[quote]Professor X wrote:
You started a thread on a PUBLIC bodybuilding forum in a political subdivision on it about Christian strength ignoring the fact that there are other religions and other beliefs who might take offense to how it was presented and then you act surprised that they responded.
[/quote]
I hate to interupt your further attempts at belittling someon who began a decent thread. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on your foolhardy statement above.
When starting a thread does someone now have to tout the politically correct line and be “all encompassing?”
How many threads have been started about fat people?
Did they offend anyone?
How many threads have been started about skinny people who need to eat more?
Did they offend anyone?
How many threads were started about someone claiming superiority of one training system over all others?
Did they offend anyone?
How many times on this very thread have many of us denegrated another training system…for it’s obvious flaws?
Did we offend anyone?
There are probably hundreds of examples. Yet, you never once (to my knowledge) jumped in and tried to wreck those threads.
(And in addition to this anyone is free to begin a thread on muslim strength or Hindu strength. So there is an opporunity for equal “air time.”)
But as soon as someone mentions Jesus Christ you rush in side with the atheists and try to silence them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t see where any Christians claimed to be better than someone else. Is this what you’re getting from our responses?
It is not arrogant to say that you are a Christian. It is not arrogant to say that you belive in absolutes. It may appear as arrogance to weak people who have no firm convictions of their own.[/quote]
The moment you refer to yourself as a “True” anything as if you are different than the members who state they are the same as you, you admit you believe you are superior. Exactly how elementary do we have to get for this to be clear to you?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Okay…now I get it.
a handful of atheists/agnostics joined by you, didn’t like it so…bang.
Is this the new rule going forward? So then if I and a few others who don’t like a topic in the future we can enter the thread and wreck it, right?
It seems that it would be okay, by the standard that YOU set here.
Please respond.
This thread wasn’t even wrecked until a few of you decided you were “True Christians” and that all others who didn’t agree with you were “Untrue Christians”.[/quote]
First of all I never once said that YOU (or anyone else) were not a “true Christian.” If someone said that to you then take that up with them.
This is your first contribution. As you can see you came out swinging (with the atheists and agnostics) and have not stopped.
"All it does is allow a few self righteous psuedo-Christians a chance to look down on everyone else.
This reminds of that one fat black lady in a Baptist church who praises the loudest, dances and turns flips on Sunday morning, but that won’t stop her from being a prostitute."
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You started a thread on a PUBLIC bodybuilding forum in a political subdivision on it about Christian strength ignoring the fact that there are other religions and other beliefs who might take offense to how it was presented and then you act surprised that they responded.
I hate to interupt your further attempts at belittling someon who began a decent thread. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on your foolhardy statement above.
When starting a thread does someone now have to tout the politically correct line and be “all encompassing?”
How many threads have been started about fat people?
Did they offend anyone?
How many threads have been started about skinny people who need to eat more?
Did they offend anyone?
How many threads were started about someone claiming superiority of one training system over all others?
Did they offend anyone?
How many times on this very thread have many of us denegrated another training system…for it’s obvious flaws?
Did we offend anyone?
There are probably hundreds of examples. Yet, you never once (to my knowledge) jumped in and tried to wreck those threads.
(And in addition to this anyone is free to begin a thread on muslim strength or Hindu strength. So there is an opporunity for equal “air time.”)
But as soon as someone mentions Jesus Christ you rush in side with the atheists and try to silence them.
Hang your head!
[/quote]
I will leave it at this, this is a public forum. You expect the PUBLIC, even those who disagree with you, to be able to respond. To think otherwise is largely retarded.
If you didn’t want anyone to disagree with the first post, it should not have been on a public forum. Hang your own head for being so basic that this needs an explanation.
[quote]haney wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
A REMINDER FOR ALL OF YOU WHO SELECTIVELY TAKE FROM THE BIBLE AND ADD TO THE BIBLE:
REVELATION 22:18-19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
TAKE IT AS IT IS OR LEAVE IT. YOU DO YOURSELF MORE HARM WITH THIS SELECTIVE INTERPRETATION.
Isn’t that cherry picking also?
Revelation at its earliest dating was 64-67AD at its latest dating would be 90AD or later. The Cannon was not officially formed until the fourth century by the counil of nicea.
Also I think this is a clear indication you are taking this verse out of context unless the verse doesn’t really mean the book of revelations as John clearly indicates.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book”
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,”[/quote]
It’s kind of amazing how God, who sits outside of time and space, in his infinite power and wisdom put this Holy Book together, isn’t it?
Thanks for the verses. I believe you just helped support my claim that you either take it, or leave it. No cherry picking on my part
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Okay…now I get it.
a handful of atheists/agnostics joined by you, didn’t like it so…bang.
Is this the new rule going forward? So then if I and a few others who don’t like a topic in the future we can enter the thread and wreck it, right?
It seems that it would be okay, by the standard that YOU set here.
Please respond.
This thread wasn’t even wrecked until a few of you decided you were “True Christians” and that all others who didn’t agree with you were “Untrue Christians”.
First of all I never once said that YOU (or anyone else) were not a “true Christian.” If someone said that to you then take that up with them.
This is your first contribution. As you can see you came out swinging (with the atheists and agnostics) and have not stopped.
"All it does is allow a few self righteous psuedo-Christians a chance to look down on everyone else.
This reminds of that one fat black lady in a Baptist church who praises the loudest, dances and turns flips on Sunday morning, but that won’t stop her from being a prostitute."
Yes, but your enjoyment is founded on the basis of non-Christian advocacy and material. How do you square that with your beliefs?[/quote]
I don’t think that you are as good as pox with twisting words. But the fact that he slaps you on the back every other post should indicate to you something…and it’s not good.
My “enjoyment” is found in discussing how to build a better body, health matters and good political debate. Probably not much different that your own.
I don’t visit the sex threads, nor do I read TC’s column as I know what he likes to discuss. But nor do I break the door down and tell everyone on every thread that is decidely non Christian exactly how they should live.
Did I ever advocate doing such? No, of course not.
However, on a Christian thread, or an appropriate thread which encourages debate about moral concerns I’m present and accounted for.
Does that bother you?
It does not bother me that you are always missing from the pro Christian side. Just as you are on this thread.
Free will.
Actually, I have never read anything about you being a “false Christian” for not being vocal in every instance. Could you point where that was said and by whom? I know that I never said such a thing. Who did and when?
In reality, there was no need for any of this to begin with. Based upon the title of this thread, and the original post, that attacked no one.
I ask YOU then, why did this start?
What was the need for anyone to attack such a thread. Reread the original post I have put it up for pox. Simply lumping it in with other Christian threads is not grounds for the trouncing that you and the others perpetrated on the original poster.
No, I don’t think that can be justified.
There you go again “you and the other true Christians.” When and where did I exclude YOU as a “true Christian?” I believe you are very mistaken in your analysis.
And this site can “promote” Christianity if there are Christian threads present.
However, when others turn a good Christian thread into a pissing match …well, maybe we all become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
False Christian? Sorry I never called anyone a “false Christian.” If someone else claimed that I would like to know who and would also like to read it within the context it was written. Just as a point of fact, as I am not sure exactly what was said, other than I never made such a claim. If you did not know this that would be somewhat surprising.
Also, why didn’t Paul heal everyone? Why didn’t Jesus Christ?
Are they hypocrites in your eyes?
Again, it’s comical that you should ask why I have not interrupted every single thread and spouted my Christian beliefs (as if that would help). I wonder why you level this charge at me? Odd, very odd.
Allow me to turn that tables as that seems like fair play given what you have stated.
A better question would be, why have YOU never used your own talents to witness to others…when appropriate. How about that? I know you are not claiming to be a perfect Christian (such as the person you are accusing of doing so on this thread…whoever that is?) But still, why are you MIA all the time, as long as we are on the subject.
On the contrary, we have here a Christian thread and you fall all over yourself attempting to ridicule the person who started it.
[quote]Speaking of the Bible on this thread is appropriate and is also beneficial to all who may stop by and read it. If it had gotten off to it’s original intent without others rudely interupting at the very outset, it would have been far more beneficial.
I disagree - it would not have been more effective. [/quote]
Well, first of all you don’t know that. If you read the thread over you will see that the folks who kicked the door down and began the trouble are only a handful. Let’s not make it look like there was a large T-Nation protest agaisnt this particular thread.
And, by the way, you did all that you could to make sure that this thread was not effective.
Do me a favor and count up the amount of Christian threads on T-Nation. Is it even fair to state that a tiny fraction of the threads are devoted to Christianity? Very, very small. Is it unfair in any way to the general populace of this forum? Of course not!
That you and a few atheists/agnostics don’t like it means what? Does it give you the right to bully in and help wreck it as you have done?
Not at all!
Where is your condmnation for those who constantly barge into the few Christian threads and wreck them?
MIA again!
Yes, you are standing pretty tall with a handful of atheists and agnostics. Because YOU judged it to be enough.
I see.
Psst, it’s not your call! The mods let it on. TC has never objected. Are you now the self appointed censor? I’ll notify you the next time that I see one to many threads on any particular subject. Do you have specific criteria before you bull doze in and attempt to tear down a thread, or can do you just call it as you see it?
PULEEEEEEAZE
I think I get it. It’s just that when YOU and a handful of atheists and agnostics think that this is no time for a Christian thread that it gives you the right to wreck it.
[b]Have you noticed that every thread on Christianity has been attacked by the atheists/agnostics?
Again, I ask where is your condemnation of them and their tactics?[/b]
Your answer to the problem which you perceive is to silence the Christians.
Hmmm…
What a foolish line of thought you are following.
Are you confusing me with another poster? If you are stating that another poster set some sort of high standard please point out who it was and what he said. Otherwise, you have brought this standard to the debate in some sort of attempt at further attack.
Agreed, and I never created such a standard either. When did I ever say such a thing? That I speak out on a Christian thread, or another appropriate thread on the subject at hand does not mean that I am advocating the constant drum beat of Christianity as that would have a more negative than positive effect.
Again, please name the person you are talking about and exactly what they stated which led you to this conclusion.
I will answer your slavery question on the next post.
The first thing that needs to be discussed about slavery, as portrayed in the bible, is the cultural meaning of the institution at that time. It was not uncommon for people to “sell” themselves into slavery for a certain period of time or for life.
Ro 6:16 - Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey -
In most cases the life of a slave was not much different from the life of any lower-class worker. Those who have been in the military have experienced something like it -being legally bound to an employer and to a job that one cannot simply “quit” at will.
You are not free to leave without permission, subject to discipline if one disobeys or is grossly negligent - all of this is familiar enough to those of who have served in the military. And yet we know that the daily life of a good soldier is not especially hard. This is what it was like to be a slave at that time. Stop thinking “roots.”
It is also important to point out that when thinking about slavery we tend to have in mind the recent slavery of the black race in America, and so the whole subject of slavery gets mixed up with the issue of racism. But in ancient times, slavery was not associated with any particular race. By condoning slavery the Bible does not approve of racism.
The bible does not speak to political issues to stir rebellion and uprisings. It speaks to people in all walks of life at the time of conversion. As I have stated before: Christ could have easily taken down a corrupt government, which rought havoc of all kinds on it’s people-He didn’t. His mission was even greater than this.
Ro 13:7 - Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor
Would you say that because the bible tells us to give respect and honor to the president (because the position demands it) that one agrees with what that president does. Or what about a tyrannical king? Of course it did not support the emperor who was exterminating the Christians just because it says that we must give respect and honor or even pay our taxes to him!
We cannot say that just because the bible tells those who are slaves to “obey” we cannot interpret this to mean that the bible speaks to the validity of slavery.
The bible also speaks to the slave owner or master to be kind and fair. Again, it is not supporting slavery, just trying to make this practice as pleasant as possible for the slave as possible.
Always keep in mind Christs first order of importance. It was the message, and the message was freedom from sin!
However:
Eph 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Col 4:1 - Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
We must conclude with this final passage from Corinthian?s which really shows that the bible was not in support of slavery:
1Co 7:21 - Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
This passage says that if at all possible, gain your freedom. We must remember that back in that day according to Roman law, a person could buy their freedom, although it was very expensive. We see, reading between the lines, that even if it cost you everything you have the bible says to “gain your freedom”.
I will leave it at this, this is a public forum. You expect the PUBLIC, even those who disagree with you, to be able to respond. To think otherwise is largely retarded.
If you didn’t want anyone to disagree with the first post, it should not have been on a public forum. Hang your own head for being so basic that this needs an explanation.[/quote]
That’s not the problem.
You did not speak to the issue of the subject matter of the original posters post. Which was about Christian faith and strength.
You wanted to take away his right to post it! In other words, you are on the wrong side of censoring Christian threads.
I don’t think that we are that far apart on interpretation.
However, I would like to call your attention to more of what Jesus said for further clarification:
Matthew 5:27 & 28:
“You have heard that I was said; Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustuflly has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Jesus is obviously talking about our thoughts. Sinful thoughts.
Yes, we all have them. Doesn’t make them any less sinful.
Also:
Matthew 5: 21 & 22:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago; Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…”
You don’t even have to express that anger. Again he is talking about thoughts. [/quote]
Zeb,
These are better quotes for your purpose, but I still have issues with them…
“You have heard that I was said; Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustuflly has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Here Jesus is discussing what other’s have said that men are to do. However, perhaps I have a different version but I have the following:
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
I think he’s saying that you shouldn’t look for the PURPOSE of feeling such lust. We should really get down into the original pre-translated meaning of the word “lust after”, because it may be less strict than I have interpreted it.
It is very possible that he is talking about looking at another mans wife, not just a woman that you wish as your own wife. I don’t think the context is available for us to be sure.
Most importantly, I would suggest that it has been left ambigous whether or not a thought is really as bad as an action. We’ve seen several times that actions can flow from the heart (as was discussed above), but that having things in your heart was not the same as having committed the act.
In your other example, below, he clarifies that a thought may lead to judgment, but not that it must. I think we are very much able to understand that having bad things in your heart is very likely to lead to bad actions, and that we are admonished to try to keep the heart pure, to help avoid the actions.
In this day and age, I think our understanding of the differences between thoughts and actions is much more sophisticated. We are very able to control our actions and direct them differently than our thoughts.
Now, on to the second, mine is again a little different than yours, but significantly!
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago; Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…”
Again, this is a discussion about the rules that others have laid down, not the laws that Jesus is laying down. Other rulers have said these things, such as do not murder. Here is my rendition of it…
“Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment”
So yes, don’t just avoid killing, but avoid hatred. However, notice that my version has the “without a cause” in there… which means apparently that you can develop anger. In such a case, you are in DANGER of judgment. That is pretty tame.
I don’t see the bible as admonishing us for having human thoughts and frailties. I see it is admonishing us on how we are to control ourselves, regardless of our thoughts and frailties. If we live within the law and treat people well, then that is enough.
Everything else is clarification and example developed through conversation in context that is hard to completely know or understand. Over time we’ve filled in a lot of blanks and made things very complex, such that a simple person cannot understand Christ’s words.
I don’t think that is appropriate.
Anyway, in an area such a this, I do see how you have come to such a conclusion, and that is well and good. However, I hope you can see that I have come to a different conclusion, but that this doesn’t mean that I have to be wrong either.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
So very funny. Let’s look at this thread.
It started with an example of the Power of Christ in the Christian life. A great example of a strong Christian overcoming adversity and trial.
Now, it is attacked by people who call themselves Christians but have no evidence in their life (as far as we can see on the forum, at least). Why are these pseudo-Christians so offended? And, how seriously should we take these pseudo-Christians?
[/quote]
the only problem I have with you and this thread is your insistance on calling people who have a disagreement with you not ‘true’ Christians or your new slogan ‘pseudo’ Christians…
it’s very insulting and you know it…that’s why you keep saying it over and over again…because you are getting off on being insulting towards Christians that disagree with you…it makes you feel superior…
why not just say “Hey, I know you guys are Christians, but I disagree with what you are saying. Here’s why (references to scripture and your thoughts for thinking the way you do).”?
you could tell me “Hey DPH, I think you’re very far from the Christian ideal, in fact I think you’re a scum bag, here’s why I think so…”…I wouldn’t disagree with that…in fact I know that I’m far from the Christian ideal, but if you’d know me when I was in my teens and twenties you’d also see that, even though I am far from the ideal, I have come along way from my rebel rousing days…
so why the insults? why not simply point out that you disagree with other Christians on here, give your reasons, and leave it at that?
Anyway, in an area such a this, I do see how you have come to such a conclusion, and that is well and good. However, I hope you can see that I have come to a different conclusion, but that this doesn’t mean that I have to be wrong either.[/quote]
Well, it’s would be difficult to think that Christ did not actually mean what he said.
Let’s take the opposite approach. Would Christ ever encourage a man to look at a woman (who is not his wife) with lust in his heart?
Either way, I don’t think that this has a thing to do with whether someone can be called a “Christian” or not.
If that is the case then none of us are Christians. You don’t lose your Christianity because you sin.
With that said, there are some Christians (I am not one of them) who do seem to go through life with very little “baggage.” They do seem more “righteous” than I am.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Isn’t that cherry picking also?
Revelation at its earliest dating was 64-67AD at its latest dating would be 90AD or later. The Cannon was not officially formed until the fourth century by the counil of nicea.
Also I think this is a clear indication you are taking this verse out of context unless the verse doesn’t really mean the book of revelations as John clearly indicates.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book”
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,”
[/quote]
It’s kind of amazing how God, who sits outside of time and space, in his infinite power and wisdom put this Holy Book together, isn’t it?
That has nothing to do with it you are quoting those verses out of context. He is specifically referring to the book of Revelation not the entire Bible. If that were the case then you would not have had the council of nicea debating over which books belong and which ones don’t. It would have been a clear cut this is it. There is no other place in the Bible that says those words so it is specific in its context since the beggining of revelations tells John to write these words on a scroll.
[quote]
Thanks for the verses. I believe you just helped support my claim that you either take it, or leave it. No cherry picking on my part :)[/quote]
I didn’t give you those verses they are the same ones you used.
