Disqus - Latest Comments for zackallen

Re: Introducing Workflows | Planning Center Online

Zack Allen — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:39:40 -0000

Ahhhhh! Yes! Finally! THANK YOU!!!

Re: 5 Things I Wish Everyone in Church Knew About Gay Christians

Zack Allen — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:46:25 -0000

If you don't mind sharing, what's the Facebook group you're referring to?

Re: Why the Church can support “breadwinning” wives too

Zack Allen — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:12:38 -0000

It reminds me of similar disdain from previous generations toward my own when it comes to "knowledge" work as opposed to manual labor.

Pretty demeaning.

Re: Why the Church can support “breadwinning” wives too

Zack Allen — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:57:25 -0000

I'm a youth pastor at a smallish church in Arkansas. My wife is a social worker and makes a LOT more money than I do (which still isn't very much). :)

Very grateful for that.

Re: Is the evolution-creationism debate over?

Zack Allen — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:06:48 -0000

Perhaps it's best to understand the "win" for theistic evolution in terms of already-not-yet. As I see it, the work has been done and it's only a matter of time (and not much at that, I think) before it trickles out to the masses.

Re: Tuesdays With Jeff: Insights Into Your Health

Zack Allen — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:57:51 -0000

I'd love a copy. Been plant-strong for a year now, but my nobody else in my family has followed suit. Anytime I can make meals that appeal to them is a plus.

Re: Miniblog #149: I’ve No Good Answers for How to Replace a “Relationship with God”

Zack Allen — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:19:53 -0000

Ditto on Willard. Took me a long way from feeling detached from God to that elusive *relationship.*

Re: Giving away 20 free copies of Red Letter Revolution by Claiborne and Campolo

Zack Allen — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:55:26 -0000

I'd like to win!

Re: N. Carolina Pastor wants to trap LGBT folks behind electrified fences (evil)

Zack Allen — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:15:13 -0000

The congregation was cheering him on. That's perhaps that scariest part of all.

Re: Ask a Seventh-day Adventist...

Zack Allen — Fri, 18 May 2012 10:53:51 -0000

"Biblicist-y," eh? I'm not really sure what that means (rather, what you mean).

As for science, first, there's the simple matter of comparative anatomy. We look nothing like (inside or out) other carnivores or omnivores. See http://www.whale.to/a/comp.... for starters.

There's also the matter of studies demonstrating that other meat-eaters have been shown to not be able to develop atherosclerosis. Only herbivores do. See the work of WC Roberts for more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Finally, there's the research done by the likes of John McDougall (The Starch Solution), T. Colin Campbell (The China Study), Caldwell Esselstyn (Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease) and Neal Barnard linking cancers, diabetes, a range of cardiovascular issues and many other ailments to the consumption of animal proteins.

As for Jesus, I'm okay with Him eating meat. As I said before this is of little consequence to me. I don't need Jesus to be vegan/vegetarian in order to justify my choice.

You'll have to forgive me for not putting much weight in the Apostolic Canons. Even so, I don't see anything there I'd necessarily disagree with (other than removing someone from fellowship for abstaining from meat since I think Paul's teaching in Romans 14 clearly forbids such action). I suppose you could say my choice is a matter of "mortification" (and, over time, took on a health aspect). And again, I don't "abhor" meat. I loved it and probably still would, and I believe it's perfectly permissible to consume the flesh of an animal. I just don't think it is God's ideal for us (for the reasons I've given before and a host of others), and I'm convinced that it's not at all a healthy way to eat.

Blessings

Re: Ask a Seventh-day Adventist...

Zack Allen — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:13:26 -0000

My email notification says "ridiculous prooftext" and here I see it as "unconvincing prooftext." Odd. Not sure why that changed, but the original got me riled up, lol!

Here it is in context:

//
(28) God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ” (29) Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (30) And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.
//

The context, of course, is the first creation narrative in Genesis. God says what He wants people and animals to eat: plants. It's certainly not ridiculous, but by itself, I can see how it might be a tad unconvincing to someone that loves their meat (I do too, btw).

This, I think, is God's "creational ideal" as it pertains to diet. It wasn't until after the Fall and Flood that God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat in Genesis 9 (notice how closely it parallels Gen 1), but with a strict guideline and at a cost.

//
(9:1)Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. (2) The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. (3) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (4) “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it."
//

I also think we're moving in a direction toward reinstating God's creational ideals in the Renewed Heavens and Earth. Isaiah, IMO, looks forward to this time when he prophesies, "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain” (Isaiah 65:25).

There are, of course, plenty of arguments in favor of this view that I'd invite you to have a look at around the web. Greg Boyd did a series on it some years ago as well, but unfortunately his site is currently down. Further, nutrition and health science corroborates with the view that humans were not meant to consume animal proteins and that we are, in fact, obligate herbivores (not omnivores).

I don't really care that the early church anathematized those who abhorred meat (admittedly, I'm highly suspicious of this claim). I don't abhor meat and I don't go around judgmentally preaching that everyone has to live this way to be saved or find God's favor. It's simply a matter of personal preference based on how I understand Scripture and science and Holy Spirit conviction. Period. In fact, I cook steaks for my family and they tell they've never had better. Eating meat is perfectly permissible. I just don't think it's "best"

As far as Christ goes, I'm not totally convinced we can be sure Jesus ate the flesh of any animal, but it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Sorry for the lengthy reply. I hope you'll dig a little deeper. I was merely responding to the previous askers question about a verse in Genesis.

Re: Ask a Seventh-day Adventist...

Zack Allen — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:06:00 -0000

Genesis 1:29. I'm not an Adventist and this is one of my reasons for being a vegan too.

Re: Ask a Seventh-day Adventist...

Zack Allen — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:42:58 -0000

How did Adventists survive with William Miller, Samuel Snow and Ellen White being wrong about Jesus returning October 22, 1844 (The Great Disappointment)? Seems the movement would've disbanded shortly after. Instead, the doctrine of Investigative Judgement developed over time.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:53:11 -0000

Certainly, all sins are covered. As a proponent of Christus Victor atonement theory, I do not so much see Christ's death as "payment for sin" (although it is a valid expression) as I do a ransom from the grip of the devil. Christ's death set us free, free to lay hold of the promises and serve Him. Even so, none of us are perfected before we die and nothing imperfect shall last.

As with the vineyard workers, the reward (our inheritance in the coming Kingdom) is still the same. I don't think that's the issue. Rather, it's whether or not we get to enter that Kingdom with our impurities.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:24:01 -0000

I'm not totally sure I follow, so I don't want to assume too much in my response.

It seems to me you're saying that any selfless act would, in effect, earn us a place in the inheritance to come.

Is this right?

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:41:47 -0000

When did you attack you personally?

Why is (finally) beginning to think someone may not be paying attention (i.e. following me) or labeling an argument as a straw-man a personal attack?

Anyhoo...

I fully intended for that comment to be my last, but your response made it apparent to me that either I have not been as clear about my thinking as I need to be or you've simply been failing to "get it" for whatever reason. I've assumed the former throughout our time here, so I felt the need to clarify once more. As I said, my concern is not that you agree with me, just that you "get" me.

And this latest comment has left me feeling rather hopeless...

"So, as far as what I am hearing, God can either destroy or let individuals continue to suffer eternally. The only thing God cannot do is accept them, and I presume allow them into heaven."

Again, no. God has already forgiven them; accepted them just as they are; and won the victory over sin, death and the devil on their behalf. The only thing He cannot do is decide for them. Until we decide to receive the victory He has won, we are held in bondage and destined for destruction.

"Even though they are already forgiven and God therefore has nothing to hold against them, their choice to refuse God (during a span of 70 or so years) prevents them from God treating them as God's forgiven children."

Again, no. God already treats everyone as forgiven children. If He didn't He wouldn't have come to destroy the work of the devil on their behalf. Appealing to 70 years being but a blip in the scope of eternity is not a good tactic, IMO. While it is not long from God's perspective, it is a VERY long time from the perspective of an individual human life. Further, I am not *completely* opposed to some form of post-mortem evangelism. I'm of the opinion that most people have never really encountered the gospel and people truly embodying it. I'm also of the opinion that God cares for them a great deal more than you or I ever could. So I'm confident that He has something up His sleeve for dealing with such people on a person-to-person basis. (But that's a different topic.)

"I understand your position. You think that God has forgiven all sins but in order for one to enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness one must accept the forgiveness that has already happened."

After this comment, I'm still not confident you do. Although, yes, in a nutshell THIS last bit is my position.

"However you slice it, that puts humans in ultimate control and holds God powerless to do God's will which is that all be saved."

I agree it is God's will for all to be saved, and I do believe that, in spite of this, not everyone will be. Does this mean God, in the end, doesn't get what God wants? To an extent, yes it does, but I think this was a risk He was wiling to take for any true love will always involve risk.

Bless you, David. I mean it.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:39:06 -0000

Question for ya, Kurt.

You said, "Those who hold onto hatred will ultimately cease to exist, because nothing human will remain."

I'd like to know at what point you think someone ceases to be human. What constitutes being human? What must be lost for "nothing human" to remain? What is the "bare minimum" that would need to be left to still be considered human?

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:36:00 -0000

Mark 9:48 (referencing Isaiah 66:24) denotes eternality to the *place* of punishment.

"The worms that eat [the dead bodies of those who rebelled against God] will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

In other words, "eternally destroyed" more likely means that the *result* of destruction will last forever rather than the *process*.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:22:43 -0000

I, like Kurt, am an annihilationist too, but I'm not too fond of the post-mortem evangelism thinking here either.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (5 – Razing Gehenna!)

Zack Allen — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:20:36 -0000

I think Greg Boyd, the guy whose position Kurt closely adheres to, would say yes. I think the idea is that nothing impure can enter God's presence and since none of us are perfected this side of the first death we would still have some impurities that need burning away. The more we grow in discipleship to Christ, the less we have to be burned away. At least I think this is the gist.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:29:15 -0000

What you've argued against IS illogical, but it's not the position I've espoused here. It's a straw-man. Even the one destroyed has been forgiven. That concept is obviously difficult for you to swallow, for how can it be forgiveness if the end result is destruction?

So one more time, what happens to you is not up to God. It's up to you. This does not mean His love or forgiveness are ineffective or thwarted. It simply means that we have a choice to make, for any true love involves risk. And God risked a lot. But as free agents, we can *choose* to remain in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. We're already forgiven. That's what *enables* us to choose life. But again, we don't have to.

I understand that is not how you see it (you don't even think Satan is real), and I don't expect that through my words here your mind will be changed. I only hope you'll stop misrepresenting my position in your arguments against it. Deal with my position on its turf and terms rather than dismissing part of it (e.g. the reality of Satan) and then arguing against that new position that isn't mine.

What I've expressed here isn't really anything more than a standard Christus Victor atonement model with annihilation as the ultimate end for the unrepentant as opposed to ETC or Universalism.

Blessings

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:16:41 -0000

David, I've already answered this question for you according to my views. I'm beginning to think you aren't paying attention.

God forgives. Period. He forgives because He is forgiving. He didn't even need Jesus to die in order to forgive us as some profess. He forgives us because it's who He is and what He does. This is what I believe. Got it?

It's not that God "must" destroy. He doesn't have to. I suppose He could let them go on suffering for an eternity. Again, in my view, he destroys as a final act of grace toward the unrepentant.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:07:38 -0000

There is no dualistic problem here because Satan is not a deity.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:06:58 -0000

No, in my formula Satan is most certainly not immortal. Immortality belongs to God alone and He grants it to those who align themselves with His will. Satan, too, will be destroyed. He is not immortal. He does have "supernatural" powers in the sense that he has quite a lot more than we do in and of ourselves. He is, after all, a fallen angel.

He's not close to an equal with God. Not even in the ballpark. Not even in the same continent the ballpark is in. God is infinitely more powerful than Satan.

He does command a legion of lesser fallen beings.

Re: Hell Yes. Hell No! Or Who the Hell Cares? (Part 1 – Intro & Love Wins)

Zack Allen — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:08:21 -0000

I'm sorry, I just have to clear two things up:

>>>An act of grace would be to forgive not destroy.<<<

As I said, He did forgive. But people are not forced to accept it.

>>>who in this context raises severe questions about monotheism given that he operates in this worldview as a lesser but quite powerful rival god<<<

Not at all. Satan is not a god. He is, however, quite powerful.