Why's Your Religion Better?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]

You know I don’t think this is really a problem with the reading of the Bible. Those who read and study know this stuff too. It’s not like this deeply hidden stuff.

The problem, I think, is larger than fundi Christians, it’s an American problem. Everybody is too concerned with what everybody else is doing and not enough with what they themselves are doing. Our society loves to cast stones. When that mentality bleeds into religion, people use the Bible as a stone. Everybody is a critic and nobody looks at themselves in the mirror. You spend enough honest time in front of that mirror, you are more likely to drop your stones.[/quote]

I’m trying to remember what verses Jesus said that stuff about logs and eyes. Do you know what I mean and which ones those are?[/quote]

Matthew 7:3-5 I believe. And I agree, it’s very apropos of Pat’s (very good) post.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]

You know I don’t think this is really a problem with the reading of the Bible. Those who read and study know this stuff too. It’s not like this deeply hidden stuff.

The problem, I think, is larger than fundi Christians, it’s an American problem. Everybody is too concerned with what everybody else is doing and not enough with what they themselves are doing. Our society loves to cast stones. When that mentality bleeds into religion, people use the Bible as a stone. Everybody is a critic and nobody looks at themselves in the mirror. You spend enough honest time in front of that mirror, you are more likely to drop your stones.[/quote]

I’m trying to remember what verses Jesus said that stuff about logs and eyes. Do you know what I mean and which ones those are?[/quote]

Matthew 7:3-5 I believe. And I agree, it’s very apropos of Pat’s (very good) post.[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the one.

from the Pat Robertson thread: If someone could quote it for Pat that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[quote]Now, onto JEaton’s unfortunate, but predictable shallow misuse of Jesus words about “judging” which he has taken from the shortest and least explanatory passage which is found in the gospel of Luke. Anybody who doesn’t want their modernistic Americanized view of this ruined should stop reading now.

In the 7th chapter of the gospel of Matthew ( Matthew 7 ESV ) Jesus says “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you”. The measure he is speaking of there is probably an agricultural reference that they would recognize. He’s telling them that just as the same measure should be used throughout a transaction of grain to ensure equity to both parties, don’t you use one measure for yourself and another for others. Don’t be a hypocrite in other words.

There is ONE measure and it is the Word of God. Judge by THAT. He’s also saying that YOU don’t get to judge. Like Thunderbolt does when he contradicts the word of God by stating that homosexuality is not sinful despite the clearest possible biblical declarations to the contrary. THAT is the kind of judgement Jesus is warning against. Our own as opposed to God’s.

Jesus goes on there to tell them to get the "log out of their own eye before worrying about the “speck” in their brother’s eye. He doesn’t tell them not to worry about their brother’s speck, but only to make sure that they are above reproach themselves before doing so. He then warns them about giving what is holy to dogs or casting their pearls before pigs. I don’t know how anybody’s supposed to know who they are without “judging”. In this same chapter He also tells them [b]"Enter by the narrow gate.

For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few"[/b]. Along with “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.” Without using any judgement? How are they supposed to do that? In verses 21-23 He tells them about MANY who have called Him “Lord” whom He will cast out as those He NEVER knew. That sounds pretty “judgmental”.

In the 24th verse of the 7th chapter of the gospel of John, ( John 7 ESV ) after giving them a criteria by which TO judge and an example of how they were not doing it, he tells the people “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” What? Jesus Christ telling people TO Judge? Yes. Same Greek word for “judge” used everywhere and about the same way btw. The 23rd chapter of the gospel of Matthew ( Matthew 23 ESV ) starting with verse 13 is one long 500 megaton nuclear blast against the religious leaders of His day. He is just pounding them for their manipulation of the Word of God and their superficial appearance of piety. In the modern western world we don’t even get the superficial appearance anymore.

Oh and btw. Getting back to Luke 6 for a second Jesus identifies “fruits” as what a man speaks. Verses 44-45. "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44-for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45-The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. The next time somebody says “YOU DON’T KNOW MY HEART!!!” Oh yes I do and you know mine. Not the same way God does, but Jesus here says that fruit is born in the heart and that what you say shows me your heart. Speech is not ALL that fruit is, but it IS definitive.

In the 5th chapter of Paul’s 1st letter to the church at Corinth ( 1 Corinthians 5:1 ESV: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. ) he tells of a situation where a man was in a sexual relationship with “his father’s wife.” The precise nature and relation is irrelevant for this post. The point is it was a most damnable and horrific display of immorality as the apostle there says. They had taken his teaching on Christian liberty to terrible unintended extremes and were celebrating their own tolerance and open mindedness toward it. Paul rebukes them severely for their presumptuous arrogance.

He cries that they should be mourning instead and commands that they put him out and “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord”. Not because he hated the man, but because he wanted him to be saved. He further decries the fact that the church is being polluted by this evil, represented as it often is by the illustration of leaven. He goes on starting in verse 9 to tell them that his previous instructions about not associating with immoral people did NOT mean those in the world. Because they’re everywhere, just like today, and you’d have to leave the world to avoid them.

He says not to associate with anybody CLAIMING TO BE A BROTHER who is living, like the man with his father’s wife, in overt unrepentant sin. He gives a quick list of representative sins (sexually immoral, greedy, swindlers, idolaters, revilers, drunkards) clearly designed to convey the idea that ANY known, public unrepentant sin is what he’s talking about. He then says they are not even to EAT with these people. Then he says in verse 12, please hear this, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.”

Who is inside the church? He just told us. Those claiming to be brothers. Here we have the writer of at least 13 of the New Testament books telling a church that he founded not to worry about the corruption in the world, but you dern well better git yourselves about the business of judging those who claim to be one of us. This is (partly) the “righteous judgement” that Jesus was talking about.

John, who wrote 3 letters, the gospel of John and the book of Revelation, in his 1st letter, 3rd chapter, verses 4-10 says the following: [quote]4-Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6-No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7-Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8-Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9-No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10-By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. [/quote] Modern translations like the ESV I am here quoting, do a much better job of handling the Greek verbs than the King James which makes it sound like Christians never sin. (not so at all) Here we have John saying in a nutshell that the children of God and the children of the devil are readily discernible by whether they practice sin or not. The NASB renders it “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious”.

Someone whose belief, life, speech, attitude and actions are habitually and unrepentantly in conflict with the biblical standard IS NOT A CHRISTIAN in anything like the historically accepted sense. I could go on for pages, but like I say, I doubt anybody, or very many anyway, will read even this much.
Every bible believing Christian will agree with this post. Not because I said it, But because it’s what the bible says. Let’s see who protests the loudest. [/quote]

[quote]All of the scripture is applicable. What should Nathan have done? Well what did God say about David? That he was a man after his own heart.
You can call out sin, but know when to stop too. If that’s all you do, your the problem not the other sinner. [/quote]

Obviously the church as the world sees it is full of judgmental people. So were the pharisees in Jesus day. They were the most religious people you would ever meet, yet Jesus condemned them over and over again for thinking they were good enough and religious enough.

I am not defending that type of judgement at all. But I think it is so wrong that the christians of today believe that telling someone they are in sin, and, if judged according to God’s law will go to hell means you hate them. It is not judging if I can say the exact same thing about myself is it? Straight up if God judged me according to his law I would be in hell a million times over.

But does that mean that any christian with sin in his life still can’t condemn actions that the bible condemns? Showing people that they are not only sinners, but dead in sin is the only way they can understand just how much they need God (Jeremiah 17:9,Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13, Romans 8:7). I’m gonna quote the Romans 8:7 one just in case you do not actually look up the others… “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Please tell me what you think about those texts. If you have discussed them before I am sorry, but I’m a young fairly uneducated and am genuinely interested to see if you can take them a different way.

Thanks

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]All of the scripture is applicable. What should Nathan have done? Well what did God say about David? That he was a man after his own heart.
You can call out sin, but know when to stop too. If that’s all you do, your the problem not the other sinner. [/quote]

Obviously the church as the world sees it is full of judgmental people. So were the pharisees in Jesus day. They were the most religious people you would ever meet, yet Jesus condemned them over and over again for thinking they were good enough and religious enough.

I am not defending that type of judgement at all. But I think it is so wrong that the Christians of today believe that telling someone they are in sin, and, if judged according to God’s law will go to hell means you hate them. It is not judging if I can say the exact same thing about myself is it? Straight up if God judged me according to his law I would be in hell a million times over.

But does that mean that any christian with sin in his life still can’t condemn actions that the bible condemns? Showing people that they are not only sinners, but dead in sin is the only way they can understand just how much they need God (Jeremiah 17:9,Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13, Romans 8:7). I’m gonna quote the Romans 8:7 one just in case you do not actually look up the others… “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Please tell me what you think about those texts. If you have discussed them before I am sorry, but I’m a young fairly uneducated and am genuinely interested to see if you can take them a different way.

Thanks

[/quote]Very VERY good my brother. It appears you are being well taught. I have told my friends here time without number that I am deserving of far worse damnation than most of them probably are, for sins I’ve committed in my life as a backslidden prodigal son after I knew better. His faithful lovingkindness and rich sweet mercy have been my daily bread of life and living water indeed. I got saved in 1984 when I was 20 years old. It’s been a glorious adventure and getting better all the time thanks to the flawless faithfulness of my beloved husband toward His church bride (if the ladies can be sons of God, we can be the bride of Christ right?). The truths you have set forth in this post are precious to my soul.

And Pat’s “lunatic fringe” argument flys out the window in record time.

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]All of the scripture is applicable. What should Nathan have done? Well what did God say about David? That he was a man after his own heart.
You can call out sin, but know when to stop too. If that’s all you do, your the problem not the other sinner. [/quote]

Obviously the church as the world sees it is full of judgmental people. So were the pharisees in Jesus day. They were the most religious people you would ever meet, yet Jesus condemned them over and over again for thinking they were good enough and religious enough.

I am not defending that type of judgement at all. But I think it is so wrong that the christians of today believe that telling someone they are in sin, and, if judged according to God’s law will go to hell means you hate them. It is not judging if I can say the exact same thing about myself is it? Straight up if God judged me according to his law I would be in hell a million times over.
[/quote]
What I was talking about, was how you treat others your brothers and sisters. You don’t malign, marginalize, or hold in contempt those you believe to be in sin. At an appropriate time, you can explain that there actions are sinful, but you don’t condemn the person yourself. You do not judge them or tell them they will go to hell if they don’t change. No person knows that. To much these days, are those who lift themselves above others because they believe the other is a sinful person, much like the pharisees whom Jesus ‘whoa’d’ to death, to his own detriment.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I said that homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of other things. It’s wrong to hold the other person’s sin over your own sinful and selfish practices. We are to love sinners as much as ourselves for we are all sinners.

It’s ok to discuss sin and the detriment of it, but it’s not ok to hold it over anyone. In the case of H’s cousin, to be a Christian is he to marginalize him? To hold his sin against him as if he’s better? No, that in itself is a sin. We don’t know the mind of God, we think as humans think. We need the wisdom NOT to be self righteous and lofty because we consider others sinful.

Contrarily, that doesn’t mean we put ourselves in a position to be affected by another’s sin. If the sinful practices of another put us in jeopardy, then yes we must distance ourselves. Most of the time, that’s not the case. And when it’s not the case, we love and accept our brothers and sisters as they are. Use that relationship to better both parties rather than “Ooo, you’re a sinner, I can’t be around you, you’re going to HELL!”
Such things are done to often and it’s wrong. We are all sinners and we must work everyday to better ourselves, but you cannot do that if you are persistently focused on the sins of others.

I don’t disagree with the scriptures, I disagree with your assessment because it’s fatalistic. First of all, if you are talking with non-Christians and more so non-believers “Because the Bible said so” is not an effective methodology. If your basis is solely based in something that others don’t believe in, you are not going to make any head way. Telling them they are sinners and need to repent is beyond useless. Unfortunately, there are plenty of “Chistians” whose examples have given non-believers more than ample ammo to counter claim, “If that’s Christian, then count me out.”
The thing about the truths of the Bible is that they are not only true in the Bible, they are true in all facets.
Beating people over the head with the Bible, when they don’t believe in it is completely futile.

I have no issue with those texts, I agree with the scriptures whole heartily. We are dead in sin, but alive in Christ. Sin separates us from God, sin is self worship putting yourself over God in the moment of sin. If your expecting me to disagree with the scriptures, it’s not going to happen. What may happen is my disagreement in an assessment of what the scripture means.

What I was talking about, of which you criticized me, is how you treat your brothers and sisters.

Please, if you have some questions over what I am saying, ask me. I am discussing things in the context of that discussion. I am not merely regurgitating a script.
Also, know the difference between theology, philosophy or personal experience. There is no point in discussing theology when the person does not believe in God. So I stay away from theology. I try to respect where that person is at.

If somebody says “I don’t believe in God and I think the Bible is fairtale” What’s the point of telling them they live in sin and they need to repent and reconcile with Christ? You’re giving them nothing. You might as well say nothing.

[quote]H factor wrote:
And Pat’s “lunatic fringe” argument flys out the window in record time. [/quote]

LOL! You had to know that was coming, but I stand by what I said. 33% of Christians are of evangelical traditions. The rest are what is call the “Apostolic traditions” which are the orthodox and roman Catholic traditions. So the evangelical traditions are a minority to start with, then you have between 36,000 and 41,000 denominations of evangelical Christianity. While that sounds confusing at first, among the Evangelical traditions, the are two major schools of thought Arminainism and Calvinism. Arminainism is by far the majority of the Evangelical traditions. Then there is Calvinism, it’s smaller and from it there is a far more radical off-shoot who call themselves “Reformed”, but they are small.

From here I will let you connect the dots.

Just because you have a dog with 3 legs in your house, doesn’t mean most dogs have 3 legs.

Keep your questions coming H. You are asking good questions and if you are interested in the answers I am happy to give them. I just want you to understand that religion is not all kooky and weird as it may appear on the surface, but that there is reason and wisdom involved, there is a lot of profound wisdom to be gleaned from it, even if in the end you choose not to believe it.

The big clue to whether your dealing with a radical, or a person of humility is whether or not they claim to know what God thinks. If someone claims to know your fate, your dealing with a radical.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Pat though I don’t know if I’ll ever become any one religion I can almost definitively say Christianity would grow much more if people thought of it in the way you put it. Sadly, I have you on the lunatic fringe (and I mean that in the best possible way), as in compared to most other people I’ve met on the internet or in life who say they believe the same “faith” as you you are in the significant minority.

While I won’t say those people are wrong and you are right because again I have no idea, I will say that I wish many more people who read the Bible came to the conclusions that you do. The world would be far better off for it. [/quote]

You know I don’t think this is really a problem with the reading of the Bible. Those who read and study know this stuff too. It’s not like this deeply hidden stuff.

The problem, I think, is larger than fundi Christians, it’s an American problem. Everybody is too concerned with what everybody else is doing and not enough with what they themselves are doing. Our society loves to cast stones. When that mentality bleeds into religion, people use the Bible as a stone. Everybody is a critic and nobody looks at themselves in the mirror. You spend enough honest time in front of that mirror, you are more likely to drop your stones.[/quote]

I’m trying to remember what verses Jesus said that stuff about logs and eyes. Do you know what I mean and which ones those are?[/quote]

Matthew 7:3-5 I believe. And I agree, it’s very apropos of Pat’s (very good) post.[/quote]

Yes, and thanks.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
And Pat’s “lunatic fringe” argument flys out the window in record time. [/quote]

LOL! You had to know that was coming, but I stand by what I said. 33% of Christians are of evangelical traditions. The rest are what is call the “Apostolic traditions” which are the orthodox and roman Catholic traditions. So the evangelical traditions are a minority to start with, then you have between 36,000 and 41,000 denominations of evangelical Christianity. While that sounds confusing at first, among the Evangelical traditions, the are two major schools of thought Arminainism and Calvinism. Arminainism is by far the majority of the Evangelical traditions. Then there is Calvinism, it’s smaller and from it there is a far more radical off-shoot who call themselves “Reformed”, but they are small.

From here I will let you connect the dots.

Just because you have a dog with 3 legs in your house, doesn’t mean most dogs have 3 legs.

Keep your questions coming H. You are asking good questions and if you are interested in the answers I am happy to give them. I just want you to understand that religion is not all kooky and weird as it may appear on the surface, but that there is reason and wisdom involved, there is a lot of profound wisdom to be gleaned from it, even if in the end you choose not to believe it.

The big clue to whether your dealing with a radical, or a person of humility is whether or not they claim to know what God thinks. If someone claims to know your fate, your dealing with a radical.
[/quote]

Questions will be coming, but probably going to have to wait till the weekend where I can really sit down and read more than I have. It’s always interesting.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
And Pat’s “lunatic fringe” argument flys out the window in record time. [/quote]

LOL! You had to know that was coming, but I stand by what I said. 33% of Christians are of evangelical traditions. The rest are what is call the “Apostolic traditions” which are the orthodox and roman Catholic traditions. So the evangelical traditions are a minority to start with, then you have between 36,000 and 41,000 denominations of evangelical Christianity. While that sounds confusing at first, among the Evangelical traditions, the are two major schools of thought Arminainism and Calvinism. Arminainism is by far the majority of the Evangelical traditions. Then there is Calvinism, it’s smaller and from it there is a far more radical off-shoot who call themselves “Reformed”, but they are small.

From here I will let you connect the dots.

Just because you have a dog with 3 legs in your house, doesn’t mean most dogs have 3 legs.

Keep your questions coming H. You are asking good questions and if you are interested in the answers I am happy to give them. I just want you to understand that religion is not all kooky and weird as it may appear on the surface, but that there is reason and wisdom involved, there is a lot of profound wisdom to be gleaned from it, even if in the end you choose not to believe it.

The big clue to whether your dealing with a radical, or a person of humility is whether or not they claim to know what God thinks. If someone claims to know your fate, your dealing with a radical.
[/quote]

Questions will be coming, but probably going to have to wait till the weekend where I can really sit down and read more than I have. It’s always interesting. [/quote]

Word up, I look forward to it… I appreciate the open discourse.

[quote]pat wrote:
What I was talking about, was how you treat others your brothers and sisters. You don’t malign, marginalize, or hold in contempt those you believe to be in sin. At an appropriate time, you can explain that there actions are sinful, but you don’t condemn the person yourself. You do not judge them or tell them they will go to hell if they don’t change. No person knows that. To much these days, are those who lift themselves above others because they believe the other is a sinful person, much like the pharisees whom Jesus ‘whoa’d’ to death, to his own detriment.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I said that homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of other things. It’s wrong to hold the other person’s sin over your own sinful and selfish practices. We are to love sinners as much as ourselves for we are all sinners.
[/quote]

I understand your point, Pat, but Paul does explicitly note in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God (i.e., obtain eternal life)? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul is trying to push his congregation in this passage to desist from their sexual immorality, and as part of that purpose, he declares that even Christians who continue to engage unrepentantly in such sins will fail to obtain eternal life. Consequently, I think we are called to tell the unrepentant (a category which every single unbeliever is in, and which Christians occasionally fall into) “you will go to hell if you don’t change.”

I am with you in so far as we cannot tell someone definitively (as if the FINAL sentence has already been passed - we can discuss Jesus’ words in John 3:18 later, Tirib :slight_smile: ) that a given person will end up in hell. We cannot, in other words, act as if individual lives are fated. We MUST, however, note (from a biblical perspective) that certain fates are inexorably contingent on our decisions. If you jump off a 12 story building without a parachute and hit the ground, you will die. From Paul’s perspective, unrepentant engagement in sinful actions causes results as certain as jumping off a building.

Repentance alone brings forgiveness; there is no (zero) biblical precedent for believing that an unrepentant person will nevertheless be forgiven. Indeed, God would be horrendously unjust to those who sacrificed their selfhood in obedience to Christ, willingly suffering persecution of various forms, if he arbitrarily forgave those who do not repent. Instead, he has promised in Scripture that repentance is the necessary condition of forgiveness.

That’s not the biblical model. Paul (and the rest of the biblical authors, as well as Second Temple Jews in general) believed that sin was transferable, whereas purity was not. That’s why Paul demands that the Corinthians cast the man who was screwing his father’s wife OUT of the community, using the analogy of leaven in bread (1 Cor. 5). SIN permitted in the community results in the harming of the community, NOT the repentance of the individual. Paul further states that bad company corrupts good morals; he NEVER argues for the opposite.

[qute]I don’t disagree with the scriptures, I disagree with your assessment because it’s fatalistic. First of all, if you are talking with non-Christians and more so non-believers “Because the Bible said so” is not an effective methodology. If your basis is solely based in something that others don’t believe in, you are not going to make any head way. Telling them they are sinners and need to repent is beyond useless. Unfortunately, there are plenty of “Chistians” whose examples have given non-believers more than ample ammo to counter claim, “If that’s Christian, then count me out.”
The thing about the truths of the Bible is that they are not only true in the Bible, they are true in all facets.
Beating people over the head with the Bible, when they don’t believe in it is completely futile.
[/quote]

The reason I was using the bible is because I was discussing with you, and you said the bible is the word of God so I was arguing from there. What is the point of trying to argue christianity apart from the bible? Trying to make it appeal to man’s rational mind? 1 Corinthians 1:22 says that Greek’s were seeking after wisdom. They wanted that rational explanation…but it’s impossible to do…“WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED TO THE JEWS A STUMBLING BLOCK AND TO THE GREEKS FOOLISHNESS”.

Every time we see an account of Paul preaching in the bible his sermon’s are wrapped a little differently depending on his audience…BUT IS THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE. Even in Acts 17 when he is in front of the smartest philosopher’s of his day. He did not waste his time trying to scientifically prove the existence of God, or try to explain why our human minds should be able to grasp it. He told biblical truths, using THE BIBLE…and people got saved.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What I was talking about, was how you treat others your brothers and sisters. You don’t malign, marginalize, or hold in contempt those you believe to be in sin. At an appropriate time, you can explain that there actions are sinful, but you don’t condemn the person yourself. You do not judge them or tell them they will go to hell if they don’t change. No person knows that. To much these days, are those who lift themselves above others because they believe the other is a sinful person, much like the pharisees whom Jesus ‘whoa’d’ to death, to his own detriment.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I said that homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of other things. It’s wrong to hold the other person’s sin over your own sinful and selfish practices. We are to love sinners as much as ourselves for we are all sinners.
[/quote]

I understand your point, Pat, but Paul does explicitly note in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God (i.e., obtain eternal life)? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul is trying to push his congregation in this passage to desist from their sexual immorality, and as part of that purpose, he declares that even Christians who continue to engage unrepentantly in such sins will fail to obtain eternal life. Consequently, I think we are called to tell the unrepentant (a category which every single unbeliever is in, and which Christians occasionally fall into) “you will go to hell if you don’t change.”

I am with you in so far as we cannot tell someone definitively (as if the FINAL sentence has already been passed - we can discuss Jesus’ words in John 3:18 later, Tirib :slight_smile: ) that a given person will end up in hell. We cannot, in other words, act as if individual lives are fated. We MUST, however, note (from a biblical perspective) that certain fates are inexorably contingent on our decisions. If you jump off a 12 story building without a parachute and hit the ground, you will die. From Paul’s perspective, unrepentant engagement in sinful actions causes results as certain as jumping off a building.

Repentance alone brings forgiveness; there is no (zero) biblical precedent for believing that an unrepentant person will nevertheless be forgiven. Indeed, God would be horrendously unjust to those who sacrificed their selfhood in obedience to Christ, willingly suffering persecution of various forms, if he arbitrarily forgave those who do not repent. Instead, he has promised in Scripture that repentance is the necessary condition of forgiveness.
[/quote]
I never said otherwise. I mere said that we cannot judge, we don’t know what’s in the person’s heart and we don’t know how God judges. While sinful actions, on their own are a self condemnation, we don’t live in a vacuum.
I merely said that we don’t mistreat others, condemn, malign, alienate, etc, but rather act in love towards them; because we perceive they live in sin. My discussion starts and ends with how we treat others. And we are called to love one another.

[quote]

That’s not the biblical model. Paul (and the rest of the biblical authors, as well as Second Temple Jews in general) believed that sin was transferable, whereas purity was not. That’s why Paul demands that the Corinthians cast the man who was screwing his father’s wife OUT of the community, using the analogy of leaven in bread (1 Cor. 5). SIN permitted in the community results in the harming of the community, NOT the repentance of the individual. Paul further states that bad company corrupts good morals; he NEVER argues for the opposite. [/quote]

The Corinthians as a general rule were hoodlums which is why Paul was so harsh, but I don’t see that example as how to treat others. This person was claiming Christianity as his faith, yet living in a non-Christian way by committing grave sins yet considering himself a Christian representative. This person was clearly not contrite, and had no issue with bring down the whole church with him.
This is not the same as treating your neighbors with love. Treating your family with love and acceptance.
As Jesus did, we treat each other with love and let our examples lead them to Christ, rather than casting them aside as ‘the damned’.
People get really skiddish about this topic, I don’t mean accept all sin and let people do what they want as long as the ‘believe’. I actually advocate the opposite. But you don’t lead people to the foot of the Cross by condemnations but by love and example.
We don’t condemn sinners, that’s between them and God. But we also don’t let sin represent the faith. We don’t say the sin is ok, we say we both have a lot of work to do…

Let’s take a practical example, what if you had child that was gay and didn’t want to change. Would you condemn him/ her? Would you marginalize and purge them from your life? Or would you love them, do the best you could for them as people and as your children?
We can inform, but we cannot save or condemn anybody. We cannot change hearts, only God can do that. We can choose to love or not. We can help a ‘sinner’ but we cannot make them Holy. We can do our best and we can pray, then we can choose to trust God and have faith, or we can not trust God and not have faith. If we trust God, we provide the love and support, and let God handle the salvation. For nothing is impossible with God.

[quote]butler244 wrote:<<< He did not waste his time trying to scientifically prove the existence of God, or try to explain why our human minds should be able to grasp it. He told biblical truths, using THE BIBLE…and people got saved.[/quote]He’s gittin better all the time. There wasn’t exactly a new testament canon then, but Paul did preach to them biblical truths.
KK, please check your mail.

[quote]butler244 wrote:
and people got saved.

[/quote]

Or so you hope.

[quote]butler244 wrote:

[quote]I don’t disagree with the scriptures, I disagree with your assessment because it’s fatalistic. First of all, if you are talking with non-Christians and more so non-believers “Because the Bible said so” is not an effective methodology. If your basis is solely based in something that others don’t believe in, you are not going to make any head way. Telling them they are sinners and need to repent is beyond useless. Unfortunately, there are plenty of “Chistians” whose examples have given non-believers more than ample ammo to counter claim, “If that’s Christian, then count me out.”
The thing about the truths of the Bible is that they are not only true in the Bible, they are true in all facets.
Beating people over the head with the Bible, when they don’t believe in it is completely futile.
[/quote]

The reason I was using the bible is because I was discussing with you, and you said the bible is the word of God so I was arguing from there. What is the point of trying to argue christianity apart from the bible? Trying to make it appeal to man’s rational mind? 1 Corinthians 1:22 says that Greek’s were seeking after wisdom. They wanted that rational explanation…but it’s impossible to do…“WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED TO THE JEWS A STUMBLING BLOCK AND TO THE GREEKS FOOLISHNESS”.
[/quote]
Contrarily, Paul also commended the Greek for being very religious, but misguided. So for many of the greeks, they already believed but didn’t know what they believed. Now first, you cannot argue ‘Christianity’ for people who don’t even believe in God. Nothing’s a bigger waste of time. For somebody to be a Christian, they must first believe in God. Now as for reason, he was admonishing the use of reason for non-belief. Do you really think Paul did not use reason?
Check Romans 1:20:
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

This is 100% in line with the cosmological argument actually, because that is what it argues, that you can know about God through the existence of his creation. Further that you can understand at least some of his nature through his creation and what that which created it, must be.

Now let’s talk about truth, truth, by definition is what is the case. Therefore, what is true, was and is always true whether the bible reveals it or even if it did not.
You want to discuss the truth? Well you don’t really need the bible for that, because the truth is true by definition. The Bible reveals truth, but it’s not the maker, but the reporter of it.

And what message do you think I am “preaching”? Do you think, by parsing things out and breaking things down, it suddenly lacks truth because I did not put a bible verse to it? You have to know God exists, before you can become a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever. If you don’t believe in God, or if God does not exist all religions are equally irrelevant.

Paul did not teach “biblical” truths using “THE BIBLE”. The Bible as a unified cannon did not exist until 397 A.D., long after Paul was dead. And St. Paul never saved a single soul, only God can do that. Paul spread the gospel, but Paul could not save souls. I am pretty sure Paul would yell at you if you said he was saving souls, it’s not something humans can do. Paul was one of his messengers, a bishop of the church.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]butler244 wrote:
and people got saved.

[/quote]

Or so you hope.[/quote]

Only God can save people…

I hope butler244 has terrific aerobic capacity. Pat sure does. I did this with him for a looong time until he ran away. I will resist the the strong urge to address Pat’s 63 errors in his last long post.
@ butler244: He’s gettin a bit riled now. You can tell he is when he begins to horribly misrepresent what you said 3 inches below where you said it. I had about 25 posts of his at one time where he did this to me that I was going to start a new thread about, but decided against it.