Posted on 02/06/2018 11:39:12 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
I am not arguing over this man Truth-seeker, I am having a provocative and civil discussion about him, and it is worthwhile because there are millions of people who go to hear his lectures and teachings, about the Bible. Is challenging me on the validity of this a good use of your time?
LOL!!! Have you ever seen the film, “What about Bob” ?
With all due respect he also states uneqevically that he is a Christian. Believing the bible to be myth can’t be rationalised logically with being a christian.
totally agree
Except that in many cases, such believers are not ignorant at all about the Biblical theology, for they (especially in independent fundamental immersionist assemblies) have spent far more time in close study and expository preaching/learning than one will ever find in denominational churches that focus on the "social gospel" in 20-minute sermons in perversions of doctrine that support it, thus tending toward a supercilious attitude in those who do not want to be a part of the Bible-based "subculture." Don't confuse Bibliolatry with the use of the Bible as the Spirit doing His counseling and directing to the believer from its pages. If one hears a spirit advising opinions and actions not supported His Bible, you are listening to another spirit of a different kind.
And I know, because I was raised in the parsonages of various Methodist churches where Dad was the minister; and I was not saved until the age of thirty-four, though I heard such messages for many years.
I mean no offense, I was referring to the KJV only people she was referencing
I know you meant it that way, and I was not offended, just addressing your answer as well as implicitly including her assertion that is offensive, to which you were responding.
“I am not arguing over this man Truth-seeker, I am having a provocative and civil discussion about him, and it is worthwhile because there are millions of people who go to hear his lectures and teachings, about the Bible. Is challenging me on the validity of this a good use of your time?”
Sure it is. I reached 24 years sober yesterday. I was helped immensely by AA, and their concepts of spirituality. Jung is a part of that.
So when I speak with troubled newcomers, thanks to Jung and the AA attitude on “higher power,” I have a better chance to reach him.
It is real world practical “works” not philosophical debate.
A matter of degrees and not totally lost but a eloquent elucidation nonetheless. I thinkthe pastor will appreciate it which i do.
Congratulations Truth-seeker on being sober and clean for so long. I am seriously happy for you. I didn’t know Jung was part of what they teach at AA. I wouldn’t want to try to build a spirituality on Jung, nor would I be evangelizing for him,. As you say, when you were desperate and seeking a lifeline, AA was there, and all that is involved in it....it was preferable than being in bondage to drink, but that doesn’t even mean it is of ultimate truth. One day we will all be brought up before the throne of God in judgment and his standard is perfect righteousness. Only Jesus can answer God for us and save our souls, not Bill Wilson, AA or Jung.
indeed I do
Last summer I watched a video someone recommended of a seminar or speech he gave, and he talked quite a lot about the Bible. I don’t remember what he said about his own beliefs, but definitely what he said about the Bible wasn’t Christian. Come to think of it, too, it was probably Jungian, like the Bible as some “useful myth.”
It’s not much different than most who teach the bible in universities these days since most of them are not believers.
No Holy Spirit = no qualification to teach God’s word .
Psychology creeping into pulpits/churches is a huge problem.
It basically works opposite of how the Holy Spirit is suppose to work in your life (die to self is not in psychology it actually teaches the opposite)
Feel good about yourself sermons never saves a soul nor does it set anyone free of bondage .
Only Jesus can set someone free. Christians need the word of God ministered to them and prayer . The church should not be putting bandaids on things like the world does.
Never heard of Jordan Peterson before, but your insights about Jung and trends in the church and society are informative, as always.
We can only know about God that which he chooses to reveal of himself. And he reveals this by general and special revelation. The general revelation is what he reveals about himself through his creation. One thing God clearly reveals in his creation is that he (God) exists. Thus, we can and should assume the existence of God because he is clearly reveal by the objective revelation of his creation.
It is not clear what you agree to.
What pastorbillrandles (PBR for short) wrote concerning the "Bible teacher" under consideration, and questioning your views on what the Bible is, knocks your suppositions galley west. And what I wrote implicitly addresses and exposes your prejudicial pronouncements regarding the prevalence and positions of Bible belt believers, as well as supporting PBR's valuation of Peterson against yours.
So what is it that you agree with? The demonstrated idiocy of your contrary opinions? (PBR has been a lot kinder to you than I would be.)
But that's not how I was talking about.
It is impossible to follow your grammar here, let alone the meaning. Please explain the presence of the adverb "how" in this sentence. I'm figuratively scratching my head on this.
It can be both.
The Bee Explains: Who Is Jordan Peterson?
http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-explains-jordan-peterson/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.