I think we both want to know what the author actually meant, and how he was using certain words.

That's all.

I get suspicious when sources are not given.
But if you do that, I'll try to be fair about it.

 

[Desertsrose]

Silliness like this..... the staunch dogma that if someone holds a different view from mine, I can't possibly find anything worthwhile in their writings...... is exactly why I only mentioned that I had simply read this, and did not say where it came from.

It is almost laughable how many things I have "semi-quoted" Joseph Prince on this forum, and people who have taught themselves to automatically decry anything he says as FALSE TEACHING, have liked the post, and even agreed with his words. However, IF I had mentioned his name in connection with what I wrote, they would have been instantly throwing stones at me.

You don't baffle me.... your "head-in-the-sand" attitude disappoints me.

Hi Willie,

The thing is though that their premise is so far out in left field. The false teacher's point of view is not to worship nor obey the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, it's a worship of self.

We can also find a quote by someone we'd never follow that may be true. And that's the enemies tactics. Like with Jesus, satan tempted Him with some truth. But does that mean I'd follow satan?

So while there may some truth in the words of Joseph Prince, why quote him when there are many others that don't teach heresy you could quote from. There's a danger in quoting from known false teachers.

 

[Willie-T]

Hi Willie,

The thing is though that their premise is so far out in left field. The false teacher's point of view is not to worship nor obey the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, it's a worship of self.

We can also find a quote by someone we'd never follow that may be true. And that's the enemies tactics. Like with Jesus, satan tempted Him with some truth. But does that mean I'd follow satan?

So while there may some truth in the words of Joseph Prince, why quote him when there are many others that don't teach heresy you could quote from. There's a danger in quoting from known false teachers.

I agree..... but I will even quote from some of the haters when they let their guard down, and say something close to what Jesus would have said.

 

[kodiak]

The truth is truth regardless of who says it.

 

[Desertsrose]

I agree..... but I will even quote from some of the haters when they let their guard down, and say something close to what Jesus would have said.

Yes, I have conversations with others that might speak some truth in their understanding of what truth is. And I'll always let them know what I do agree with in what they're saying.

On here there are some I wouldn't follow as a teacher of God's knowledge and wisdom to live by them, but if they happen to speak a truth, I'll click on the like button.