Oh come on bro. Just the act of discussing this is engaging in theology in a way. Just because I'm not doing "it" the way you wish I would on this topic doesn't prove anything or whatever. I don't in the slightest feel the need to compile and post a counter argument and I'll gladly tell you why: There isn't enough information in Scripture for me to be on firm footing. I am never going to say "I'm right about this and here's why" when I can't point to Scripture in context and say "See this. This is your proof." In other word's, I don't have a reliable and provable counter argument and I've no qualms about admitting it. You seem to think you've got it all figured out and you've proven something that needs counter argued but you've mostly present logic and reason from your viewpoint based upon Scripture that doesn't give us the full answers about this particular subject. In regards to this? Not much and you know that. Nope, I don't think lusty angels having children with human woman is the only possible explanation. See above. I gave my opinion. If you disagree and think I'm loony that's your prerogative. I'm always willing to be edified and if you had posted anything to change my mind - you should know I'm being straight out here- I would have thanked you for it. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong so I feel no need to refute you bro. At the same time it's not like this is fantasy fair (Fare? IDK ) like Star Trek. There is Scripture that talks about these things and gives us an outline without filling in all of the details. There are questions about this part that won't be answered until we are raised and see each other in the new heaven and earth. We won't be looking through the glass darkly then, there won't be anything at all in our way. I don't dream of any percentage at all about this. I happily admit that I could be totally wrong. My point about your statement remains and is still valid nonetheless.
I wouldn't say Kierkegaard has completely convinced me I'm wrong, but he has shown me that I do need to do more research on what "Sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6. From everywhere I've looked so far it seems to indicate angels. But, I'll keep looking. It doesn't matter what I think it means. It doesn't matter what Kierkegaard thinks it means. It matters what the Bible says it means...
Ok, so after looking at various translations of Genesis 6, what makes me believe the "Sons of God" is referring to angels is this..."Sons of God" is contrasted against the "daughters of men." If the sons of God were ALSO just mere human men, why are they being so strongly contrasted as if to indicate they weren't ALSO from men? They are shown as if they are completely DIFFERENT from the daughters that came from men, not even remotely the same. Also, if the "Sons of God" were just human men, why did giants suddenly come from this union between ordinary human men and ordinary human women?
Minor nitpick, it's Kansas City in Missouri. It's not quite in Kansas. And that person is still the lead admin.
He's fairly senior in the leadership there, but not senior enough to get a specific mention among the leadership on the web page. If you've ever endured what passes for worship at IHOP you've got a stronger stomach than I have. If you feel inclined watch one of their streaming videos and see how long you can endure it. At the church I went to when I first moved to the US it was far from rare for me to walk out during a service when they were streaming IHOP. Imagine someone singing "My soul yearns for you, my soul yearns for you, noone else will do, noone else will do" over and over for 15 minutes (yes, I timed it). Then look at stories that seem to be relentless coming from interns who have been there. Look at the way they butcher Scripture (check out the usage of 1Co 1:22 where their Israel Mandate is concerned). Honestly, if a young Christian man told me he was thinking of watching anything from IHOP I'd seriously recommend a porn movie as a preferable alternative. At least the porn movie doesn't pretend to point towards Jesus. Sorry to be quite so blunt about it but that's honestly the level of regard I have for IHOP.
As a regular admin over on BF I had no access to read private messages, other than my own. I believe that required an application called something like Croozer, and in order to run that you needed root access to the server. So there were probably only two or three people who could do it. It should surprise nobody that it's technically possible to read private messages - they are little more than text entries in a database - the only question is who might be able to do it and under what circumstances might it be done. And even in the red suit over at BF I didn't have the access required to do it.
I'd just like to pick up on this (wow, the thread leapt forward while I wasn't looking!) For me the main regrets I have regarding my time over on BF was not taking a stand as an admin over a few things that just weren't right. Shortly before I took off the red suit a number of things happened that can only be described as seriously shoddy. The public face of it was all well and good but the reality was truly rotten. At the time I saved HTML copies of threads because I thought I might want them, if the then powers that were decided to get ugly. On the other hand I got to come across some people I'm glad to have crossed paths with (many of whom are here), learned a lot about myself, and also learned a lot about simply not letting go just because someone decides to throw their weight around. When a certain senior leader of the time (naming no names here) decided to try and push me into a corner it was quite out of character for me to push right back at him. I honestly expected to get banned when I faced him down on the open board and used his own lines against him. But for reasons I still don't fully understand I wasn't banned, and in the process gained a lot of confidence in simple matters like pushing for explanations of theologies that just don't seem to work. Truth be told I didn't even realise how it had helped me grow until I was talking to a lady at my church back in England about querying the minister of the church over here about some of their practices. She just looked and said something like "wow, look at you, challenging the minister" and until she said it I didn't even consider how I'd changed. Yes, BF had a lot about it that was rotten. Divulging specifics this long after the fact isn't going to help anybody so that's all I'm going to say about it (and I only say that much because I saw a few things in the Admins Only archives that can only be described as abusive), but I certainly grew a lot over there. From what people say most of the growth was in essentially the right direction, so I'm glad for that.
Elsewhere, they call that "chanting" which is a way to induce a trance state. That they then call an "encounter with the Lord" when really it's just a brain state which you can easily induce at home doing the same exact thing. It's certainly not worship.
What are your thoughts on the counter-points I raised above? Namely, that 'sons of God' is a title for those who are obedient to God, which would not include the supposed angels in Genesis 6 (and we can think of this by way of comparison to 'children of God' language, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament). The other point was your sneaking 'giants' into the text - Genesis 6 doesn't talk about giants. Rather, you're associating the word 'Nephilim' in Genesis 6, with its use in Number 13; but, if the Nephilim, i.e. giants, were the result of cross-breeding between humans and angels (all of whom were killed in the flood), then what do we make of the giant, Goliath?
The church I attended for a time seemed to think it was useful. I rapidly got to thinking they might as well be chanting "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna".
When you so easily confuse a self-induced emotional state with God's presence, it's probably safe to say that your religion is a false one and your "god" is your own brain.
I'm not sure it's quite so simple. One would hope the leadership would be aware of the potential for what's little more than emotional manipulation paired with misrepresentation of what the congregation is experiencing but I suspect a lot of folks there truly don't know any better. If they are targeting younger people (as I understand they do) then it's hard to see how one would expect those with less life experience to understand what is really going on. And once they've been there a while, constantly experiencing "God's presence" while in the building and also realizing that "God's presence" mysteriously departs shortly after they leave, it's easy to see how they would come to associate the building with being in God's presence. I can't help thinking that an awful lot of the folks that go through something like this are victims rather than stupid.
The fallen angels WERE "obedient" to God...until they decided to leave Heaven to be with women. Not sure how Goliath came about, to be honest. The fallen angels that materialized bodies didn't die in the flood. All they had to do was dematerialize their bodies during the flood, just like the loyal angels that took on bodies who helped Lot must have done at some point when they returned to Heaven. Their Nephilim sons did die, though. If your logic is that since the angels fell, they couldn't be called "Sons of God," as only obedient ones would be "Sons of God" your thought that "Sons of God" were men that served God but then married pagan women...those men weren't obedient to God, either. How are they, then, being "Sons of God?" If Nephilim are portrayed as giants in Numbers 13, why do you have an issue with me calling them giants in Genesis 6? Aren't both scriptures referring to the same beings?
I don't think they're stupid, just misguided. And thankfully, many are coming out and sharing their stories. Hopefully eventually the whole thing will collapse into itself, but then again for every IHOP that gets exposed as a sham there's 100 more happily pilfering people for money and selling them snake oil ... because Christianity is so simple at its core, people who don't really want that simplicity (because while it's simple, it's certainly not easy) will always happily follow false teachers dangling carrots in front of them that don't exist. But when you call young people "forerunners" and make them feel "special", then you've got a really nice juicy carrot going on that you can pretty much dangle indefinitely ... until God thumps them on the head and helps them get over themselves and helps them understand that "special" is about the entire global Christian community as a whole, not the individual American kid wanting or needing to be extra, because regular and simple service in our mundane little lives is too boring to concern oneself with. When the "Gospel" is being sold to people as "God loves you and has a special and fantastic plan for your life" ... how do you combat that? Certainly not with "yes God loves you, but you need to leave sin in the dust and your ego at the cross and lay down your life and go find oppressed and marginalized people and help them while remaining obscure, and even risk death if you live in a country that doesn't afford religious freedom". Not so attractive to your average American teenager wanting to be "special for God" and be recognized and validated.
The angels who helped Lot were able to blind the men of Sodom. That's not a human ability. Why no punishment for the angels, then? For the men in question it was a formal (human) title. How could Scripture be referring to the same beings? The Nephilim ceased to exist after the flood, and since you believe fallen angels lost the ability to create bodies, they wouldn't have been sleeping around with Philistine women.
My keyword would be inexperience. Coming from a charismatic background it took me some time to figure it out. Also that the whole atmosphere and what it breathes is addictive because it feels so good. Or as a brother once said to me, look at them, having multiple orgasms with the Lord. Imagine my shock.