His message seems to be Prosperity Gospel: God wants you to be rich. (Personally I thought God wants what is best for us, which may not be the same thing.)

Are you suggesting that God may want some people to be poor then? I don’t know if you are, that’s why I’m asking. God wants to bless His children abundantly. He promises that He will give us back what we give one-hundred fold.

Some versions of the gospel supposedly have no answer to theodicy, suffering, and the like. They are lightweight, teaching only blessings but not sin, death, redemption, etc. They can be a very comforting worldview, but it is only comforting when the pain is someone else's. Prosperity Gospel has ben accused of being one of these lightweight versions.

Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bright-sided, includes a chapter on Prosperity Gospel. Her targets are Joel and Victoria Osteen -- and she is harsh with them -- but the points she makes about Prosperity Gospel are interesting. She argues that the movement really is more about "stuff" than about blessing, more about "gimme" than "it is better to give than to receive," and more about "gotcha" than about grace.

When a person is born again their sins are completely forgiven. There is nothing they can do that Jesus didn’t already take punishment for. (I’m sure you’re aware of that). I’m sorry to say that under Christ sin is gone. As humans we still have a tendency to sin, but it’s the renewing of the mind and the continual reminder of who we are in Christ that gets us through.

As for death, quiet honestly I’ve seen death in a whole new light this past year. We died with Christ. He did not only die for us, but He died AS us. Our flesh is already dead and our Spirit Man is alive and will always be. The body we have is only temporary. When we shed this coat we’re not dying we’re going to our Home.
Redemption, I think I might have addressed this in my sin paragraph. We’re redeemed through Christ’s sacrifice at the Cross.

I ‘m sorry to say this, but I believe Ms. Barbara Ehrenreich is wrong. I don’t mean to sound rude because I’m not trying to be. First of all the full title of her book gets me. What’s wrong with “looking on the bright side”? I’m not saying to ignore the downs, but what good will it do to focus on them? They only bring worry and fear. Quite honestly I think it’s rude to be harsh on someone who loves God so much. I don’t think she has a right to be harsh on them or anyone. She doesn’t personally know them does she? In short, I completely, 100% disagree with her.

Again, I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m just stating how I feel about that.

Dr. Elwin Ransom and RawKr, you both make very good points! That’s all I have to say about that.

I’ve never actually read The Purpose Driven Life, but I’ve met people who like it, don’t like it, and don’t really have an opinion on it. I can’t say anything here because well, I’ve never read it!

One other thing I wanted to say. I really dislike the word doctrine. Christianity isn’t based on a bunch of doctrine put together, but on a relationship with Jesus, our Saviour. To me the word doctrine is too religious (and yes I know this is a religion thread…) and seems like a bunch of rules and regulations. No. That’s not at all what Christianity is. It’s admitting that you need Jesus and you can’t do anything on your own. It’s not works-based, but it is a relationship.

I’m sorry I asked the question. It seems to me that these quotes people are bringing in from other preachers/ teachers are blatantly attacking Rick Warren. Now I’m not saying I agree with Rick Warren, but as I have done a bit of research about him I do agree with on some points. No one human is perfect Rick Warren, Joel Olsten, or any of the people anyone has quoted on here is. To me it’s sad to see such a divide with the Sons of God (that includes ladies too). Maybe instead of bashing people we can take time and talk to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Are you suggesting that God may want some people to be poor then? I don’t know if you are, that’s why I’m asking. God wants to bless His children abundantly. He promises that He will give us back what we give one-hundred fold.

I don't normally chime in on issues of this type but I feel compelled to do so now. I don't think God wants "some people to be poor" so much as He wants to be glorified, and if this means that some believers are cash poor then that is the route He'll go. We cannot begin to guess at His plans in our lives, and even after we get to the Hereafter we'll probably spend a few decades (at bare minimum!) looking at how He influenced our lives to bring about greater glory for Himself.

That said...and this is key here, blessings bestowed by God do not necessarily have to be cash-related. It can take many forms; enjoyable gratifying work, improved relationships, or in my case a wonderful 2 acres I just love to look at each day and am just astounded God gave it to me (it's like a dream come true and I'm never able to fully wrap my head around it! ). While I don't make it a habit to watch Osteen on a regular basis I have seen his schtick before, and he seems to follow the notion that when God says He wants to enrich our lives he primarily intends to do so via the cash route. This is probably the least valuable of all commodities...as the old adage says, you can't take it with you when you go. At best large quantities of money are a convenience. At worst, money has the potential to affect one's judgement and sometimes change who a person is. So Osteen's endorsement of a seemingly material blessing seems to me to be pretty hollow. I'd rather take my material blessings in the afterlife where they'll really count for so much more than here where the enjoyment is fleeting. Osteen is a very charismatic man, and I'm sure he has good intentions in mind, but when I think about how he could be using the gifts God gave him in a more productive manner, namely speaking the Truth of Salvation, instead of what he is, it sort of irritates me ever so slightly.

smartypants wrote:

Are you suggesting that God may want some people to be poor then? I don’t know if you are, that’s why I’m asking.

No, not at all. A Jewish proverb says, "If I knew God, I'd be God." Or as the prophet Samuel records, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." I do believe that God wants what is best for each of us, but I do not know, personally, what that "best" is. And because I am only myself, I tend to think that Proverbs 30:7-9 is a good place to start.

Two things I asked of You,
Do not refuse me before I die:
Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion,
That I not be full and deny You and say, "Who is the LORD?"
Or that I not be in want and steal,
And so profane the name of my God.

A good place to start, mind. The idea of having "enough." It clearly isn't where the human race is nowadays. We live in a very imbalanced world.

See, I don't actually know that the poor are poor and the rich are rich because "it's God's will." Sometimes it's man's doing. Amos, Haggai, Malachi, and James all mention rich and poor and how they got that way without God's blessing.

The Bible has more to say about money sins than almost any other subject. Now, depending upon the interpretation, some Christians argue that God will bless the believer who is in need, and so this person needs to have enough faith, or ask in the right way. Other Christians will argue that God blesses the needy by sending us, and so this person needs us to be faithful or else the blessing doesn't go through. The former group sometimes argues that a life of material blessings is a form of witness, or at least a reward. The latter argue that the only reason God would make His followers rich is so that they have more to give away. In other words, it can be hard to discuss the subject thoroughly without drifting into political philosophies, which I think goes outside NarniaWeb's guidelines. But maybe someone else can figure out a way to discuss it that stays within the rules.

There is a quote by Joseph Telushkin that I found interesting:

Life can be meaningful and worthwhile, even if one is poor. Throughout history, most people have been poor, and there is no reason to think that they derived no enjoyment from their lives because of that. Poor people are as capable of wealthy people of being in love with their spouses and having loving relationships with their children, blessing that can bring people more joy than money (indeed, there is no shortage of wealthy people who commit suicide, precisely because they lack such relationships). Life may be harder without money, but if the only thing that made [a person's] life worthwhile until now was his wealth, then his life was worthless even before he lost his money.

God wants to bless His children abundantly. He promises that He will give us back what we give one-hundred fold.

Actually I agree on most of them. God wants, God promises, God will, and God gives back a hundred-fold. I just don't know when, or how, or in what form. He may do it, or he might send us. Certainly if we don't like the look of the world we're in, we know where to find the nearest charity, soup kitchen, or fellow church member we see every week who is in need.

The body we have is only temporary. When we shed this coat we’re not dying, we’re going to our Home.

Yes and no. Paul called our earthly bodies the seed that must die and be buried to sprout into new life. In that sense the body is temporary in its present condition. But it is permanent in the sense that it is the one we will be resurrected and glorified in.

Paul said, "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:7b). Paul adds, "Therefore, whether we are at home [on earth away from Him] or away from home [and with Him], we are constantly ambitious and strive earnestly to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9). This body is our home.

I'm sorry to say this, but I believe Ms. Barbara Ehrenreich is wrong. I don’t mean to sound rude because I’m not trying to be. First of all the full title of her book gets me. What’s wrong with “looking on the bright side”? I’m not saying to ignore the downs, but what good will it do to focus on them? They only bring worry and fear. Quite honestly I think it’s rude to be harsh on someone who loves God so much. I don’t think she has a right to be harsh on them or anyone. She doesn’t personally know them does she? In short, I completely, 100% disagree with her. Again, I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m just stating how I feel about that.

I don't think you are rude for disagreeing with her, or for sticking up for a preacher who has done some good for you. Ehrenreich's argument is more like saying that "look on the bright side" has been mis-used. If people get cancer, they must have "needed" it. If they die, they didn't fight hard enough. If they feel pressure to "be positive", they might conceal physical pain and emotional distress, which doesn't help them get well but is very convenient for their medical professionals and their caregivers. (Ehrenreich had cancer, which was when she started to write Bright-sided.) If people are poor, they must not be faithful enough. They must be sinning, so if they never get rich they must have never been believers. (Ehrenreich experimented for a year living on nothing but minimum-age jobs, which is when she started to write Nickel and Dimed.) If people get a good job and lose it, it can't be the economy but must be a flaw or sin in themselves. They need motivational speakers to "fix" them. (Ehrenreich experimented for a year going to career fairs and self-help motivational seminars, which is when she started to write Bait and switched.) As for her attack on Prosperity Gospel, for what it's worth, she attended the Osteen church before writing about him.

If you get a chance to read Bright-sided and feel a tug to do so, I think you'll probably come away disagreeing with her about 60 percent (as opposed to the 100 percent disagreeing now). After all, I never said I agree with her in all things, or even in half of things. But I think she brings up some good points that we as believers need to address.

Shadowlander wrote:

As the old adage says, you can't take it with you when you go.

And as the old song says, in Heaven the streets are paved with gold and the land flowing with milk and honey.

There was a joke about the man who figured out how to take it with him when it was his time to go. He arrived at the Pearly Gates dragging a suitcase too heavy to carry. Saint Peter asked him why he packed for the afterlife, since God provides everything we will need. The man opened the suitcase and proudly showed St. Peter all the bricks of gold bullion.

"Bet you've never seen anything like this, eh?" the man bragged.

"No, indeed," said St. Peter. "Why did you bring pavement?"

If people get cancer, they must have "needed" it. If they die, they didn't fight hard enough. If they feel pressure to "be positive", they might conceal physical pain and emotional distress, which doesn't help them get well but is very convenient for their medical professionals and their caregivers. (Ehrenreich had cancer, which was when she started to write Bright-sided.) If people are poor, they must not be faithful enough. They must be sinning, so if they never get rich they must have never been believers. (Ehrenreich experimented for a year living on nothing but minimum-age jobs, which is when she started to write Nickel and Dimed.) If people get a good job and lose it, it can't be the economy but must be a flaw or sin in themselves. They need motivational speakers to "fix" them.

Bad enough they've formulated a wishy-washy, dumbed-down version of the Gospel, but then they went and did this. I've come across a lot of this attitude and so have people in my family. We've had more than our share of financial difficulty and illnesses and even so-called friends have demonstrated the belief that somehow we haven't been "good" enough, thus God has capriciously decided to smite us. If being a good Christian really brought with it material wealth, good health, and everything else you could want, then how can you explain the Apostles? I'm a bit rusty on Church history, but I believe only John died of natural causes; the rest were martyred. These men certainly weren't rich either. The history of the Christian faith is filled with persecution, poverty, illness, and famine. Are we expected to believe that all of those people were bad Christians?

One other thing I wanted to say. I really dislike the word doctrine. Christianity isn’t based on a bunch of doctrine put together, but on a relationship with Jesus, our Saviour. To me the word doctrine is too religious (and yes I know this is a religion thread…) and seems like a bunch of rules and regulations. No. That’s not at all what Christianity is. It’s admitting that you need Jesus and you can’t do anything on your own. It’s not works-based, but it is a relationship.

From Wiktionary:
1. A belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.
2. The body of teachings of a religion, or a religious leader, organization, group or text.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what doctrine actually is. Doctrine isn't rules and regulations; I don't really know where you could have gotten this idea. Doctrine is the fence between what is actual Christianity and heresy or outright blasphemy. You throw out doctrine and you're left with whatever makes people feel warm and fuzzy. That's how "I know I'm a good Christian because I have lots of money." gets preached in pulpits instead of being laughed at.

Well, I don't want to pick on any preachers or TV Ministries in particular. Though I do have issues with some of them, I don't want to offend anyone .

But on the general issue of Prosperity Gospel, especially as it relates to similar strains in the New Age and in Commercial Yoga "Cults", I lean towards TOM's views. Ehrenreich isn't the first to point to a lot of the problems with Pop Theology/Psychology. Wendy Kaminer's I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional dealt with many of the same issues back in the early 90's.

A lot of the material really grew out of the crossover between early Self Help doctrines of people as diverse as Norman Vincent Peale's "Positive Thinking", and Werner Erhard's EST. Add in some of the Eastern Gurus capitalizing in the 80s and 90s on the growth of the New Age movement and you end up with a rather mercenary form of theology. Not to mention folk like Tony Robbins.

Now its nearly impossible to distinguish between "Prosperity Gospel" and the New Age version of "Karma". If you are poor or have cancer, you just don't have the right "Spiritual" attitude and are undeserving. If you are Rich and Healthy, its because you have the "right" attitude and you deserve it, never mind how you actually made your millions or billions.

A few people are getting very rich selling this stuff to us, and I question any Preacher, Guru, or "Motivational" Speaker who preach these sorts of doctrines. In my view these doctrines go against what most religions actually teach. Concepts such as Karma or Grace have been misused for centuries to prop up rather harsh Caste and Class systems. But nowadays it is an Industry in and of itself that enriches itself by capitalizing on people's misfortunes.

I think those of you pointing out that this misuse of doctrine is un-Biblical are largely correct, though I haven't taken the time tonight to find quotes to back this up myself.

As to the term Doctrine, I am ambivalent. On the one hand it is a necessary word to refer to the tenets of any given religion. On the other hand, I rather feel that Doctrine is a crystallization of belief that tries to capture or put in a box something far too great for narrow definitions. Even Tolkien, when making the case to Lewis for Christianity argued that the Doctrines which are extracted from the myth are less true than the actual myth itself (in referring to Christ as the One True Myth of course , but I take his point nonetheless).

GB

@Bookwyrm: wow, we agree on stuff!

We've had more than our share of financial difficulty and illnesses and even so-called friends have demonstrated the belief that somehow we haven't been "good" enough, thus God has capriciously decided to smite us. If being a good Christian really brought with it material wealth, good health, and everything else you could want, then how can you explain the Apostles? I'm a bit rusty on Church history, but I believe only John died of natural causes; the rest were martyred. These men certainly weren't rich either. The history of the Christian faith is filled with persecution, poverty, illness, and famine. Are we expected to believe that all of those people were bad Christians?

Amen and amen! My family has been severely financially challenged for many years now. Are we living in sin? No. The early church experienced plenty of persecution and suffering. And they owned almost nothing. The same is true for thousands of Christians today, whether they live in a prosperous nation or a poverty-stricken one.

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

As I said before, our reward is in heaven, not here on earth = a crown of life and a mansion in heaven.

Yet God blesses some Christians materially. Why? So they can give! We're to be a channel or river of blessing. If God blesses us now, whatever form that blessing takes, we're to give to those in need--whether or not they're Christians. But we should give to Christians first. And our example is Christ [2 Corinthians 8]. If God needs X amount of money [or food or clothes, etc] in X place for X reason, He leads a materially blessed servant to give. How many times did George Muller receive food, money, clothing, and other items for his orphanages in response to prayer? And who gave? A willing servant who had what was needed. Borden of Yale (1887-1913), "heir to the Borden family fortune," in his will "bequeathed $1 million to to Christian missions, including to China Inland Mission which he was joining, Moody Bible Institute and Moody Church, Princeton Theological Seminary, several Presbyterian mission boards and other agencies."

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. ... But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

(underlining mine of course )

Hey, it happens occasionally.

Prosperity Gospel = God as a divine vending machine.

Modern Christians have completely twisted the actual meaning of trials and tribulations. They exist to help us grow in our faith, to test us, to make us better people and better Christians. But the modern attitude seems to be that if you have any troubles at all, you're being punished. This is beyond absurd. It's like when you were a baby, if your parents never allowed you to stand up and try to walk to go get that toy you wanted or the bottle that rolled away, but instead constantly fetched everything you wanted, would you ever learn to walk? You'd be content to sit around, screaming until your parents ran and brought you what you needed.

GB, it's curious that you mention all those names, because Ehrenreich mentions every one of them, except for Wendy Kaminer. I don't think Ehrenreich goes so far as to call Positive Thinking a "New Age religion," but she lays some of the groundwork for people who would.

No, I don't think we should be negative. We're called to faith, hope, and love, which are richer and deeper than just Being Positive. We live in a world of grace, and grace doesn't always makes sense to our limited human understanding. For my part I find the idea that God "must" want us to be rich stumps me when I look at the number of non-believers and even evildoers who are rich. And the idea that people "must" be poor because of sin -- that poor children die because of some sin of theirs or their parents -- doesn't make more sense to me than the notion that all the children who died in the Haitian earthquake must have "deserved" that either.

The disciples saw a crippled man beside the road and asked Jesus, "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" Jesus said, "Neither." He then said that God would use the situation to glorify Himself. So whatever makes us think that rich and poor are good ways to identify the holiness of other people, that impulse has been around for a long time. And that's before anyone mentions The Book of Job!

Well TOM, it's important to remember that none of the psychological techniques or religious doctrines in this New Age "Stew" that have been misinterpreted and misused are new ideas, or even "bad" when applied correctly as originally intended.

Norman Vincent Peal who coined "Positive Thinking" was a Protestant preacher who capitalized on Pop (some say Pseudo) Psychology. And indeed the techniques of Affirmation can have beneficial effects to ward of cynicism and utter despair in the face of tribulation. The story of Job is very apt. But to attribute magical powers to "Positive Thinking" to the extent that it can bring about positive change and prosperity without any other work is beyond irresponsible and dangerous.

Werner Erhard was influenced by Zen and Scientology (probably enough said right there ). And many of the techniques EST uses are perfectly valid tools for achieving inner strength based on Zen techniques. But EST takes it to another level by commercializing it and disinforming people about its magical properties of attracting wealth and good fortune.

Likewise, Hindu Yogis and Gurus from India and Korea (like Moonies and Dahn Yoga) have been selling their snake oil versions of legitimate Spiritual, Psychological, and Physical techniques to gullible Westerners to enrich themselves.

Even the more secular types of Motivational proselytizers promote a magical view of Positive Thinking (the "laws of attraction" attracting wealth and fortune to oneself). Mainly, such flagrant hustlers attract wealth and fortune to their own coffers.

I would hope that people who become involved or not with these sorts of things wouldn't become so cynical as to throw out the Spiritual baby with the Charlatan bathwater. And that they might turn instead to the original teachings to help them understand their place in the world. True Spiritual Practice isn't about creating wealth, or greed, or blaming people for their misfortunes. It's about strengthening our Spirits, or finding God, in the face of suffering and misfortune. It's about helping others and ourselves work through the pain of life to find (as TOM puts it) Faith, Love, Hope, and Grace .

GB

The Old Maid, I definitely see where you are coming from more clearly now. I definitely agree with you on most if not all of what you posted. I think when I first read your first post I was multi-tasking so I might not have been paying as close attention. About the body conversation I agree with what you’re saying. I didn’t explain very well in my post. Sorry! Once again in reading your response to my ideas on the Bright-sided I again understand it better. I think I was just rushing into things in my first post and didn’t take too much time to look into it. I might read it sometime! I’m sort of curious now.

From Wiktionary:
1. A belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.
2. The body of teachings of a religion, or a religious leader, organization, group or text.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what doctrine actually is. Doctrine isn't rules and regulations; I don't really know where you could have gotten this idea. Doctrine is the fence between what is actual Christianity and heresy or outright blasphemy. You throw out doctrine and you're left with whatever makes people feel warm and fuzzy. That's how "I know I'm a good Christian because I have lots of money." gets preached in pulpits instead of being laughed at.

I actually looked up the word “Doctrine” on dictionary.com before I posted the first time. Their definition was “a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government”. Let me better explain myself. In my personal experiences the word hasn’t been used in the it’s true sense. It’s been twisted and manipulated to become rules and regulations. That’s why I cringe at the word. In the true sense it isn’t a bad word at all. However, circumstances in my life have influenced how I see the word.

Modern Christians have completely twisted the actual meaning of trials and tribulations. They exist to help us grow in our faith, to test us, to make us better people and better Christians. But the modern attitude seems to be that if you have any troubles at all, you're being punished. This is beyond absurd.

Bookwyrm, you make a very good point here. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, Christians and non-Christian’s think God is angry with them and is punishing them. Your statement abouve is a very good one.

Non-Christians should fear God's punishment, smartypants, not because He is mean or an idiot, but because He is holy and by nature humans are wretched, rebel sinners. I think you agree with this -- that non-Christians do face a future punishment of God's wrath. As to whether He punishes non-believers now -- I think Scripture shows that He does.

But briefly on doctrine: yes, the term can be abused by authoritarian leaders and such, who miss the point of the Bible's true teaching, whether it is systematic such as Romans, or narrative such as Acts. Yet all Biblical books do contain doctrine, and by that I mean:

Propositional truths about God's nature, truth, actions and desires.

Sometimes Christians turn "doctrine" into a purely "head knowledge" that is disconnected from real life, loving Christians and our neighbors and so on. If a Christian does that, he isn't valuing doctrine too much, but not enough, for real doctrine includes Christ's and His disciples' commands to love one another and speak and act in love. Furthermore, doctrine isn't just lists of commands. Primarily theology is defined as the study of God. That includes what He wants, His Old-Covenant Law and the ways we should live, but doctrine/theology is not limited to that. And we'll only care about any of this if we love Him!

However, other Christians overreact to that extreme and say things like "it's not about doctrine, it's about relationship." I'm not sure they've carefully thought that out. Related ideas interpret Jesus' constant sparring with the Pharisees this way: He was all about love, and they were all about Law. Thus Christians often think, even subconsciously:

Jesus fought the Pharisees because they were all about the Law, and He was all about love.

AKA: Jesus wasn’t about rules, He was about love and personal relationship with Him.

AKA: “Christianity isn’t about rules, it’s about relationship.”

More on that particular issue here. Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees for following the Law too much, but for rejecting the real Law.

If someone says to me, "It's not about doctrine, but relationship," I like to ask this question: what if I said, about my wife, It's not about doctrine (things I know about my wife), but relationship! ? It sounds nice, but it probably won't last long. To know my wife, to learn what she's done, who she is, what she likes and why I love her and she loves me, I need to know things about her. That means reading what she writes, and talking with her, spending time with her, working and playing with her.

Obviously this is not an exact parallel with how Christians commune with God. But the principle is the same: what we know about God, our doctrine, affects how we have our relationship with God.

It's possible that some people, who believe they're Christians, will find out doctrine was important after all. For example, a lot of professing Christians are going around claiming boldly that it's disgusting to think that God would sacrifice Himself/His Son as a substitute, suffering His wrath in place of sinners. It's not about this doctrine [which they say is mean and uncivilized], it's about relationship with Jesus, they claim.

But in their case they're ignoring a very important detail about the real Jesus. Scripture shows dying in place of sinners is exactly what He did. If people reject that, their "relationship" could be a long-distance one with an imaginary friend, a made-up Jesus Who doesn't exist.

Knowing truths about Him revealed in Scripture, and putting all of those doctrines together in a systematic way, isn't the sum-total of Christian faith and practice. Yet this is an enormous part of it.

Just as human relationships include knowledge about either person, so one's relationship with Christ depends on our knowledge about Him. The only way to know that is by reading the Word He inspired about Himself. The only way to figure it all out, as best we can for His glory and our growth, is to learn, love and live out doctrine.

My perspective isn’t based on what’s legal, but what’s religious and what’s not religious. And if one claims somehow to be above a system of morality or “neutral” between religious ideas, that is not a “neutral” view.

One may believe it’s neutral — yet that’s just more religion, believing that one has a superior morality to other beliefs or moral worldvies.

I don’t oppose that at all. Let’s hash it out, see who’s right and whether the Bible agrees or disagrees with an idea. But let’s be wary of nonsense about supposed “neutrality” or non-religion.

Fair point. You could say everything is from a religious point of view, whether one believes in God or not. Even my husband agrees with you, having mused that Communism seemed to be some sort of religion as much as a system of economics, politics or government, the way its supporters sometimes behaved.

When Karl Marx said that Religion was the opiate of the masses, wasn't he making a Religious statement? What about the State insistence on Atheism and its persecution of Christians, such as shooting that boy, I mentioned earlier in the thread, for proclaiming the Risen Christ? Am I discussing history, philosophy, Religion or politics when I mention that even Stalin led the USSR in prayer to the Almighty God when Moscow, itself, was threatened by the Nazis and the USSR was faced with defeat? And are you going to say that I am initiating one of those verboten political discussions here if I go on to admit I might be inaccurate, since I only know of that incident because my grandmother told me.

In ordinary practical terms, one has to draw the line somewhere. Christ did it when he told the Pharisees 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's'. It is one thing to pray that one does one's work well, that one's knowledge and understanding of a subject is sufficient to pass exams, and to trust that one's point of view in writing an essay won't be marked down because it disagrees with whatever the teacher has to say or teach in the context of that subject.

But it is quite another thing to be so distracted by thinking how I am going to answer your post earlier that I mess up routine tasks that I should have been concentrating on. Isn't it both unreasonable and rude to interrupt a class in progress unless it is really necessary, say to locate someone urgently, or to deliver a message? And do you really think it is reasonable to disrupt a class with a dispute about something that is not relevant to the subject at hand? That is the perspective that I was arguing from, whichever sort of school it would be.

Communism, like Evolution, and like Christianity, itself, looms large in quite a number of subjects, whether politics, economics, science, religion and history. Sometimes it pays to concentrate in class and to what subject and context is relevant, and to argue judiciously and knowledgeably within the context of that subject.

Modern Christians have completely twisted the actual meaning of trials and tribulations. They exist to help us grow in our faith, to test us, to make us better people and better Christians. But the modern attitude seems to be that if you have any troubles at all, you're being punished. This is beyond absurd. It's like when you were a baby, if your parents never allowed you to stand up and try to walk to go get that toy you wanted or the bottle that rolled away, but instead constantly fetched everything you wanted, would you ever learn to walk? You'd be content to sit around, screaming until your parents ran and brought you what you needed.

Yes, you are right. And if you want the Scriptural reference, it isn't only in Job, it is also in Isaiah 48:10, believe it or not. I seem to have been quoting that Biblical reference quite a bit. Trials and tribulations, including poverty, are as much tests as retribution for past errors, allowing some people (Christians) to show the stuff they are made of, 'for my own name's sake', and to be 'tempered in the furnace of poverty' whilst such trials and tribulations may crush others (non Christians). And adversity happens, irrespective of the faults of individuals, or even whole groups of people, though they assuredly have such faults individually, if not collectively.

Communism dominated much of the 20th century, until fifty years after the start of WW2, that philosophy of governing states imploded in Europe, in particular. It is the struggle to survive, to overcome adversity, to own one's own things, to pay one's debts, and to rear one's children which provides the motivation to succeed in life. To get a job, or a better job. To develop a good idea, to use one's abilities to the best possible effect, to get recognition for one's efforts, to sustain one's family and to do it all in the right spirit to the glory of God. If the State owns everything, houses everyone cheaply, allows people mere pocket money for their survival, whilst taking the fruits of people's efforts for the greater good of everyone, never letting the individual to decide for his or herself, there is no incentive for people to try for any better way of life, so that in the end nobody is any better off.

Isn't this idea of 'prosperity gospels' and 'positive thinking' making some of the same assumptions about wealth as did Communism? That there is a quick monetary fix for all the world's ills? That wealth is a legitimate life goal, or that the rich are somehow always to blame for someone else's poverty? That collectivism is the way to an ideal society? That unequal distribution of wealth is the fault of the individual - and sometimes, but not always, it is - or always by a class of people greedily oppressing others? That any Government, made up of sinful humans, can do for the individual what the individual can't or won't do for himself? That is to say, keep the individual happy, provided for, healthy, and out of harm's way, whilst refraining from greedy and unlawful sinning?

I don't like either version of the prosperity gospel. The true gospel is repent and believe in Jesus, the only Savior from sin; be ready to meet your Maker when He decides your time is up. It's all about eternity. True prosperity? A mansion in heaven and a crown of life!

And amen to that.

Prosperity in our culture seems to be defined as success. The problem, in my opinion, is how our culture defines success. (I'm speaking on behalf of America btw.) We tend to define success as how much money you have, or how many things you have. I think we need to be careful in how we define success and not define it as "he who has the most." I believe that God wants our lives to be lived fully and richly. But the Bible is very clear that our treasures should be stored in heaven. The Bible does not promise that you will be rich here. Nor does it say that you will be poor.

A popular Christian belief floating around is that if you believe in Christ your life will be great. I disagree with that completely. I think that the moment you become a Christian, your life on this Earth gets worse. When you accept Christ you have a big X on your back. You are a marked target. We seem to often forget about the enemy. You know that guy, satan? We are no threat to satan if we don't believe in Christ, but when we do believe in Christ we are a huge threat .

Suffering has a huge role to play in following Christ and we has a Church seemed to try and avoid suffering. I don't know if this is because we have allowed too much cultural influence on the Church or what the reason is, but we have done so. We've preached to people that God will bring them financial success, or that being a Christian is easy. Neither of which are true.

Being a Christian, though, has the greatest promises that anyone could ever imagine. First off, you have the gift of eternal life with God. That's kind of a big deal . This obviously focuses on the life after this. But some gifts that we have here are, of course, the Holy Spirit and peace. Christians should have a peace and joy about them. Not joy that is dependent upon emotions, but joy that flows from a river much deeper than that. These things along make following Christ worth it.

In this life though there is suffering to be had. Any person who tries to avoid suffering and calls themselves a follower of Christ is a liar. I myself am guilty of this. But Christ never taught to avoid suffering. In contrary, Christ taught to embrace suffering.

Rant = over.

Non-Christians should fear God's punishment, smartypants, not because He is mean or an idiot, but because He is holy and by nature humans are wretched, rebel sinners. I think you agree with this -- that non-Christians do face a future punishment of God's wrath. As to whether He punishes non-believers now -- I think Scripture shows that He does.

I think we might be some-what on the same page, but let me just clarify what I believe and know to be true. God is not a God of hatred and punishment and wrath. He is a Holy and Just God. Therefore those that do not come into a relationship with Him will he condemned to Hell, but He does not look forward to it or enjoys it. He loves everyone believer or non-believer. Quite honestly I disagree with your last sentence. There are countless verses, especially in Jeremiah, that talk about the punishment of God, but that was Under the Old Covenant. The law only brought death because no one could keep it. I do believe, of course, that non-believers will go to Hell and have an eternal punishment, but I don’t believe they are punished here on Earth. People’s choices and attitudes seem to do that for them.

I like to refer to 1 John 4:18

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Now who has perfect love? I can definitely tell you it’s not humans. While those who know Christ are becoming more and more intimate with Him on a daily basis (I’m generalizing here. I know everyone is different) we’re still human. We slip up; less and less as we grow and learn, but we still do and always will until we met our Father face to face in Heaven. And as it says in John 3:16 God loved the WHOLE world, not just those who are going to Heaven, but everyone. His love is Perfect Love and as it says in the verse above it has nothing to do with punishment because that stems from fear and fear is driven out by the Perfect Love.

However, other Christians overreact to that extreme and say things like "it's not about doctrine, it's about relationship." I'm not sure they've carefully thought that out. […]If someone says to me, "It's not about doctrine, but relationship," I like to ask this question: what if I said, about my wife, It's not about doctrine (things I know about my wife), but relationship! ? It sounds nice, but it probably won't last long. To know my wife, to learn what she's done, who she is, what she likes and why I love her and she loves me, I need to know things about her. That means reading what she writes, and talking with her, spending time with her, working and playing with her.

It is about a relationship. I would say that from the relationship comes knowledge of God and Jesus. Take the example you have of your wife. Don’t you know those things about her because you have a relationship with her? I really don’t see any other way of knowing those things

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Here the words “religious” and “religion” are used. In English they mean essentially the same thing except one is an adjective and one is a noun. However in the original Greek they are two different words. The word for religious literally means to tremble (with a little sub a by the definition- trembling, fearful). Now I know this isn’t what Christianity is about. The word relgion in the Greek means religious worship (sub a- esp. external that consists of ceremonies). Now with the understanding of those two words it seems as if the “True Religion of Christianity” is not all the practices and how Holy we are, but of the outflowing of a relationship with God and then going out and pouring out onto others.

Trials and tribulations, including poverty, are as much tests as retribution for past errors, allowing some people (Christians) to show the stuff they are made of, 'for my own name's sake', and to be 'tempered in the furnace of poverty' whilst such trials and tribulations may crush others (non Christians). And adversity happens, irrespective of the faults of individuals, or even whole groups of people, though they assuredly have such faults individually, if not collectively.

Under the Old Covenant yes, but under the new? Absolutely not. Retribution for past errors??? Christ took all of that on the Cross. Why does do we then have to pay again for them? He died for sins past, present, and future. There’s no need for retribution. It is the finished work of the Cross.

Also I think waggawerewolf27, you are drawing to fine of an overlapping line between Communism and Prosperity Gospel, as so many people call it. The idea, I believe, behind both principles were what people saw best and to be quite honest, out of the best intentions. Now please don’t go around calling me a Communist or Prosperity Gospel-er (?). All I’m saying is that it might be taking it too far to compare the two on such a level.

I don't like either version of the prosperity gospel. The true gospel is repent and believe in Jesus, the only Savior from sin; be ready to meet your Maker when He decides your time is up. It's all about eternity. True prosperity? A mansion in heaven and a crown of life!

220, do you know what the word “repent” literally translates to? It’s literally a complete 180 degree change of the mind. You don’t have to spend hours on the floor begging for God’s forgiveness. We already posses it and will always posses it. Also, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s all about eternity. Yes, that is a huge part of it, but as we are on this earth we are called to be lights to the world; be Christ-like and love like He would, etc. Quite honestly if you are “truly saved” (I’m sorry I hate that expression) then you are already seated in Heavenly places in Heaven and Heaven is down on earth (not literally… let me explain). Heaven is a dimension not a place. Yes when we die we will go to Heaven, don’t get me wrong, I totally 100%, without a doubt believe that. I have heard so many people pray for Heaven to come down to earth; I’ve even done some of it myself, but guess what? It already is here. Who lives inside of us? Christ. Everything about Him is in our Spirit man, we are one, and perfect in it. However, it is our soul that needs to be aligned with that.

It is about a relationship. I would say that from the relationship comes knowledge of God and Jesus. Take the example you have of your wife. Don’t you know those things about her because you have a relationship with her? I really don’t see any other way of knowing those things

Relationship and knowledge of the one to whom you are trying to relate are inseparable. You can't have a close relationship with a complete stranger.

It is possible to know of God without having a relationship with him; but it is not possible to have a relationship with God without having knowledge of God.

You introduced the analogy of marriage. Tell me--is it possible to have a satisfying relationship with your spouse without knowing anything about him/her? Of course not.

We can't have a saving relationship with God if we don't know who he is. Doctrine is what we know about God. Worshipping a God that is not God is called idolatry.