The Eclipse of God

[Arial]

For the most part - the CULT is an approach, and not a denomination and all people of different backgrounds are welcome to come and learn from the perspective of fulfilled eschatology the bible that helps in fortifying our FAITH. All people meaning literally all people. No matter if they believe in calvinism or arminian, non believer, those who are seeking, it is a approach over all.

I tried to look them up online. When a person googles something to get information on what it is, usually many information sites will come up. In the case of Christian Ultra-Liberalism, this is not so. All that comes up is their own site, possibly aptly acronym deemed CULT. I am not making a condemnation or making a positive statement, it is simply a suspicion, from one inclined towards examining things to see if I find something that engenders suspicion. There is very limited, generic information given. To find out more, you have to register. One of the two sites asks for donations to join in order to get access to any information. Which no way was I going to even register with something I know nothing about, giving them access (as they admit) to whatever information about me they choose. To me this looks like, not a movement within Christianity, but one man's way of doing possibly many things that are less than honorable, including a money scam. A business. My suspicion antenna are vibrating.

That aside, what information that is given, which is the same as what you give, is a form of liberal Christianity. I would like to clear up something I said in a previous post when I quoted someone saying liberal Christianity is unbelief.

Though I tried to find who the quote was from again, I could not. But it was early in or in the midst of the liberal Christianity movement, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. At that time it had not expanded to encompass such a large number of forms as is the case today. It mainly consisted of combining all the religions of the world and keeping only the common denominators found in all of them and throwing out the ones that were contained in only traditional Christianity. This included but was not limited to, a personal knowable God who is involved in the lives of mankind, discounting the authority of scripture and regarding a great deal of it as myth or inaccurate, denying the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, denying Christ as savior and the need for a savior, denying the fallen nature of man, denying sin for what it is, denying the resurrection and ascension. These aspects of Christianity were removed and were replaced by Christianity being no more than the betterment and evolving of man through wisdom and love, focusing on social issues. Aspects of liberal Christianity, particularly social agendas and being nice and tolerant of all beliefs, mistaking that for love, and a complete loss of focus on God Himself and on the glory of Christ, even of salvation itself, has so permeated traditional Christianity and our churches, that a blanket statement that it is unbelief, I do not think is applicable. It would depend on what the unbelief is in. What it does do, and has done, is open wide for the church to be full of people who have never been given a solid foundation on which to stand and a complete inability to contend for the faith----or adequately answer any questions put before them by those they share the gospel with. The gospel itself that is preached, has frayed edges and indistinct borders.

 

[MatthewG]

I tried to look them up online. When a person googles something to get information on what it is, usually many information sites will come up. In the case of Christian Ultra-Liberalism, this is not so. All that comes up is their own site, possibly aptly acronym deemed CULT. I am not making a condemnation or making a positive statement, it is simply a suspicion, from one inclined towards examining things to see if I find something that engenders suspicion. There is very limited, generic information given. To find out more, you have to register. One of the two sites asks for donations to join in order to get access to any information. Which no way was I going to even register with something I know nothing about, giving them access (as they admit) to whatever information about me they choose. To me this looks like, not a movement within Christianity, but one man's way of doing possibly many things that are less than honorable, including a money scam. A business. My suspicion antenna are vibrating.

That aside, what information that is given, which is the same as what you give, is a form of liberal Christianity. I would like to clear up something I said in a previous post when I quoted someone saying liberal Christianity is unbelief.

Though I tried to find who the quote was from again, I could not. But it was early in or in the midst of the liberal Christianity movement, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. At that time it had not expanded to encompass such a large number of forms as is the case today. It mainly consisted of combining all the religions of the world and keeping only the common denominators found in all of them and throwing out the ones that were contained in only traditional Christianity. This included but was not limited to, a personal knowable God who is involved in the lives of mankind, discounting the authority of scripture and regarding a great deal of it as myth or inaccurate, denying the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, denying Christ as savior and the need for a savior, denying the fallen nature of man, denying sin for what it is, denying the resurrection and ascension. These aspects of Christianity were removed and were replaced by Christianity being no more than the betterment and evolving of man through wisdom and love, focusing on social issues. Aspects of liberal Christianity, particularly social agendas and being nice and tolerant of all beliefs, mistaking that for love, and a complete loss of focus on God Himself and on the glory of Christ, even of salvation itself, has so permeated traditional Christianity and our churches, that a blanket statement that it is unbelief, I do not think is applicable. It would depend on what the unbelief is in. What it does do, and has done, is open wide for the church to be full of people who have never been given a solid foundation on which to stand and a complete inability to contend for the faith----or adequately answer any questions put before them by those they share the gospel with. The gospel itself that is preached, has frayed edges and indistinct borders.

Fair enough, Sister.

We are all alone responsible for what we do in our lives as individuals who live by faith, either we have love in spite of having dinner with family and one the family members happens to be gay, understand what I mean?

I believe from the aspect of apologetics and debates it seems like a war to me, and blood shedding, and authority of one man of another and not relying on God who is the authority by the Holy Spirit in which is given to those who have chosen to have faith in Christ.

You make your own choices and decide how you desire to live and bring forth to others in which you when you are near them, sister.

Love you!

 

[Arial]

Fair enough, Sister.

We are all alone responsible for what we do in our lives as individuals who live by faith, either we have love in spite of having dinner with family and one the family members happens to be gay, understand what I mean?

I believe from the aspect of apologetics and debates it seems like a war to me, and blood shedding, and authority of one man of another and not relying on God who is the authority by the Holy Spirit in which is given to those who have chosen to have faith in Christ.

You make your own choices and decide how you desire to live and bring forth to others in which you when you are near them, sister.

Love you!

It has been noted by many that there are consistent tactics used in conversation, debate, argument, when one party cannot really support what they put forth but have only their feelings, opinions and hearsay. One of those tactics is to so overstate or misstate what the other person is really saying, as to completely deflect from the issue, and in doing so, cast a very negative light on the others position that doesn't really exist----and then walk away, tossing over their shoulder words of peace and love and brotherhood. In addition, they do not address anything that the other has been said, if they even read it (in this case) because they have no intention and never did, of listening to anything that might suggest there are things that it might be prudent to rethink.

Not allowing a gay family member, or friend or acquaintance to have a seat at the dinner table is something that is nowhere in the conversation we were having or in the ideas presented. If any of my family members were gay, I would love them no less, accept them no less. I would be able to do this while at the same time maintaining my belief in Gods authority when He says that homosexuality is wrong. A family member or close friend would certainly know what my convictions were on the matter.I would not send them to an exorcist, or Christian therapy sessions to change them. I would not preach at them about it or condemn them to hell in my speech. I would never cease to pray for them, not to be delivered, but for God to grant them the faith to be saved and leave the details up to Him. That would be genuine and true love. Simply asking someone to sit at the table might be real godly love or it might be no more than an expression of "Look how wonderful and loving I am."

 

[MatthewG]

To you, I have to say are far more intelligent than myself.

I tried to look them up online. When a person googles something to get information on what it is, usually many information sites will come up. In the case of Christian Ultra-Liberalism, this is not so.

All that comes up is their own site, possibly aptly acronym deemed CULT. I am not making a condemnation or making a positive statement, it is simply a suspicion, from one inclined towards examining things to see if I find something that engenders suspicion. There is very limited, generic information given. To find out more, you have to register.

One of the two sites asks for donations to join in order to get access to any information. Which no way was I going to even register with something I know nothing about, giving them access (as they admit) to whatever information about me they choose. T

All fair game, it is 3.16c to register, and you may not like to content, and there are thousands of hours of verse by verse teachings there, in which the owner has done for several years. Because they have a register and have a donate button if people desire to do so, it is all in Liberty of the person to do so.

What you pose is no different than Churches out there that actually DEMAND tithes to be submitted, and also CONFORMING to the ways of that of the said church is totally different than, a person having the freedom do donate, if they desire however it shouldn't be demanded.

An example of this is Mormon Church that demands it congregates to do such things in order to be right with God, and possibly other Churches too.

So the excuses you pose are nonsensical to me.

o me this looks like, not a movement within Christianity, but one man's way of doing possibly many things that are less than honorable, including a money scam. A business. My suspicion antenna are vibrating.

That aside, what information that is given, which is the same as what you give, is a form of liberal Christianity. I would like to clear up something I said in a previous post when I quoted someone saying liberal Christianity is unbelief.

Okay. I am also suspect to the same things when it comes to anyone who claims authority, or are part of a high arch that is not in relation to allowing God to be governing one and allowing God to govern those who have faith by the Holy Spirit.

Though I tried to find who the quote was from again, I could not. But it was early in or in the midst of the liberal Christianity movement, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. At that time it had not expanded to encompass such a large number of forms as is the case today. It mainly consisted of combining all the religions of the world and keeping only the common denominators found in all of them and throwing out the ones that were contained in only traditional Christianity.

Sorry you could not come up with your own interjections and needed help from the understanding of a person and we all do that, as many people have expressions that we are selfs are incapable of learning until presented the information.

As you're a believer in Christ, you know the truth that Christ is the only way to salvation as the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto Salvation unto all those who are believers.

This included but was not limited to, a personal knowable God who is involved in the lives of mankind, discounting the authority of scripture and regarding a great deal of it as myth or inaccurate, denying the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, denying Christ as savior and the need for a savior, denying the fallen nature of man, denying sin for what it is, denying the resurrection and ascension.

Would you say that is up to the individual to seek and search out for themselves? I realize that you are just pointing out one section of society as a whole but also not limiting to them as a whole yet it is looked upon as a whole and not individualistically.

These aspects of Christianity were removed and were replaced by Christianity being no more than the betterment and evolving of man through wisdom and love, focusing on social issues. Aspects of liberal Christianity, particularly social agendas and being nice and tolerant of all beliefs, mistaking that for love, and a complete loss of focus on God Himself and on the glory of Christ, even of salvation itself, has so permeated traditional Christianity and our churches, that a blanket statement that it is unbelief, I do not think is applicable.

That is not true if a individual believer, understands and has learned things about God and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit prompts them to do what is right, and all good things come from the Holy Spirit by abiding in Christ. Wouldn't you say?

It would depend on what the unbelief is in.

I do not personally believe people end up in hell, any more. I do not see the evidence of the Bible after everything being completed true.

What it does do, and has done, is open wide for the church to be full of people who have never been given a solid foundation on which to stand and a complete inability to contend for the faith----or adequately answer any questions put before them by those they share the gospel with. The gospel itself that is preached, has frayed edges and indistinct borders.

I believe that is not a good thing to stand on if they are not seeking out to know who God is, and who Jesus Christ is, but however those individuals that choose to the neglect those things, God will be the judged over them.

 

[Arial]

What you pose is no different than Churches out there that actually DEMAND tithes to be submitted, and also CONFORMING to the ways of that of the said church is totally different than, a person having the freedom do donate, if they desire however it shouldn't be demanded.

I would not attend a church like that either. It is suspect.

An example of this is Mormon Church that demands it congregates to do such things in order to be right with God, and possibly other Churches too.

Which is a cult and not Christian.

So the excuses you pose are nonsensical to me.

Excuses? I do not need an excuse to find something suspicious. All I need is wisdom and common sense. And the internet is a whole different story than face to face. We have no idea who or what is behind the material we see and read. One of the most dangerous places is the internet for that very reason. People can completely hide who they are and what they are up to. When someone waves as many red flags (large and bright) as that CULT site did, not in a million years would I give them access to personal information---and if you donate that includes financial info. I am not saying they are illegitimate. I don't know. And I will never know unless they end up on the news. Which would be too late.

Okay. I am also suspect to the same things when it comes to anyone who claims authority, or are part of a high arch that is not in relation to allowing God to be governing one and allowing God to govern those who have faith by the Holy Spirit.

I would also be suspect of anyone who claimed authority in spiritual matters. But who do you think is doing that? Traditional Christianity itself? Because it isn't. The doctrines of traditional Christianity bow down in every case to the authority of the Bible ALONE. That is where the doctrines came from. And to fall back on the claim of whatever one believes being true because they have the Holy Spirit, is to presume one has the Holy Spirit, when they may or may not. The Bible is intensely specific on who has the Holy Spirit and how that comes to be. And even if they do, it does not follow that any belief or interpretation or thought or idea comes from Him. We are still able to come up with our own, with our minds, and we are fallible.

Sorry you could not come up with your own interjections and needed help from the understanding of a person and we all do that, as many people have expressions that we are selfs are incapable of learning until presented the information.

This is bordering on insulting and condescending. These little things keep slipping out. Don't you hate if when that happens? I repeated a statement someone made, then clarified as to its scope when that other person said it. I don't have a speck of trouble recognizing what forms of liberal Christianity are unbelief. I did have to learn what liberal Christianity actually is and where it came from. It called school, education. No one actually has information that they don't have. Not even you.

Would you say that is up to the individual to seek and search out for themselves? I realize that you are just pointing out one section of society as a whole but also not limiting to them as a whole yet it is looked upon as a whole and not individualistically.

It is up to one who considers themselves a Christian to check everything they hear against the Bible. That is a responsibility God, in His word, set before His people. If you find a way to reword that last sentence, I will comment on it. As it is, I can't figure out what you are saying.

That is not true if a individual believer, understands and has learned things about God and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit prompts them to do what is right, and all good things come from the Holy Spirit by abiding in Christ. Wouldn't you say?

Not everyone has the Holy Spirit. Only those truly joined to Christ through faith. And that faith is specific in its content. It is trust in Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation. And not just one's idea of who Jesus is, but who the Bible says He is and what the Bible says He did, and even why He did it. These things have been spelled out in great detail, backed up by the scriptures from which they derive, and the revealed knowledge of God Himself, in the doctrines of traditional, historic Christianity for the Christian, praise be to the glory of God and His great mercy in doing this. That is what is denied in all these arguments against it, or any part of it. It is checkable and verifiable by any Christian, and should be checked and verified. A non believer will deny it, as it is foolishness to him. We are to do good, to be obedient to the council of the Lord in all that He commands, but this alone will save no one. Rather it is the fruit the Spirit produces in us. Do good and be good is not the core of Christianity. That is its fruit. The core, without which it falls apart to be no more that more wisdom of men, is the person and work of Jesus.

 

[Arial]

I do not personally believe people end up in hell, any more. I do not see the evidence of the Bible after everything being completed true.

Rev 21:8; Matt 10:28; Matt 25:46; Matt 25:41; Rev 20:15; 1 Thess 1:9 Are you saying God allowed lies to be in His word?

I believe that is not a good thing to stand on if they are not seeking out to know who God is, and who Jesus Christ is, but however those individuals that choose to the neglect those things, God will be the judged over them.

What is not a good thing to stand on? A solid foundation? Didn't Jesus give us a parable about what happens if we build on the rock (solid foundation) and what happens if we build on the sand?

 

[MatthewG]

I would not attend a church like that either. It is suspect.

Which is a cult and not Christian.

Okay.

Excuses? I do not need an excuse to find something suspicious. All I need is wisdom and common sense. And the internet is a whole different story than face to face. We have no idea who or what is behind the material we see and read.

Okay.

One of the most dangerous places is the internet for that very reason. People can completely hide who they are and what they are up to. When someone waves as many red flags (large and bright) as that CULT site did, not in a million years would I give them access to personal information---and if you donate that includes financial info. I am not saying they are illegitimate. I don't know. And I will never know unless they end up on the news. Which would be too late.

Ah, okay.

I would also be suspect of anyone who claimed authority in spiritual matters. But who do you think is doing that? Traditional Christianity itself? Because it isn't. The doctrines of traditional Christianity bow down in every case to the authority of the Bible ALONE.

Do you follow suit in that matter?

That is where the doctrines came from. And to fall back on the claim of whatever one believes being true because they have the Holy Spirit, is to presume one has the Holy Spirit, when they may or may not.

It’s clear in Romans 5:1-6 that those who have faith in Jesus in his death burial and resurrection are given the spirit. One doesn’t have to question themselves if they have it or not, but do you think it’s good to question if others have it if they profess in believing in the death, burial and resurrection?

What would give one the right to judge them if they do or don’t, even say they did something that wasn’t “Christ-like” as we all have this flesh that fails. As you stated at the end of your comments that it all rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Now say you met a Catholic who prays to Mary, wouldn’t they be wrong in their approach all one can do is show them they are making an idol out of her and that is not good for Christian growth but what if they tell you wanna do what they want?

All on can say is I love you, even after suggesting that that doesn’t seem biblical to do, if you were in that situation. I have a Muslim friend I tell him Jesus die for his sins and he tells me I don’t know about that, what do I do? Love him either way, even if he doesn’t believe like myself what can you do personally to change their mind? When they are stuck in their mind and won’t budge to change ?

The Bible is intensely specific on who has the Holy Spirit and how that comes to be. And even if they do, it does not follow that any belief or interpretation or thought or idea comes from Him. We are still able to come up with our own, with our minds, and we are fallible.

I agree. The Holy Spirit comes from faith in Christ. His death burial and resurrection. It’s not difficult.

This is bordering on insulting and condescending. These little things keep slipping out. Don't you hate if when that happens?

I didn’t find it insulting, however if you did, I am sorry about that. I wasn’t trying to condescend you at all as I was commenting on your trying to articulate yourself and you couldn’t do it. My apologies as I don’t believe I’m better than anyone here.

I repeated a statement someone made, then clarified as to its scope when that other person said it. I don't have a speck of trouble recognizing what forms of liberal Christianity are unbelief. I did have to learn what liberal Christianity actually is and where it came from. It called school, education. No one actually has information that they don't have. Not even you.

Good, I’m glad you decide to take up learning for yourself those things as it’s good to learn about things to have a firm grip on them and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and comments with me.

It is up to one who considers themselves a Christian to check everything they hear against the Bible. That is a responsibility God, in His word, set before His people. If you find a way to reword that last sentence, I will comment on it. As it is, I can't figure out what you are saying.

Don’t you come from an aspect of Gods ordains everything ? So only God picks and chooses those who come to faith? I don’t understand your perspective of God as I never heard it. All I know is at the age of 26 I had a choice when I looked at my heart filled with darkness and no light that I decided to go and seek after Jesus, hearing the word of God helped me come to faith. Which I was persuaded by the promises of the Lord Jesus Chris to trust him and his apostles.

Not everyone has the Holy Spirit. Only those truly joined to Christ through faith.

I agree, not everyone is a person of faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but love triumphs over faith surprisingly enough according to Paul himself. But faith is an indicator of unseen things becoming a reality for those who believe they have the spirit of Christ in them and now seek out a relationship with God.

So many people from different aspects of life, background, history, and as an individual walking in the midst of them all, to choose love in the Agape sense is the Christian way of being lead by Christ. It’s not the arguing or fighting or the bickering or trying to win something over someone’s head to me in my perspective.

And that faith is specific in its content. It is trust in Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation.

Hebrews 11:1 is the definition of faith, and faith is being persuaded to trust God and his son through the promises of newness of life and becoming new creation from my understanding in what the Bible states and addresses, and the power of God unto salvation is founded in the Gospel of Christ in which we should be ashamed.

And not just one's idea of who Jesus is, but who the Bible says He is and what the Bible says He did, and even why He did it.

Learning is good and encourage people to read their Bible and learn what it states and not just someone opinions; or what they may think however in light of perspective and different people in different places of their faith, they believe hell is real and people go there even though I don’t. To fight, argue and divide is not going to be agape love, it is going be fleshly, and not Spirit lead.

These things have been spelled out in great detail, backed up by the scriptures from which they derive, and the revealed knowledge of God Himself, in the doctrines of traditional, historic Christianity for the Christian, praise be to the glory of God and His great mercy in doing this.

They are not difficult to understand but for some they can be extremely challenging to understand, but the Bible is there, and people share Christ with others and people consider what was said and think and choose what they will believe or not. Many people actually have trouble reading, but the over all arching story is God loved us, he sent his son, died for our sins and the worlds sins, that anyone who comes to the Son who is the Gate has access to the Father now and are given the spirit deemed children of God regardless of their lifestyle choices, or how they many present themselves be they have a lot of tattoos on them or they smoke, do drugs, or watch porn, or whatever. No one comes to Christ perfectly and that is founded out that no one is truly perfect in the flesh: save Jesus.

That is what is denied in all these arguments against it, or any part of it. It is checkable and verifiable by any Christian, and should be checked and verified. A non believer will deny it, as it is foolishness to him.

Yes they will, and that is their own choice.

We are to do good, to be obedient to the council of the Lord in all that He commands, but this alone will save no one.

Amen I agree, the greatest commandments are two we should live by in which Jesus said, and the Holy Spirit and following the spirit makes it possible though we still indulge our flesh with music, or art, or entertainment or whatever it is, as long as God is first with all mind; heart and strength, and it will lead to having love towards others who have different perspectives and views and live in their own lifestyle they choose for themselves.

Rather it is the fruit the Spirit produces in us. Do good and be good is not the core of Christianity.

You can say do good and be good is not the core of Christianity however at the core of the Holy Spirit it is infact just that. In having Agape love to others, and speaking by sharing truth in the spirit of meekness to them.

That is its fruit. The core, without which it falls apart to be no more that more wisdom of men, is the person and work of Jesus.

Yes all of it resorted back to Jesus who has done everything for the entire world in which God through Christ reconciled the world back unto himself and all people have the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves, to seek after God or not.

Love you!

 

[MatthewG]

Rev 21:8; Matt 10:28; Matt 25:46; Matt 25:41; Rev 20:15; 1 Thess 1:9 Are you saying God allowed lies to be in His word?

What is not a good thing to stand on? A solid foundation? Didn't Jesus give us a parable about what happens if we build on the rock (solid foundation) and what happens if we build on the sand?

Sorry sister like I said I come from a different aspect, and rely on Revelation 22, for my belief as far as hell being over with. You can question it, deny it, test it. It doesn’t bother me if you believe me or not as no one should and people should think for themselves in light of all scripture and by the Holy Spirit.

Love you!

 

[shroom]

Sorry sister like I said I come from a different aspect, and rely on Revelation 22, for my belief as far as hell being over with. You can question it, deny it, test it. It doesn’t bother me if you believe me or not as no one should and people should think for themselves in light of all scripture and by the Holy Spirit.

Love you!

Yes, Matthew. All scripture. Not the one verse in Revelation 22 that says there are people outside the kingdom, which you use to negate all the other scripture in the Bible that say what the fate of the unsaved will be.

 

[MatthewG]

Yes, Matthew. All scripture. Not the one verse in Revelation 22 that says there are people outside the kingdom, which you use to negate all the other scripture in the Bible that say what the fate of the unsaved will be.

Revelation 22 is the culmination for me personally maybe not yourself.

Test it, try it, and seek for the answers.

I can only make suggestions and I can’t change the hearts of others.

Love you!

 

[shroom]

Revelation 22 is the culmination for me personally maybe not yourself.

"Outside" or "without" the kingdom means they won't be there.

Test it, try it, and seek for the answers.

I suggest you do the same.

I can only make suggestions and I can’t change the hearts of others.

Nor can you change the truth of the Bible

Love you!

Thanks. Love you too.

 

[Arial]

Do you follow suit in that matter?

The Bible is my authority. It is possible to know what it says truthfully. I agree with the basic salvational things as articulated in historic Christianity because I TRUST GOD in His appointing people for His purposes, and because I find no fault in it when I check what is said in scripture. You evidently take most of your beliefs from CULT and they, along with yourself are the authority you have put over you. You have openly denied some of the things that are in the Bible and in historic Christianity. So don't talk to me about authority, as though you have none over you. Do you not know that Jesus had His apostles set the absolute, immovable boundaries of His church? That is, it is His church, and contains what He wants it to contain as to foundation (doctrine.) Nothing more. Nothing less.

I didn’t find it insulting, however if you did, I am sorry about that. I wasn’t trying to condescend you at all as I was commenting on your trying to articulate yourself and you couldn’t do it. My apologies as I don’t believe I’m better than anyone here.

You might have found it insulting if it had been said to you in the way you said it. You may say you do not try to condescend, which leaves the other option---that it comes naturally with you from out of your heart. You proceeded to condescend further when you added here "trying to articulate myself and I couldn't do it." There was nothing that I did not articulate and articulate clearly. At the very least, you should look up the specific meanings of words before you use them. If you are not being condescending, then you are using words very sloppily and carelessly, and in a way that makes your speech condescending. No condescension intended.

As to the rest of your post, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you any farther.