100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What is God? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
No it did. But that's not the point I was trying to make here. All I'm saying is just because you worship God in your own way does not make it right. You know nothing about how I worship God and you are in no position to make any judgments. This thread is not about religion it is about God. ??? Shiningarmour's post was in response to freakyshiki2009's post. Wasn't directed at you. It doesn't matter. It is on a public thread. And.. he was making a general statement. I will reword: You know nothing about how anyone else might worship God, and you are in no position to make judgments about what is right or wrong in how anyone else choses to worship. Yes it was a general statement directed generally as the following post and not generally at specifically anyone else. And killing his own brother had nothing to do with his punishment? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it was the one that put him over the top, so to speak. It was because of his brother's murder that caused God to punish him. Huh, who knew I could learn something from the anti christian chat? Oh! sorry the "General religion chat" Proves my point that any other religion is not another valid religion to a Christian, it is simply thought of at anti-Christian. That is the "You are either with us or against us" mentality. It is the: "You are either a Christian or you are going to hell" mentality. It is the "All of you other religions worship false Gods" mentality. You guys do this so naturally and so automatically you don't even realize it. Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: It is all purely about love. Is it love for one to give their life for another? Of course it is, people from the military are honored all the time and many individual people are honored in memory for giving their life up to save another all the time as well. Is it love to give the last piece of bread to another even though you are starving? Is it love to give the last drink of water to another even though you are dehydrated? That is definitely a sign of love. Same goes with sacrificing animals to God. Food, especially meat wasn't as abundant then as it is now. It was a sacrifice to give their best bull to God. Jesus felt the pain of death for you, he didn't "have" to. He could have lived his life how ever he wished to live it. But he sacrificed his life for you giving us the new covenant between man and God. That is love right there, willing to give up everything and feel incredible pain so that another would not have to. I'm sorry Cowboy but I don't accept anything you have to say here. You're attempting to belittle God and reduce God to the helplessness of a mere mortal person. You say, It is all purely about love. Is it love for one to give their life for another? Of course it is, people from the military are honored all the time and many individual people are honored in memory for giving their life up to save another all the time as well. Humans go to war because they feel they have no other way to solve the problem. Let's hope they aren't going to war because it's their preferred method of solving a problem! With God all things are possible. So you can't have a God "sacrificing his son" to save mankind. That would imply that God was either too inept to figure out a better way to solve the problem, thus being less than "all-wise", or that he had no choice, which would imply that's he's not all-powerful and not all things are possible for him. So your lame analogy of comparing God with the desperate acts of humans who can't do any better only suggests that you believe that God is just as helpless and inept as mortal men. You can't have an all-powerful, all-wise God doing "desperate things" because he has no choice to do better. That would be an inept God who can't do any better than mere mortal men. So your analogy breaks down in a deeply serious way. I don't buy it. You're asking me to believe that God is just as helpless and powerless as mere mortal men. With God all things are possible. So you can't have a God "sacrificing his son" to save mankind. That would imply that God was either too inept to figure out a better way to solve the problem, thus being less than "all-wise", or that he had no choice, which would imply that's he's not all-powerful and not all things are possible for him. God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Jesus sacrificed himself. And God is all powerful and all knowing. That is the reason it's such a beautiful loving thing Jesus did. Jesus knew the outcome of his coming and giving us the new covenant, but was willing to do it regardless of the outcome of the crucifixion. Jesus was willing to go through the pain and agony of the crucifixion for you because he loves you. With all due respect Cowboy, your reply to this is truly absurd, IMHO. So you're basically saying that the only way for God to offer mankind salvation was to present his son to mankind so that the worst of mankind could crucify him and that would somehow provide God a way of "saving" the innocent? That makes no sense at all, IMHO. There's no reason why a God couldn't simply "save" the innocent people without feeding the trolls. Besides, it was this very God who instructed men to kill heathens, so how could he even view their obedience to his instructions as being anything other than total devotion to his will? He would need to embrace everyone who partook in the crucifixion of Jesus with open arms for being totally obedient to his directives. The mere fact that they were incited to believe that they were condemning a heathen for blaspheme implies that that they were at least under the belief that they were doing God's will. In fact, when they went to stone the sinner at the well they were only doing what God had instructed them to do. So all of these people whom we view as having done wrongful things were simply obeying the very directives of this very same God in this story. I don't buy you portrait of God. From my perspective God would need to be dumber than rocks to have gone about providing "salvation" for mankind via such a despicable and totally unnecessary gruesome act. Since I find it highly unlikely that the creator of this universe is dumber than rocks, I see no reason to accept these ancient views of God. There is no way that you are going to "justify" to me the crucifixion of Jesus in God's name. That's never going to happen. The story is necessarily faulty, and therefore there must be a better explanation. The idea that Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva solves this problem perfectly and explains everything. So I'm convinced that this far more rational and believable conclusion is more credible than the views of a few Jews. Especially when the bulk of the Jews saw gross flaws in their stories as well.  Clearly the Jews themselves did not even support those rumors about Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 03/21/11 12:52 PM
|
|
Yes, but it was the one that put him over the top, so to speak. It was because of his brother's murder that caused God to punish him. Huh, who knew I could learn something from the anti christian chat? Oh! sorry the "General religion chat" Proves my point that any other religion is not another valid religion to a Christian, it is simply thought of at anti-Christian. That is the "You are either with us or against us" mentality. It is the: "You are either a Christian or you are going to hell" mentality. It is the "All of you other religions worship false Gods" mentality. You guys do this so naturally and so automatically you don't even realize it. Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. That is what Abra calls the designer Christians. They claim they don't belong to any religion, they simply follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But the term "Christian" does not really have to be connected to any organize corporation or church. It simply means one who believes the Bible and what it says about Jesus etc. But the Bible does not even have to be in the Mix....I have met very serious and rabid followers of Jesus who have totally rejected the Bible and use the Urantia Book as their guide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. The problem with your view here is that you demand that people accept a "Christian view" of what Jesus supposedly taught. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus taught the same basic morals and spiritual philosophies of people like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and many others. Jesus wasn't the "only way", as the Christians claim (the "Christians" being referred to here are the actual authors of the New Testament, and not merely the followers of their writings). So we simply disagree on precisely what Jesus taught is all. You're demanding that we accept a Christian view of who Jesus was and what he taught. All we're telling you is that we don't accept the Christian view of who Jesus was and what he taught. It's that simple. You're demanding that we accept and worship the Christian view. (i.e. the precise claims being made by the authors of the Christian New Testament). We simply don't recognize their authority to speak on behalf of Jesus, especially in a precise verbatim sense. So you're not demanding that anyone necessarily following the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary you are demanding that we follow the Christian views of who Jesus was and what he might have stood for or taught. You can pretend to cast off the label, but you're still demanding that we worship the Christian "dogma". The authors of the New Testament were the "Christians". People today who claim to follow the teachings of those authors call themselves "Christians" simply because they follow the teachings of those original "Christian" authors. Therefore, if you are upholding the New Testament as the verbatim teachings of Jesus then you are supporting the Christian View. Cast the labels off. It makes no difference. It's the specific doctrine that you support as the verbatim words of Jesus that we reject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. The problem with your view here is that you demand that people accept a "Christian view" of what Jesus supposedly taught. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus taught the same basic morals and spiritual philosophies of people like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and many others. Jesus wasn't the "only way", as the Christians claim (the "Christians" being referred to here are the actual authors of the New Testament, and not merely the followers of their writings). So we simply disagree on precisely what Jesus taught is all. You're demanding that we accept a Christian view of who Jesus was and what he taught. All we're telling you is that we don't accept the Christian view of who Jesus was and what he taught. It's that simple. You're demanding that we accept and worship the Christian view. (i.e. the precise claims being made by the authors of the Christian New Testament). We simply don't recognize their authority to speak on behalf of Jesus, especially in a precise verbatim sense. So you're not demanding that anyone necessarily following the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary you are demanding that we follow the Christian views of who Jesus was and what he might have stood for or taught. You can pretend to cast off the label, but you're still demanding that we worship the Christian "dogma". The authors of the New Testament were the "Christians". People today who claim to follow the teachings of those authors call themselves "Christians" simply because they follow the teachings of those original "Christian" authors. Therefore, if you are upholding the New Testament as the verbatim teachings of Jesus then you are supporting the Christian View. Cast the labels off. It makes no difference. It's the specific doctrine that you support as the verbatim words of Jesus that we reject. Interesting, so you can pick out certain things and disregard the rest? You claim Jesus truly lived, and taught what he taught. In your eyes he wasn't teaching "christianity" but that's besides the point. My point is how can you pick out certain things YOU feel is right and take out what you feel is hearsay rumours? and or lies? You can't just take pieces here and there. And if I'm not mistaken God spoke to everyone proclaiming Jesus to be his child and that he was mighty pleased in him. Jesus may have been misunderstood, but if you're going to give credit to the teachings of Jesus you have to take the entire bible. Regardless if you WANT to believe in it or not is besides the point, but again after again you can NOT take pieces out that suites you and disregard the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra writes:
"The problem with your view here is that you demand that people accept a "Christian view" of what Jesus supposedly taught." What is this with the demanding thing? Christians do not demand anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it was the one that put him over the top, so to speak. It was because of his brother's murder that caused God to punish him. Huh, who knew I could learn something from the anti christian chat? Oh! sorry the "General religion chat" Proves my point that any other religion is not another valid religion to a Christian, it is simply thought of at anti-Christian. That is the "You are either with us or against us" mentality. It is the: "You are either a Christian or you are going to hell" mentality. It is the "All of you other religions worship false Gods" mentality. You guys do this so naturally and so automatically you don't even realize it. Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. That is what Abra calls the designer Christians. They claim they don't belong to any religion, they simply follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But the term "Christian" does not really have to be connected to any organize corporation or church. It simply means one who believes the Bible and what it says about Jesus etc. I have met very serious and rabid follower of Jesus who have totally rejected the Bible and use the Urantia Book as their guide. Cowboy is "Preaching", or "Proselyting" the idea that the New Testament account of Jesus must be accepted verbatim. So in a sense he's a die-hard hardcore Protestant Christian fundamentalist, even to the point of being a "Paper Pope", because he not only demands that we accept the New Testament as the verbatim word of God, but he also demands that we must accept his own personal interpretations of those scriptures as being the only acceptable interpretations. However, it is true that in his "Paper Pope" approach to insisting that only his interpretations of scripture must be accepted as the gospel truth makes him a "Designer Christian" of sorts. Although, typically the term "Designer Christian" typically refers to peaceful Christians who simply want a "Personal Walk with Jesus" and aren't out to convert the rest of the world to their views. Most of them renounce a strict dogmatic approach to spirituality. Cowboy not only demands a strict dogmatic approach, but he's also going to oversee and dictate precisely which interpretations and conclusion should be considered to be valid or invalid. TO COWBOY: Can you list in detail precisely what you would "require" of someone before you would accept that they are "following the teachings of Jesus"? We could then go over your list and say which parts we agree with and which parts we disagree with. Maybe we can find some common ground that way? Because in truth Cowboy, if we were going to live side-by-side as neighbors we'd need to come to some sort of consensus or understanding. It wouldn't be healthy for either of us for you to continually view me as having "rejected God". As you well know I have never implies or have suggested any such thing of you. So from my point of view this is entirely a ONE-SIDED problem. You seem to feel that I have not accepted God, whilst I do not feel that way about you. I would not wish to be your neighbor if you were constantly going to be viewing me as someone who is unwilling to accept God. So make up your list, and lets see precisely what POINTS you're having difficulty with when it comes to accepting that I have accepted God. Maybe we can narrow this down to just a few precise issues that we can discuss directly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it was the one that put him over the top, so to speak. It was because of his brother's murder that caused God to punish him. Huh, who knew I could learn something from the anti christian chat? Oh! sorry the "General religion chat" Proves my point that any other religion is not another valid religion to a Christian, it is simply thought of at anti-Christian. That is the "You are either with us or against us" mentality. It is the: "You are either a Christian or you are going to hell" mentality. It is the "All of you other religions worship false Gods" mentality. You guys do this so naturally and so automatically you don't even realize it. Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. That is what Abra calls the designer Christians. They claim they don't belong to any religion, they simply follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But the term "Christian" does not really have to be connected to any organize corporation or church. It simply means one who believes the Bible and what it says about Jesus etc. I have met very serious and rabid follower of Jesus who have totally rejected the Bible and use the Urantia Book as their guide. Cowboy is "Preaching", or "Proselyting" the idea that the New Testament account of Jesus must be accepted verbatim. So in a sense he's a die-hard hardcore Protestant Christian fundamentalist, even to the point of being a "Paper Pope", because he not only demands that we accept the New Testament as the verbatim word of God, but he also demands that we must accept his own personal interpretations of those scriptures as being the only acceptable interpretations. However, it is true that in his "Paper Pope" approach to insisting that only his interpretations of scripture must be accepted as the gospel truth makes him a "Designer Christian" of sorts. Although, typically the term "Designer Christian" typically refers to peaceful Christians who simply want a "Personal Walk with Jesus" and aren't out to convert the rest of the world to their views. Most of them renounce a strict dogmatic approach to spirituality. Cowboy not only demands a strict dogmatic approach, but he's also going to oversee and dictate precisely which interpretations and conclusion should be considered to be valid or invalid. TO COWBOY: Can you list in detail precisely what you would "require" of someone before you would accept that they are "following the teachings of Jesus"? We could then go over your list and say which parts we agree with and which parts we disagree with. Maybe we can find some common ground that way? Because in truth Cowboy, if we were going to live side-by-side as neighbors we'd need to come to some sort of consensus or understanding. It wouldn't be healthy for either of us for you to continually view me as having "rejected God". As you well know I have never implies or have suggested any such thing of you. So from my point of view this is entirely a ONE-SIDED problem. You seem to feel that I have not accepted God, whilst I do not feel that way about you. I would not wish to be your neighbor if you were constantly going to be viewing me as someone who is unwilling to accept God. So make up your list, and lets see precisely what POINTS you're having difficulty with when it comes to accepting that I have accepted God. Maybe we can narrow this down to just a few precise issues that we can discuss directly. Cowboy is "Preaching", or "Proselyting" the idea that the New Testament account of Jesus must be accepted verbatim. So in a sense he's a die-hard hardcore Protestant Christian fundamentalist, even to the point of being a "Paper Pope", because he not only demands that we accept the New Testament as the verbatim word of God, but he also demands that we must accept his own personal interpretations of those scriptures as being the only acceptable interpretations. The only real sort of problem I have with you Abra is you either lie, disregard things said, or flat out don't listen. I've said many many many many many many many many many many *takes a breath* many many many many many many many times that if someone else has a different interpretation of verses in mention that we could discuss if they wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read Cowboy's posts, and he is not demanding anything of anybody. We're Christians. How can we demand anything when it is only by God's grace that we are saved? You may not like what he has to say, but he is not demanding anything of you. If you choose not to believe, that's your right.
However... As Christians, we are CALLED to preach the good news. If we are not preaching the good news, we are not doing our jobs as Christians. Add to that the joy and love of doing so. For me, whenever I speak with someone and they turn to Jesus, it is a blessed thing indeed. Because I am fulfilling my purpose for being here. And God gets all of the glory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it was the one that put him over the top, so to speak. It was because of his brother's murder that caused God to punish him. Huh, who knew I could learn something from the anti christian chat? Oh! sorry the "General religion chat" Proves my point that any other religion is not another valid religion to a Christian, it is simply thought of at anti-Christian. That is the "You are either with us or against us" mentality. It is the: "You are either a Christian or you are going to hell" mentality. It is the "All of you other religions worship false Gods" mentality. You guys do this so naturally and so automatically you don't even realize it. Someone doesn't have to be a "Christian" to enter into heaven or worship the true and only father. Christian is merely a term given to us from people as you and others that do not share the same beliefs as the claimed "Christians". Jesus said nothing of "Christians". Yes one has to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But as the term "Christian" one does not have to be. That is what Abra calls the designer Christians. They claim they don't belong to any religion, they simply follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But the term "Christian" does not really have to be connected to any organize corporation or church. It simply means one who believes the Bible and what it says about Jesus etc. I have met very serious and rabid follower of Jesus who have totally rejected the Bible and use the Urantia Book as their guide. Cowboy is "Preaching", or "Proselyting" the idea that the New Testament account of Jesus must be accepted verbatim. So in a sense he's a die-hard hardcore Protestant Christian fundamentalist, even to the point of being a "Paper Pope", because he not only demands that we accept the New Testament as the verbatim word of God, but he also demands that we must accept his own personal interpretations of those scriptures as being the only acceptable interpretations. However, it is true that in his "Paper Pope" approach to insisting that only his interpretations of scripture must be accepted as the gospel truth makes him a "Designer Christian" of sorts. Although, typically the term "Designer Christian" typically refers to peaceful Christians who simply want a "Personal Walk with Jesus" and aren't out to convert the rest of the world to their views. Most of them renounce a strict dogmatic approach to spirituality. Cowboy not only demands a strict dogmatic approach, but he's also going to oversee and dictate precisely which interpretations and conclusion should be considered to be valid or invalid. TO COWBOY: Can you list in detail precisely what you would "require" of someone before you would accept that they are "following the teachings of Jesus"? We could then go over your list and say which parts we agree with and which parts we disagree with. Maybe we can find some common ground that way? Because in truth Cowboy, if we were going to live side-by-side as neighbors we'd need to come to some sort of consensus or understanding. It wouldn't be healthy for either of us for you to continually view me as having "rejected God". As you well know I have never implies or have suggested any such thing of you. So from my point of view this is entirely a ONE-SIDED problem. You seem to feel that I have not accepted God, whilst I do not feel that way about you. I would not wish to be your neighbor if you were constantly going to be viewing me as someone who is unwilling to accept God. So make up your list, and lets see precisely what POINTS you're having difficulty with when it comes to accepting that I have accepted God. Maybe we can narrow this down to just a few precise issues that we can discuss directly. Can you list in detail precisely what you would "require" of someone before you would accept that they are "following the teachings of Jesus"? 1. Jesus is the only begotten child of God. 2. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant between man and God bring forth a new one. 3. Jesus is the only way to God. 4. To love everyone regardless of everything. To love everyone unconditionally. That bout sums it up fairly well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read Cowboy's posts, and he is not demanding anything of anybody. We're Christians. How can we demand anything when it is only by God's grace that we are saved? You may not like what he has to say, but he is not demanding anything of you. If you choose not to believe, that's your right. However... As Christians, we are CALLED to preach the good news. If we are not preaching the good news, we are not doing our jobs as Christians. Add to that the joy and love of doing so. For me, whenever I speak with someone and they turn to Jesus, it is a blessed thing indeed. Because I am fulfilling my purpose for being here. And God gets all of the glory. AMEN!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra writes: "The problem with your view here is that you demand that people accept a "Christian view" of what Jesus supposedly taught." What is this with the demanding thing? Christians do not demand anything. I wasn't speaking of Christians in general Shiki. I was addressing Cowboy's personal position. Don't fall in the trap of getting caught in the 'crossfire' between two people who are trying to find common ground. Besides, if we're speaking of the "Christians" as the actual authors of the New Testament, and not merely the followers of those writings, then those original Christians most certainly were demanding this: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So the actual "Christians" (i.e. the authors of the New Testament) are indeed demanding that either people believe that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, or they have already been condemned. This is what the actual Christians (i.e. the authors of the New Testament) are demanding. If you're a follower of "Christianity" and you disagree with this view, then clearly you are disagreeing with John and you do not accept everything that is in these text verbatim.  So in a sense, if you demand that the "Holy Scriptures" are the word of God, then you are indeed making many "demands" of other people inadvertently by your simple support that these so-called "Holy Scriptures" are the "Word of God". It comes with the religion automatically. Unless you're a "Designer Christian" who rejects a strict verbatim approach to the doctrine. But once you go there, then you must also accept everyone Else's loose personal interpretations of the doctrine as well as being valid for them. Which would ultimately include my own interpretations. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The only real sort of problem I have with you Abra is you either lie, disregard things said, or flat out don't listen. I've said many many many many many many many many many many *takes a breath* many many many many many many many times that if someone else has a different interpretation of verses in mention that we could discuss if they wish. What?  We should discuss them? Why don't you say instead, "If someone else has a different interpretation of verses then I respect their views on that." I've already totally disagreed with many of your personal interpretations of verses. We have discussed them and could only agree to disagree. Yet you still act like your interpretations should somehow trump mind.  You have never offered me mutual respect for my views and interpretations. I have offered you respect for yours. I've told you that I'm sure that no God is going to be upset with you for the views you have regarding these ancient stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Mon 03/21/11 01:32 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The only real sort of problem I have with you Abra is you either lie, disregard things said, or flat out don't listen. I've said many many many many many many many many many many *takes a breath* many many many many many many many times that if someone else has a different interpretation of verses in mention that we could discuss if they wish. What? We should discuss them? Why don't you say instead, "If someone else has a different interpretation of verses then I respect their views on that." I've already totally disagreed with many of your personal interpretations of verses. We have discussed them and could only agree to disagree. Yet you still act like your interpretations should somehow trump mind. You have never offered me mutual respect for my views and interpretations. I have offered you respect for yours. I've told you that I'm sure that no God is going to be upset with you for the views you have regarding these ancient stories. This doesn't apply to every time you and I have done that, but quite a bit of the time you talk about a scripture saying one thing. Then I disagree and show how it means another including surrounding verses, you normally either leave it at that and start talking about something else, or you come up with some statement along the lines of "Well that's your interpretation, you can twist the words all you want to try to make sense of it." And if someone's beliefs are contrary to yours and they state theirs you get real offensive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra, please don't do a TexasScoundrel technique of quoting one verse out of context. To quote John 3:18 without adding 3:16 and 3:17 is not right.
You're better than this. I don't agree with you, but I do respect your viewpoints. Don't resort to misquoting the Bible or quoting the Bible out of context. Amateurs do that. You're better than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
freakyshiki wrote:
I've read Cowboy's posts, and he is not demanding anything of anybody. We're Christians. How can we demand anything when it is only by God's grace that we are saved? You may not like what he has to say, but he is not demanding anything of you. If you choose not to believe, that's your right. I know it's my right. That's not in question. The question is, can Cowboy accept that I accept "God" without demanding that I worship his idol image of God? Because if he can't then he's passing judgment on me based on religious prejudice and bigotry. I pass no such judgment on him. However... As Christians, we are CALLED to preach the good news. If we are not preaching the good news, we are not doing our jobs as Christians. Add to that the joy and love of doing so. In the highly divided house of Christianity not all "Christians" feel that way. I used to be a Free Methodist, and our church did not believe that it was our job to go out proselytizing the religion the name of Jesus. That very interpretation itself is highly questionable. Jesus did not ask us to become his disciples. In fact, we could not possible do what Jesus had asked his disciples to do. So the idea that we should be expected to do those things is highly questionable and matter of personal interpretations. For me, whenever I speak with someone and they turn to Jesus, it is a blessed thing indeed. Because I am fulfilling my purpose for being here. And God gets all of the glory. I feel good when I help someone better understand Wicca, or Buddhism too. But I don't go around accusing people of rejecting God if they fail to see the divinity in Wicca or Buddhism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In the highly divided house of Christianity not all "Christians" feel that way. I used to be a Free Methodist, and our church did not believe that it was our job to go out proselytizing the religion the name of Jesus."
Then you were not being a good Christian. The job of all Christians is to spread the gospel. This is a commandment from Christ. It would be like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I do not believe it is my job to love my neighbor." You can use whatever denomination you want to be, but if you are not spreading the gospel, you are not living up to your calling. "Jesus did not ask us to become his disciples." WHAT??? So, when we are called ambassadors of Christ, that means nothing? There are many, many references of Christ calling us to be exactly that. If you would like, I would be more than happy to share them with you. "In fact, we could not possible do what Jesus had asked his disciples to do." Love your enemies as yourself? Seek God, not money? We can't do these things? "So the idea that we should be expected to do those things is highly questionable and matter of personal interpretations." Nah. See above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra, please don't do a TexasScoundrel technique of quoting one verse out of context. To quote John 3:18 without adding 3:16 and 3:17 is not right. You're better than this. I don't agree with you, but I do respect your viewpoints. Don't resort to misquoting the Bible or quoting the Bible out of context. Amateurs do that. You're better than that. [16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Happy now? It doesn't change a thing as far as I can see. The Christian demand still stands in the end. All you're attempting to do is suggest that the demand is somehow "justified". Your original point was: What is this with the demanding thing? Christians do not demand anything. All I did was show that they are indeed making demands. So now what you are going to do? Agree with me and instead just try to make out like they are 'justified' in the demands they are making? That's a moot point. The point I was making is that these original Christians were indeed making demands. (i.e. refuse to acknowledge Jesus as the only begotten son of God and your condemned already!) So I could post the entire New Testament, and my point would still stand. Context is entirely moot in this situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Thank you for proving my point. I give you credit in that you actually quoted the other two verses. Most people would not. However, let's look at this, verse by verse. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Do you see any demands here? I do not. Simply put, if you believe in Christ, you will have everleasting life. You don't have to agree with this. This is merely a statement, not a demand. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." Again, nobody is demanding anything; this statement merely explains why Christ came into the world. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." This is not a demand. This statement is saying that if you do not believe in Christ, you are condemned. It is up to you to decide whether to believe. Where do you see anything here about demanding anything? |
|
|
|
|
