100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 01/28/11 05:03 PM
|
|
I'm not interested in your hateful version of Christianity Cowboy. You can keep it all to yourself. Here, take a look at how loving Christianity can be for a change: http://www.avalongrove.org/ If you're going to support a religion at least try to put a little love in it.  Unconditional love and forgiveness of trespasses and disobedience is incredibly great love my friend. Could you forgive someone for a horrible trespass against you if one day that person came to you asking for forgiveness. Then the next week did something else that hurt you, but again after a while came back and asked for forgiveness? Could you continuously forgive them and love the unconditionally like it never happened in the first place? That's great love right there, I don't care who you are. That is why alot of marriages end, because people can not forgive the other of some trespass they did against the other. But not our father, he offers forgiveness for anything and everything one could possibly do in a lifetime. Would not see someone as lesser of a person then the other, he loves us all fairly and unconditionally. If he loves us all unconditionally, then there should be no conditions upon who receives it and who is forgiven and who isn't. If we all are all loved by God in such a way, then none of us should burn, and forgiveness shall be given to all. He can't love unconditionally and yet have conditions, it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not interested in your hateful version of Christianity Cowboy. You can keep it all to yourself. Here, take a look at how loving Christianity can be for a change: http://www.avalongrove.org/ If you're going to support a religion at least try to put a little love in it. Unconditional love and forgiveness of trespasses and disobedience is incredibly great love my friend. Could you forgive someone for a horrible trespass against you if one day that person came to you asking for forgiveness. Then the next week did something else that hurt you, but again after a while came back and asked for forgiveness? Could you continuously forgive them and love the unconditionally like it never happened in the first place? That's great love right there, I don't care who you are. That is why alot of marriages end, because people can not forgive the other of some trespass they did against the other. But not our father, he offers forgiveness for anything and everything one could possibly do in a lifetime. Would not see someone as lesser of a person then the other, he loves us all fairly and unconditionally. If he loves us all unconditionally, then there should be no conditions upon who receives it and who is forgiven and who isn't. If we all are all loved by God in such a way, then none of us should burn at all, and forgiveness shall be given to all. He can't love unconditionally and yet have conditions, it doesn't work. I have loved unconditionally and yet not wished to share my life with the one loved,, one is not all inclusive of the other I still love them and always will, it does not mean they are welcome to be in my home, it only means that I dont WISH them harm(whether they choose a harmful path is up to them) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Protestantism is ultimately a protest against having a central human figure who interprets scriptures for everyone else. Then is it not blaspheme against Protestantism itself to even argue with other people concerning how they should interpret the scriptures or about what they need to do to appease God?
If I've read the Bible and I'm happy with my interpretations of it then should that not suffice? Why should someone else be jumping all over my interpretations of it? Especially if they aren't even Catholic? If they already reject the the Catholic Pope as being the final authority on interpretations of scriptures then why should anyone acknowledge their authority to do so? I don't need anyone else trying to tell me what I must do to appease God. If I wanted that I'd convert to Catholicism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 01/28/11 05:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not interested in your hateful version of Christianity Cowboy. You can keep it all to yourself. Here, take a look at how loving Christianity can be for a change: http://www.avalongrove.org/ If you're going to support a religion at least try to put a little love in it. Unconditional love and forgiveness of trespasses and disobedience is incredibly great love my friend. Could you forgive someone for a horrible trespass against you if one day that person came to you asking for forgiveness. Then the next week did something else that hurt you, but again after a while came back and asked for forgiveness? Could you continuously forgive them and love the unconditionally like it never happened in the first place? That's great love right there, I don't care who you are. That is why alot of marriages end, because people can not forgive the other of some trespass they did against the other. But not our father, he offers forgiveness for anything and everything one could possibly do in a lifetime. Would not see someone as lesser of a person then the other, he loves us all fairly and unconditionally. If he loves us all unconditionally, then there should be no conditions upon who receives it and who is forgiven and who isn't. If we all are all loved by God in such a way, then none of us should burn, and forgiveness shall be given to all. He can't love unconditionally and yet have conditions, it doesn't work. There aren't conditions on it. If one isn't accepting the love of our father and his blessings, how is he going to give it to that one. And or how is that one going to accept it if they totally reject it? His love is unconditional. But again if it isn't accepted how would one receive it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By standing and lifting up their arms...
Or simply breathing... and living life. How else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By standing and lifting up their arms... Or simply breathing... and living life. How else? Giving credit where credit is due is a good start. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By standing and lifting up their arms... Or simply breathing... and living life. How else? Giving credit where credit is due is a good start. And there you go again... I give credit... Thank you GOD for the life you have placed before me... It is a wonderful gift. God is indeed great. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By standing and lifting up their arms... Or simply breathing... and living life. How else? Giving credit where credit is due is a good start. And there you go again... I give credit... Thank you GOD for the life you have placed before me... It is a wonderful gift. God is indeed great. amen!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am.
i Am.  ...and I know at least three posters here know exactly what I am saying..  Dragoness...the rest I have stated a gazillion times...and find all structured religions to be egocentric and self serving, because none are the word of a god, they are the word of a man...hu-man...saying it is the word of god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness...the rest I have stated a gazillion times...and find all structured religions to be egocentric and self serving, because none are the word of a god, they are the word of a man...hu-man...saying it is the word of god. We've finally gotten it down to the real nitty gritty in another thread. Religion people often argue that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Thus they like to cling to the idea that you can't "disprove" a particular doctrine. But that's actually false. Specific doctrines can be shown to be false and self-contradicting. However, we've just stumbled upon an amazing fact. All that truly needs to be shown is that it's reasonable to reject the Bible as the "Word of God". That's all that needs to be shown. And that is extremely simple to show. Ironically this simultaneously proves that the doctrine is also false. Because the doctrine itself claims that to not-believe in its stories is a valid reason for God to charge people with refusal to worship him. However, since it's been shown that its reasonable to reject these stories as totally undependable fables of men, then that would imply that any God who condemns people for rejecting these stories actually condemns people for being reasonable!  And that is the ultimate absurdity. Thus, ironically, to simply show that it's reasonable to dismiss these fables is sufficient evidence to prove that they are indeed false. And we certainly have that. So to all Bible Thumpers; you're blowing empty hot air that has no merit. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's reasonable to dismiss these fables is sufficient evidence to prove that they are indeed false.
not quite sure about this logic If I tell my kids father he is not their father,,,,it would be reasonable for him to dismiss my claim (previously or later) that they are but this would still not be PROOF that they arent.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 02/05/11 09:44 AM
|
|
"Because the doctrine itself claims that to not-believe in its stories is a valid reason for God to charge people with refusal to worship him. "
and Im also not sure where the bible states this,,,,I dont know of one 'belief' that is even mentioned in connection with worshipping God as I understand it,, there is NOTHING we 'do' that makes us worthy of God, (certainly nothing we BELIEVE either), but we can be given the GIFT of his love and his blessing and eternal life through the sacrifice of Jesus we get home to God through Jesus and only Jesus, BUT, there are indeed many things that JESUS considers, pertaining to how we show our LOVE for GOD and each other and that final decision wont be about a reward for how 'good' we are in the flesh, it will be a welcome home for those who reached out to that home or to whom Jesus chose to reach out to IN SPITE of their unacceptance similar to their being no guarantee eating empty calories will make you fat, there is no guarantee any solitary 'behavior' or 'belief' will get one to heaven but similar to eating empty calories, its probably best that people try to BALANCE their decisions between spiritually healthy and unhealthy if they choose to indulge in spiritually unhealthy ones at all there is no guarantee that a 'good' person will go or that a 'bad' person wont,,,,,, because judgment comes from a place we cant see (the soul) and that is why it is left to Jesus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am. i Am. ...and I know at least three posters here know exactly what I am saying.. Dragoness...the rest I have stated a gazillion times...and find all structured religions to be egocentric and self serving, because none are the word of a god, they are the word of a man...hu-man...saying it is the word of god. Hi jess... today I AM is feeling humble... i am... sure the universe is greater than I will ever know... Yet still i try to know it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or to whom Jesus chose to reach out to IN SPITE of their unacceptance If you allow for that, they you are allowing for disbelief in Jesus, disbelief in the bible and even potentially disbelief in god altogether. I have absolutely no problem with that kind of "Christianity" but that flies in the face of the "Christianity" that is typically proselytized by Christian fundamentalists. Because basically what you are saying here is that it's not important that a person believes in the Bible or in Jesus, but rather all that's truly important is whether Jesus believes in the person in question. If we accept this philosophy then religion no longer matters. Only spiritual sincerity matters. Surely if Jesus truly is God and he truly is righteous and just, then he would indeed "save" all righteous people no matter what they believe. However, you then still have the horribly said truth that even Jesus said that only few will make it into the kingdom of heaven. So you still have Jesus losing the vast majority of souls to Satan and casting those souls in to hell were there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth, and the worm will not die and the flames will not be quenched. So the vast majority of human beings will evidently meet with a horrible fate when their body dies. I still have problems with rejoicing about a God who loses the vast majority of souls he creates. Especially since there are spiritual myths that tell of Gods who are far more efficient. Eastern Mysticism has all souls returning to God eventually without exception. That's a 100% perfect creator in terms of nary losing a soul that is created. I believe that the American Indian's Wanka Tanka was a similar spiritual philosophy as well. No lost souls, but the people who were bad would be ashamed of themselves in heaven. That was their theory as I understand it. In terms of being condemned by a God, I have no fear. For any God who would condemn me would be an unworthy God in the first place anyway.  Seriously. There just isn't sufficient reason to condemn me. Unless of course this God is extremely ego-centric and can't stand having his own morals questioned. Then by all means, kill me! Because from my point of view that very mentality right there is already an immoral mentality. From my perspective God needs to be "righteous", and that means that I necessarily must judge God's "righteousness". In other words, how could I possibly view God as being "righteous" if God is doing things that I sincerely feel are "unrighteous". Who defines what's "righteous"? Well, if I am the one who needs to proclaim and agree that that God is righteous, then clearly I'm the one who would need to define what righteousness means to me. Otherwise it would be a moot concept altogether. In other words, Hitler could claim that his actions were "righteous" and if I disagree with him then I'm the fool who doesn't know what it means to be "righteous".  So ultimately you really can't have a God telling you what's righteous and what isn't. You need to recognize the righteousness of the God. Anything short of that and God would not be righteous from your perspective. And your perspective is ultimately what needs to matter. Otherwise, Hitler could be God, and you couldn't argue that his mortal values are unrighteous, because you have no say in what is considered to be "righteous". This is why any picture you accept of a God, must be righteous by your own standards. Otherwise, you'd be in disagreement with the righteousness of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 02/05/11 11:46 AM
|
|
If you allow for that, they you are allowing for disbelief in Jesus, disbelief in the bible and even potentially disbelief in god altogether.
ur first sentence says it all, except it is not I who gives the allowance ,, it is Jesus although there is no certainty of which cases he will give an allowance in and which he wont,, and this Surely if Jesus truly is God and he truly is righteous and just, then he would indeed "save" all righteous people no matter what they believe. assumes righteousness by Jesus standards is something any of us will achieve He will 'save' who he will save, and we are given a guideline of some of the things which are pleasing and displeasing to him as well as healthy and unhealthy for our spirits those who have not bothered to take care of their spirit, may find difficulty expecting Jesus to when the time comes for the flesh to end |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sat 02/05/11 12:34 PM
|
|
If you allow for that, they you are allowing for disbelief in Jesus, disbelief in the bible and even potentially disbelief in god altogether. ur first sentence says it all, except it is not I who gives the allowance ,, it is Jesus Well, that's my interpretation of the scriptures as well. But other Christianity fundamentalists on these forums have argued vehemently that my interpretations are wrong. Surely if Jesus truly is God and he truly is righteous and just, then he would indeed "save" all righteous people no matter what they believe. assumes righteousness by Jesus standards is something any of us will achieve I personally don't see any problem at all with achieving the righteous standards that Jesus taught. But then again I suppose that depends on what you are calling "Jesus standards". You see I don't count anything from the Old Testament as being the teachings of "Jesus". Neither do I accept any of the writings of Paul as the "teachings of Jesus". I see no reason to. So this leaves me with nothing more than the things that are basically in the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that are being attributed directly to quotes of Jesus himself (supposedly). I have no problem upholding all of those standards easily. What's the problem? They basically represent my very own moral values. If I had been there listening to the teachings of Jesus I would have basically been nodding my head in agreement with just about everything he said in terms of moral values. It seems to me that if a person makes these things "difficult" either they are taking them to extremes that I personally feel that Jesus never meant for them to be taken to, or they disagree with the moral values of Jesus. Otherwise, what's the problem? The problem I have with Christianity in general is not with the moral teachings that are attributed directly to Jesus, but rather with the idea that they hold Jesus up as an excuse to also include the ramblings of Paul. Plus they use Jesus as an excuse to dredge up things from the Old Testament as well. In fact, that's basically what Paul was doing most of the time. So I can easily accept the moral values of Jesus whilst rejecting the entire Old Testament, and the teachings of Paul (which constitutes about 75% of the New Testament). By the time I'm done with the Bible it has four little books, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The only books that truly address the teachings of Jesus via the claims of supposedly "quoting him directly". Other books in the New Testament may also claim to "quote" Jesus, but in truth, what those authors are usually doing is quoting previous quotes that had already been made by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But heck yeah. To actually follow the teachings of Jesus is a piece of cake. There's nothing to it. I truly feel sorry for anyone who would have difficulty living up to those moral values. Like I say, "What's the problem?" What is it that people are having such difficulty with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 02/05/11 03:22 PM
|
|
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
I can imagine people are having ALOT of trouble with that, and thats just the begining of some of the things the Lord said(which certainly couldnt have covered every condition and action that man had or would encounter) and this I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he the greatest on earth is still the least in heaven,,,none of us are 'worthy' except through Jesus giving us grace i could list more, but I think people should just read the sermons themself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. I haven't found any of those difficult to do. To begin with I have no enemies that I'm aware of. I don't know of anyone who hates me (especially legitimately). In other words, I don't know of anyone who hates me who actually knows me in person. I have had people steal from me and I did not seek revenge. They didn't stick around long enough for me to offer them anything more. I've never had anyone slap me on my face, therefore I have never had any need to "turn the other cheek to them". I suppose if you're going around having people slap you in the face all the time you may have a problem with that. I don't. I don't do things that cause people to want to slap me in the face in the first place. I do help out everyone who asks for my help. I do to others as I would have them do unto me. So I don't see any problem with any of the above. Moreover, I would add that I don't take these things to extremes I believe that Jesus was speaking to common people and trying to address common experiences. I don't personally believe that Jesus would expect people in a town to just sit back and do nothing if a criminally insane gang came into their town and started tearing the place up and harming people. I also don't believe that Jesus was asking any responsible parent to not defend and protect their children, etc. Besides, from a "Christian" point of view there are "always exceptions to every biblical rule". Christians believe that the Old Testament is the WORD OF GOD. Yet, look at what happened there. God commanded people "Not to Kill", and then he continued to go about directing them to stone sinners to death and to kill heathens with no mercy. So this God is a God who's constantly making exceptions to his own commandments. So if I'm going to accept that Jesus was the son of that God there would be no reason for me not to believe that Jesus expects us to make exceptions as well where appropriate. I can imagine people are having ALOT of trouble with that, and thats just the begining of some of the things the Lord said(which certainly couldnt have covered every condition and action that man had or would encounter) Well, none of those things apply to my life. No one has been attacking me lately, and I typically don't give people any reason to be slapping me in the face. I won't argue with people face-to-face in public because I know that a lot of people are mental retards and so I don't even bother arguing with them. What would be the point? Let them live with their asinine opinions. Who cares? I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he Interesting considering that Jesus himself was born of a woman.  If Jesus actually said this it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Besides, I was originally asking what would be so hard to follow. I didn't say that I agree with every quote that the gospels attribute to Jesus. There's nothing to "follow" there, it was just a stupid meaningless comment that would have been better left unsaid, IMHO. the greatest on earth is still the least in heaven,,,none of us are 'worthy' except through Jesus giving us grace Again, this has nothing to do with moral values, this is just religious propaganda and religious bigotry which I personally doubt that Jesus himself even supported. I don't agree with everything the gospels attribute to Jesus. I merely asked what is so hard about following his moral values? i could list more, but I think people should just read the sermons themself I have read them, and like I say, I don't take everything to the extreme. I believe that Jesus was speaking to common people and intending to address common experiences. I don't believe that Jesus would expect an entire society to take everything he said to the extreme literal sense and just allow criminally mentally ill people to just walk in and destroy their society and not do something about it. IMHO, that would be utterly stupid, and I don't believe that Jesus was asking anyone to behave in such a foolish manner. Yes, if someone were to break into my house I would indeed chase them off. If they refused to leave and threatened to harm me or my family I'd do whatever is required to stop them in their tracks without a second thought. Nor would I feel guilty afterward, nor in need of repentance for such an act. In fact, I pretty sure that such a defense is even condoned in the biblical scriptures themselves. So like I say, I don't take the teachings of Jesus to the point of foolish extremism. No, of course not. But sure, if someone wants to do that then perhaps they would find it difficult to justify their own behavior. But now, we're talking about a level of personal interpretation. In other words, what do I need to satisfy? The teachings of Jesus? Or your interpretations of the teachings of Jesus?  I personally feel that I satisfy and fulfill the teachings of Jesus as I understand and interpret them. And I don't even need to try to do this, I just automatically satisfy them just being who I natural am. Will this satisfy your religious extremism? Perhaps not, but why should I care about that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. I haven't found any of those difficult to do. To begin with I have no enemies that I'm aware of. I don't know of anyone who hates me (especially legitimately). In other words, I don't know of anyone who hates me who actually knows me in person. I have had people steal from me and I did not seek revenge. They didn't stick around long enough for me to offer them anything more. I've never had anyone slap me on my face, therefore I have never had any need to "turn the other cheek to them". I suppose if you're going around having people slap you in the face all the time you may have a problem with that. I don't. I don't do things that cause people to want to slap me in the face in the first place. I do help out everyone who asks for my help. I do to others as I would have them do unto me. So I don't see any problem with any of the above. Moreover, I would add that I don't take these things to extremes I believe that Jesus was speaking to common people and trying to address common experiences. I don't personally believe that Jesus would expect people in a town to just sit back and do nothing if a criminally insane gang came into their town and started tearing the place up and harming people. I also don't believe that Jesus was asking any responsible parent to not defend and protect their children, etc. Besides, from a "Christian" point of view there are "always exceptions to every biblical rule". Christians believe that the Old Testament is the WORD OF GOD. Yet, look at what happened there. God commanded people "Not to Kill", and then he continued to go about directing them to stone sinners to death and to kill heathens with no mercy. So this God is a God who's constantly making exceptions to his own commandments. So if I'm going to accept that Jesus was the son of that God there would be no reason for me not to believe that Jesus expects us to make exceptions as well where appropriate. I can imagine people are having ALOT of trouble with that, and thats just the begining of some of the things the Lord said(which certainly couldnt have covered every condition and action that man had or would encounter) Well, none of those things apply to my life. No one has been attacking me lately, and I typically don't give people any reason to be slapping me in the face. I won't argue with people face-to-face in public because I know that a lot of people are mental retards and so I don't even bother arguing with them. What would be the point? Let them live with their asinine opinions. Who cares? I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he Interesting considering that Jesus himself was born of a woman. If Jesus actually said this it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Besides, I was originally asking what would be so hard to follow. I didn't say that I agree with every quote that the gospels attribute to Jesus. There's nothing to "follow" there, it was just a stupid meaningless comment that would have been better left unsaid, IMHO. the greatest on earth is still the least in heaven,,,none of us are 'worthy' except through Jesus giving us grace Again, this has nothing to do with moral values, this is just religious propaganda and religious bigotry which I personally doubt that Jesus himself even supported. I don't agree with everything the gospels attribute to Jesus. I merely asked what is so hard about following his moral values? i could list more, but I think people should just read the sermons themself I have read them, and like I say, I don't take everything to the extreme. I believe that Jesus was speaking to common people and intending to address common experiences. I don't believe that Jesus would expect an entire society to take everything he said to the extreme literal sense and just allow criminally mentally ill people to just walk in and destroy their society and not do something about it. IMHO, that would be utterly stupid, and I don't believe that Jesus was asking anyone to behave in such a foolish manner. Yes, if someone were to break into my house I would indeed chase them off. If they refused to leave and threatened to harm me or my family I'd do whatever is required to stop them in their tracks without a second thought. Nor would I feel guilty afterward, nor in need of repentance for such an act. In fact, I pretty sure that such a defense is even condoned in the biblical scriptures themselves. So like I say, I don't take the teachings of Jesus to the point of foolish extremism. No, of course not. But sure, if someone wants to do that then perhaps they would find it difficult to justify their own behavior. But now, we're talking about a level of personal interpretation. In other words, what do I need to satisfy? The teachings of Jesus? Or your interpretations of the teachings of Jesus? I personally feel that I satisfy and fulfill the teachings of Jesus as I understand and interpret them. And I don't even need to try to do this, I just automatically satisfy them just being who I natural am. Will this satisfy your religious extremism? Perhaps not, but why should I care about that? as long as thats whats you feel, you have no problem following the books you noted as long as its by your own PERSONAL interpretation and not too literal or 'extreme' to each their own,, but it sounds much like the argument of those who follow the other books... |
|
|
|
|
