mouth isn’t a valid christian but someone who lifts bits and pieces from Christianity and hides his elitist socialism behind those sentences.
You see, a geuine Christian accepts others as they are; ‘love thy neighbour’ but mouth doesn’t. Either you agree with him or you are not someone whom he considers on the ‘same level’ as him. So, he won’t debate.
A genuine Christian Progressive accepts the beliefs of others and doesn’t put them down.
A genuine Christian accepts others as equal. Not mouth.
Again, mouth, you haven’t justified your support of statism. You haven’t defined ‘wealth’ nor explained why you reject it. In fact, you haven’t done a thing, except repeat platitudes taken out of context, declared they are inviolate truths and hidden your real agenda – which is socialist enslavement of people.
You ought to be ashamed; to promote enslavement of people to a state.
Breitbart is right about the corruption in the liberal press and the progressive educational system. The left-wing parties have also moved more to the left. Centuries old classical liberalism, that championed personal freedoms, has been subverted by Marxism and instead now preaches socialist statism. The personal man means nothing to them.
Progressive Christian? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Lenin and Stalin’s radical “Progressives” managed to do in a number of my extended family members, that is, after they did in the moderate progressives who sided with Lenin’s bunch when push came to shove.
Somehow Marxism and many now only nominal Christian mainline churches have melded their ideologies during the last five decades. This sickness has even infiltrated some of the evangelical Christian churches.
ET,
you are most correct again ET you must read my previous post about real and fake christians/churches.
Sadly there are alot …that does not mean that if agree with slaughtering unborn babies that you don’t love christ …it means what you have been taught is wrong and you have been misled.
Pasotrs and the churches themsleves are responsible for this a pastor must guide and tend to his flock and that is very true ET ….Also ET as a real christian i agree with you on debating,I Agree with all you have stated about accepting others beleif’s no matter how far of from mine they are ,I love my nieghboor even if he is a radical islamist who would love nothing more than to sever my head and show it to my daughter….it is tough to do but i do it ,And also i accept everyone as my equal again why i am a pro lifer and i am so much against pre-screening for downsyndrome babies..that is humanity at it’s worst we have fallen so far ..and i beleive that god will soon return i hope and pray that he does. ET are you an athiest?
Paul in calgary.
I’m guessing that ‘mouth’ is really ‘bleet’ under another alias. He’s always there to look out for the salvation of us crazy right-wingers.
I always find it funny when people like mouth/bleet try to sell Jesus’s teachings about the personal journey of faith as advocating left wing policies that result in bigger government, higher taxes and bureaucrats lining their own pocket.
Sorry mouth/bleet. The government doesn’t represent God and I don’t need a bureaucrat to “donate” my money to someone who they feel is in need. I can do that myself.
paul in calglary – yes, I’m an atheist.
As for your ‘love thy neighbour’ – this doesn’t mean an enslaved love which is one without reason. That is, you, as a human being, endowed with reason, have the duty to evaluate the acts of others, and define some of those acts as evil and unwelcome in your society. Such as the Islamist agenda of death. Such as the socialist agenda of enslavement of the individual to a state.
I refer you to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, where he said “it is still necessary to raise the question of God through the use of reason”. You will note that mouth rejects this.
And ‘not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature”..and ‘Logos means both reason and word–a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication precisely as reason”.
The pope also says that ‘it is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity…when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it”. Again, mouth rejects the use of reason; he just mouths platitudes without thought.
If you have read Jean Bethke Elshtain’s great work on ‘Sovereignty: god, state and self’ (she is a catholic thinker); she supports this use of reason in the act of faith’. When applied to the state, this mean the loss of the transcendent powers of the state.
But mouth rejects reason and instead, inserts Will. That’s a transcendent force that ‘overcomes’ evil by triumphalism (you are saved!…by the theistic god or the authority of the socialist state).
The socialist left, cocooned by its ‘christian progressivism’ sets up statism as a transcendent authority over the individual, who loses his right to reason, think, critique, and thus gives up his freedom.
Mouth is not a Christian, he’s just baiting you.
I’m an agnostic, so I have no dog in this fight, but it’s clear that no Christian who knows anything about the Foundations of Christianity, the New Testament, and most important of all, the historic context, would spew out the disjoint and irrelevant bible verses that Mouth did. It’s classic baiting by a non-Christian troll. Been there, done that.
I find the tactic offensive, not because I believe that there even is a god(s), but because it’s so transparently disingenuous and in the end accomplished what the non-Christian troll Mouth wanted … to get you all off the topic of the wonderful vid posted by Kate.
You guys, mouth=T. Same troll, same lack of coherent argument.
Hey T-mouth, why aren’t you up on the CBC Civillian casualties thread defending your honour? Such as it is.
Everyone:
“mouth”, like so many, takes the “eye of a needle” quotation out of historical context. Think back to Christ’s time – how did one become “rich” at that time? Plunder was one way. Owning a lot of slaves was another. Yet a third, as Matthew well knew, was to become a “taxman”. And of course, the rulers demanding taxes and the priests demanding tithes were yet another group.
All of those methods depended on the suppression of, or the theft from, others, usually the poor. No wonder Christ looked down on rich men.
But let’s fast forward to a capitalist society. Take any small business in the classic economic sense – e.g. a “price taker”, and a market of “many buyers, many sellers”. Let’s say a baker. There are seven or eight small bakers within a few miles of me. Each one strives to cook good bread, and offer it to the public at a fair price. If someone skimped on the quality of their flour in an attempt to raise profits, they might get away with it for a while, but eventually people would move to other bakeries, and the skimper’s profits would fall. If someone tried to charge more than a fair profit, they might get away with it for a while, but eventually people would move to other bakeries, and the gouger’s profits would fall. The only way to stay in business consistently is offer a fair product at a fair price. The only way to make more money than your competitors in the long run is to offer a higher quality (better recipe or technique?) product.
Now, let’s put the above in Christian terms. You work as hard as you can, and offer an honest product into an open marketplace. If people buy from you, it’s because they judge your service to them is worth the money give you. In fact, it’s because they judge your service is worth more than the money they give you. Your service is, in effect, making them richer. Now, what could be more Christian than putting yourself in the service of others and enriching their lives?
An honest business in an open marketplace is as Christian an endeavour as one could imagine. Timothy Eaton became rich because he offered many people good products at fair prices with a real guarantee. He provided jobs for thousands. And he never forgot his Christian roots. He may have been rich, but if there’s a Heaven, I’m pretty sure he’s there.
“ET”
You stated:
“You see, a geuine Christian accepts others as they are; ‘love thy neighbour’ but mouth doesn’t. Either you agree with him or you are not someone whom he considers on the ‘same level’ as him. So, he won’t debate.”
I said nothing about anyone not beng on the ‘same level’ as me. Why do you make things up? That doesn’t exactly make one trust other things you might say.
It is you who stated that you believe the principles I base my life on are “irrational” and “meaningless”. I didn’t say the same thing about right-wing principles: I did say, however, that they are not Christian, using quotes from Christ to prove this. What’s to debate?
I’m not putting the beliefs of others down, as you attest. I’m merely pointing out that they’re not Christian. I don’t care if they hold these beliefs; however, if they dishonetly point out that they are Christian, I’m compelled to point out that they are not – which is done you’ll notice, merely by quoting the words of Christ.
You also have no basis to state that I don’t accept others as equal – merely because I denote that some ideologies are irreconcilable with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Again, you’re making things up.
mouth may be Christian, but he/she isn’t very Biblically literate to not know about the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28)
Paul
You’ve taken it upon yourself to call me a “fake Christian” so allow me the opportunity to question some of the assertions in your post.
A brief glance over your post reveals a strange emphasis on homosexuality. It’s mentioned in several paragraphs, and I consider the emphasis strange because homosexuality is mentioned only scantly in the Bible as a whole – and not at all by Jesus Christ.
You will note that many of the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality also condemn the eating of shellfish, or propose that woman found not to be a virgin at marriage should be stoned to death, or that beef and milk should not be consumed together.
I’ll wager that you don’t heed any of these other directives. Yet you, like others, seem convinced of the necessity of condemning homosexuslity.
Why? It’s hard for me come up with any other reason than that you and others have a pre-existing prejudice against homosexuality and so choose passages which justify this prejudice.
Of course, I’m only presuming this. But I see no other reason for you – and others – to ignore all these other rules and to focus so heavily on the rules about homosexuality.
As well, the great emphasis on the condmenation of homosexuality, while ignoring the commands given by Christ that I quoted above, amounts to a perversion of Christianity – which would seem to put the obsessive condemnation of homosexuality on the “Fake” side of the real/fake Christianity definitions you’re so interested in.
Remember: Christ said not one word regarding homosexuality, which is telling in itself. It’s called CHRISTianity, not Deuteronomyism or Paulianity.
I live by the words of Jesus Christ. I reject your calling me a “fake Christian” and would ask you to question whether your service to Christ is enriched by focuing on issues wbout which He never said a word.
Cjunk
As you are an agnostic, it is understandable that you think the seminal and quintessential teachings of Christ I quoted above are “disjointed” and “irrelevant”.
Of course, you’re welcome to call me any name you like. ET has weighed in with her ad hominem as has Paul. It’s all rather humourous that you, an agnostic, and ET, an athiest, have gotten so bent out of shape simply because I said right-wing principles are irreconcilable with genuine Christianity. You’ve both gotten so nasty – and you don’t even believe in Christ to begin with! So what gives?
In the end though, it just makes me sad – and makes me shudder a bit, too – that anyone could consider the beautifully profound truths of Christ quoted above to be “irrelevant”.
Nice clip Kate. Its about time the MSM gets it own back for all the lies.
If not treason, sown over the years.
Mouth .
i must ask you again ….do you or does the church you attend beleive that the bible “contains” the word of god or do you and or your church beleive that the bible “is” the word of god because your telling me that i do eat shellfish but i don’t agree with homosexuality….well you have fisrt of all bounced around the scripture jumping from old testament (don’t eat shell fish and beef and milk ) and then the condeming of homosexuality witch is also in the new testament you see somethings were left in the past and some transfered over so while i follow scripture ,as a new christian of only 2 years from athieism .
I am learning alway’s so sorry if i have a hard time quoting chapter and verse but i know enough that i am a sinner just like you i don’t hate homo’s or anything like and i did not know that picking a topic that is common to debate was being an “emphasis” on homosexuality i was mearly refering to what you wrote previously to soccer mom ,that’s all.
You must wake up mouth if you think entrusting a govornment with the say all end all be all type of power have you not learned your history …look at vietnam,the camere rouge, pole pot ,kim jong ill,lenin,stalin,hitler,the bulshivic’s,marxism,castro,chavez..and look at there countries and what state they are in now can you not see what your doing …did you know that russia used to be a once great christian nation and all of a sudden lenin or stalin armies hunted down and burned churches and killed christians ….do you know why ? becasue just like islam ,hindhu’s ,and all of the others we have a huge importance on FAMILY .ALL great societies through out history had a great strong family value system as a christian i must oppose you on this.
Socialism is no good for none…it has been and is proven time and time and time again…why do you fight this ? As a christian you should opose socialism to the tenth degree why is this not visible to you ? in every one of the countries and seocieties listed above they attacked the church first and formost …aetheism is a huge part of communism in russia did you know that russia made it’s govornment the peoples god it literaly destroyed the church becasue they new the only way to take total power over the people was to debase the family Aethism grew out of force they ripped christ from peoples hands in russia and now we have aethism growing here and it is because we have bred into our culture the me atitude the what ever feels good to me is right and you suppose this mouth you need to do some research on more than just the gospel there is real evil in this world and you can very easily become a victim of it if you don’t learn it’s many forms…there is no doubt in my mind that if an athiest was in power here in canada all the great things that christians had done in canada and have done in canada would be destroyed in years if not month’s you see aethist’s have basically one purpose in life to destroy christianity and religion period even though aethism is a religion in it’s self i beleive that it is the goal of aethist’s to destoy all that christians have done in these countries they want every single cross ripped out of the ground where a soldier was burried becasue it is govornment property and you know separation of church and state , they want you to just stand in front of court and say i swear to tell the truth so help me ,myself? aethist’s in general have a loathing for christians becasue they feel that we ripped them off …becasue only aethist’s are able to invent ,reason ,build ,be achitecht’s ,and geoligist’s, and be intellegent. Christians are anchient usless and unintellegent being’s who beleive in something that they are not able to produce physically so there for it is imposible to beleive that god exsist’s . Sorry ET i was an aethist for 13 years of my life and it ruined me.
Mouth
You were first to bring up homosexuality.
But if memory serves correctly I do recall Christ say ” a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife..”
Additionally anyone knowledgeable of bible knows it is emphatic in its rejection of homosexuality. Its stand on this is hardly ‘scanty’ and there is no way around it.
As to wealth? Would God (the father of Christ….) have restored Jobs great wealth or allowed Christ to be buried in the rich man’s tomb? Was King David a poor man?
It is greed to be condemned or allowing money to be your idol and these sins are on both sides of the aisle in equal measure.
I’m with ET, your use of ‘Progressive’ Christian sound like a leftist cover.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak”
– Ecclesiastes 3:1-7
Might be a great time to reflect a bit on the Good Book, “mouth”, and observe some thoughtful – and blessed – silence. Perhaps you’ll sound a bit less self-righteous that way. And while you’re doing us the favor of clamming up, you could brush up on Romans 14:10; I missed the scripture that makes YOU sole arbiter of what’s “Christian” behaviour and what isn’t.
One might best serve the poor by not joining them; or is this concept also radically “un-Christian” to you?
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
The “eye of a needle” quote is something I learned about in the last couple of years or so.
The “eye of the needle” was a gate in the old city of Jerusalem. It was a gate which was only wide enough for a camel to go through. But, it had to do so without any of its cargo, nobody could ride it, it had to be stripped bare because the opening was so tight.
This reference was likened to: “you can’t take it with you” in its context.
So, mouth, with this being said how does this fit into your theology?
You seem to be a lot out of your “Christian” context and league. Please share your church affiliation and when you started to attend. When did you first meet Jesus?
Mouth, You need to listen to glacierman as the ancients spoke in parables. Also, I think that the words of Christ were “the LOVE of money’ not just money or wealth (will lock a person out of Heaven); that said, Jesus was the champion of Freedom for mankind in thought and movement. No man is truly free unless he is his own boss and owns the house he/she calls home. Jesus had no use for thieves and liars and irresponsibly – a person who loves money above his God and his family and his people is doomed because his passion is wasted on the acquisition of wealth, in order to isolate that person from living with and caring for, other people because the money lover does not like people.
A capitalist is rarely any of the above, a Communist is always all of the above.
Andrew Breitbart is a champion for all of us – I love what he says about the msm who are camp followers of the progressives; the destroyers of joy, trust and freedom.
Thanks for posting this excellent video, Kate.
“Agent Smith”
I made a passing reference to homosexuality. Paul referenced it in several paragraphs.
I said that homosexuality was referred to only scantly thoughout the Bible. Which is true, given that it is arguably condemned in only four of Bible’s 1189 chapters. Given this scarcity of mention I question Paul’s – and others’ – emphasis on what the Bible has to say on homosexuality, while they ignore or minimize many other teachings as they see fit to do so.
I reiterate that those passages which ‘reject homosexuality’ contain many other directives which the same ones who seize on the parts concerning homosexuality roundly ignore.
And I reiterate that Jesus considered the entire subject of so little concern that He mentioned it not once. Surely you are not insisting that the quote of Christ’s that you presented amounts to a condemnation of homosexuality.
But sure, tell me that my Christianity is merely a ‘cover’, call me a ‘fake Christian’ as Paul did and evoke Hitler and Stalin as he was moved to do, say I’m not a ‘valid Christian’ as ET did, and compare me to radical Islamists…such hostility and ad hominem, merely prompted by my observation that right-wing ideology is irreconcilable with genuine Christianity.
Such quick and panicked anger – even on the parts of non-believers! – is revealing in itself.
yes, I agree that mouth or bleet or whoever is not a Christian but a troll. And an ignorant one at that. He hides behind rhetoric, words, lifted from the bible, but without understanding of them.
He can’t even understand the arguments of Pope Benedict or Elshtain on the use of reason. Mouth instead has trapped himself in defining religious belief as ‘will’.
Of course I compare his mindset as similar to that of the Islamists, for they too believe in Will and reject the use of Reason. That’s not ad hominem; that’s a valid comparison. That is why his use of scriptural texts is irrational and meaningless. He has no understanding of them and uses them as a cover for his support of leftist socialist statism.
He’s irrelevant. He doesn’t know the theories of Christianity, can’t debate them, I’ll bet he knows nothing of and has never read the theorists of Christianity, including Benedict, Augustine, Aquinas, and Elshtain. He’s hiding behind a few quotes which he doesn’t understand.
That leaves his real agenda, statist socialism, and far left agendas, as the only thing he considers. You’ll note that he’s unable to debate on Christian theology but spends a great deal of time on abortion, homosexuality. He can’t even debate the principles of ‘the right’ vs his ‘progressive christianity’ because he doesn’t even provide the principle beliefs of either.
That is, he’s in favour of that Big Brother Nanny govt that Breitbart is criticizing; yet, he won’t debate this approach. Instead, he actually declares that it’s a Christian approach. Heh. Prove it. He can’t. I referred to Benedict’s Regensburg analysis and mouth can’t even debate it.
He who holds the definition holds the power.
Mouth has no ability to even produce a definition, so his words are as hollow as his understanding of the concepts of the Christian faith.
A troll at best, a dead soul for sure. May you have the revelation of Jesus, that is if you are true seeker of truth.
All I want is the TRUTH!!!
How did this thread get side tracked by a know nothing basement dwelling sock puppet troll like mouth/bleet, or whatever handle the left wing zombie is using.
Again mouth i must ask you do you beleive the bible IS the word of god or does the bible CONTAIN the word of god ….that is where you are most concerned becasue you seem to think that all that matters in scripture is what jesus said .
What is your denomination and how long have you attened ? I think you have been seriously misled .
I wasn ot once comparing you to hitler mouth i was simply saying that if you are not careful and you and the lefties keep pushing for the leftist agenda we could end up liek a stalin or a hitler or any one of the atrocities that has happened before our of socialism,communism,yadda yadda yadda.
I never called you a fake christian i simply stated that fake christians beleive that the bible contains the word of god and that allows them to tip toe around thing’s like homosexuality .
Again i am not interested in homosexuality i am just using it as a refrence becasue you asked soccer mom what christ said about and homosexuality so i chose to use that as a refrence.
I am sorry if i seem like i am attacking you mouth i am not i am just tring to show you some of the thing’s that the left has not learned through 100 years or more of terror and suffering all of the lefties agendas and ideas have all been done before and failed miserably, And i just dont want you to become a vitim of your own cause maybe you can’t see it for what it is so i am tring to show you .
I rather emjoyed that!
Thank you GLACIERMAN and ET my debating with mouth bleet or troll or t or who ever it is is done thank you . It is hard to talk and reason with someone who will not give an inch to even try to see what we are tring to explain or show them
Paul in calgary
A little late to the debate but mouth is sadly mistaken when he attempts to put Christianity into the “left/right” paradigm of modern politics. I believe it was Chesterton who described Christianity as being a very skillful horseman who is able to appear about to fall off one side of the horse or the other at any given moment. In other words my right wing points of view are constantly being challenged by the left leaning passages contained in the Bible just as my left leaning points of view are challenged by the right leaning passages of the Bible.
While it would be nice to say “Love your neighbour as yourself” means that I just accept everything about him, another passage of scripture says that we are to force our selves to do things we may not want to do. While one passage says to give to whomsoever asks, another says if a man won’t work let him not eat. One passage says we are dead to the law and another New Testament passage says that homosexuals and other sexual deviants shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
In other words it is very easy to cherry pick it is another to “Not conform the the nature of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”.
A good point, Joe.
I once went to a lecture by a prominent theologian. In response to a question, he said something very profound. I paraphrase from memory:
“I make a point of reading the Bible every day. You might think that someone like me, who has been reading the Bible all his life and is a professional theologian, would know what’s in the Bible by now. But you’d be wrong. The Bible doesn’t say what you think it says, and it doesn’t say what you remember it saying. It says what it says. Every time I read it, I’m surprised by what I read. Often I’m shocked.”
Paul:
I was surprised to see this quote in your latest comment to me:
“I never called you a fake christian . . . ”
When it was preceded by this earlier quote of yours:
“Mouth and all the rest of the fake christians i appologize if this offends you . . .”
Surely you are aware that the Bible has a few things to say about misrepresenting the truth and bearing false witness.
ET:
You claim I am ‘hiding’ behind the words of Christ without understanding them.
If you say that I do not understnd them, you must have an understanding of them yourself.
Well, the words are right there earlier in the thread – so why don’t you explain your understanding of them – the ‘correct’ understanding of them, in your opinion.
You might have difficulty in that you do not believe in God – so that therefore when Christ states that He is the son of God, and that no man comes unto God except through Him, you have no alternative other than to conceive of Christ as either a lunatic or a liar.
Which is it? And if to you, Christ can only be a lunatic or liar, given that He claims kinship with a Being which you say does not exist – why are you so up in arms when I say that right-wing ideology does not have the blessing of a Being that you say doesn’t exist?
You want me to debate the sayings of the Pope, Augustine, Acquinas…why? They have never claimed to be the Son of God, they have never claimed to be the only way to God. But Jesus Christ did.
If Paul’s still listening: no-one else in the Bible claimed to be the Son of God either. Christ did. I believe Him. Your problem is that you want to follow everything in scripture except what Christ said. But again it’s called CHRISTianity. You either believe Christ is who Hs said He was or you do not. I do believe – so I follow Him – not your pastor or the rest who came after Him all with their own agendas.
The alternative is to think as you guys do: that Christianity is an elastic term which can mean whatever you want it to. It’s strange that you have cast your lot with ET, Paul, in that she doesn’t believe in God at all…evidently she thinks Christianity is purely a cultural phenomenon which, having no meaning in and of itself, can be made to prop up any viewpoint she chooses.
That’s not the case at all. Christ articulates very specific principles, which are evidently a little too specific for folks here, who want to divert His message by bringing up what the Pope, or Aquinas, or their local pastor said….
There’s simply no need for these other voices. Christ said it all. He was, and is, the son of God. No person comes to the Father except through Him, just as He said. Go back to Him, to His words.
Mouth: Tis better to silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
How much of the Bible was written by Jesus?
Answer either all (All Scripture is God breathed) or none since the Gospels that record the words of Christ were written by Jesus’ disciples and were not written down by Jesus Himself.
The problem with your idea is that you deny the third person of the Trinity the Holy Spirit. Men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Scripture we now have and to disavow what Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke, Mark, Matthew wrote is to deny the Holy Spirit. Let’s put it this way: How important is Scripture? Jesus quoted it all the time. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of Scripture would pass away. In other words you have fallen into the trap of the atheist by saying only the ‘words of Christ’ while denying others spoke by the Holy Spirit.
Joe
It is true that Jesus said He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. In the sense that His teachings fulfill it and that He, as the Mesiah prophesized in the Old Testament has come to fulfill that prophecy.
If, as you seem to claim, the entire Bible is as divinely inspired as the words of Christ, what guidance do you derive from the love poem which is the Song of Solomon, or the image-filled prophecy of Revelations? Do you believe that one should treat others as one would like to be treated as oneself, or do you think that a woman should be stoned to death if she’s not a virgin on her wedding day?
Fact: only Jesus claims to be the son of God, only Jesus says no person comes to God except by him. All the rest of the New Testament defers to Him. And, as He himself says, He is the fulfillment of all the teachings of the Old Testament.
So…how is taking Christ at His word “falling into the trap of the atheist”? That sounds like a bit of doubletalk to me. Would you care to explain your assertion?
BTW your opening by inferring that I’m a fool sadly falls into the tradition of ET and Paul of substituting name-calling for discussion. I’d have thought reasonable adults could discuss these issues – especially adults which claim superior knowledge of Christ’s teachings! – without slipping into childish name-calling. Why so angry?
relax mouth .
You still will not answer me i have one question for YOU .
Do you beleive that the bible “IS” the word of god? or do you beleive that it “CONTAINS” the word of god?
If you can answer this you will definatley confirm where you stand and therefore no more discusion will need to happen ,as eevryone in here will understand weather or not you have been misled.
I again appologise for offending you mouth i bet your an ice person , we will just have to agree to disagree sound fair?
Paul in calgary.
mouth:
I am also a little late to this but, in my opinion, no one has adequately answered your claims about the Lord Jesus and his statements about the sin of homosexuality. I believe you have made a few other errors but I will confine my initial comments to this particular error.
If you really were a student of Scripture, you would know that there is a word in Greek which is often used in the Scripture to denote sexual sin. That word is porneia. Any Greek lexicon would teach you that porneia includes all types of sexual sin such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, beastiality, prostitution, and incest. Because of the large scope of the meaning of porneia, it is not always translated the same way in all English Bibles. For the sake of clarity, I will quote my version of choice (NASB) with the Greek word porneia or its related word pornos in the text. Although adultery is included in porneia, a separate Greek work moicheia is also commonly used in Scripture to specifically denote adultery.
Matthew 15
18 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications(porneia), thefts, false witness, slanders.
20 “These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.” Revelation 21
6 Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
7 “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons(pornos) and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 22
13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons(pornos) and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Perhaps one of your greatest errors is the embracing of antinomianism. Your comments on Deuteronomy reveal much. While much has been debated about the maximum reach of the following statements from the Lord Jesus, the minimum that can be determined from the following is that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are valid for today as are the stories from Genesis including the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The two passages in Revelation classify homosexuality (and other sexual sins) with sins that are considered the most heineous and their connection with eternal damnation is obvious. The passage from Matthew 5 demonstrates Mosaic continuity in the teaching of the Lord Jesus and also indicates that obedience to this teaching demonstrates a ranking in his kingdom.
Although I do not normally restrain myself to only direct quotes from the Lord Jesus in developing Christian theology, you have indicated that you follow only the words of the Lord Jesus. Hmmmm. We shall see.
Well mouth how do you deny the words of others inspired by the Holy Spirit when Jesus said He was sending the Holy Spirit to remind and teach us?
Second where do you see that the disciples contradicted Jesus?
Finally, through out history mankind has tried to deny the Triune nature of God. The JW’s and formerly the Seventh Day Adventist denied the Divinity of Christ. They were thus excluded from the broad tent definition of Christian. Others have denied the Father still others deny the Spirit. You unfortunately fall into the latter group and so place yourself outside the realm of Christianity.
So before I answer your question I’m waiting for the answer to mine. How many of the words of Jesus do we have directly from Jesus and how many of those words came from Jesus through the memory of His Disciples. After all how can you be certain that the words of Christ you cite are actually the words of Christ and not the creation of His warped disciples? If you can’t trust John when he was writing his epistles how can you be certain about his Gospel?
Mouth: Yes I am an agnostic, but I failed to tell you that I am incredibly well studied in the New Testamant, in fact, more so than most Christians I know … a past life gave me that advantage. So, I feel more than qualified in calling you out in what is simply trolling by a non-Christian.
You did a good job though, they went for it.
Brent Weston:
John 8:41
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
The orginal word for “fornication” in this verse was porneia. Do you think that the people were exclaiming to Jesus that they weren’t born from homosexual acts? Do you believe that in this case porneia means homosexuality – or something else?
And if the definition of porneia always – as you claim – includes homosexuality, what did the people mean in this instance? Why wouldn’t they specifically use another word – one which *doesn’t* include homosexuality within its definition – to state exactly what they mean, if they were under the impression that porneia always included homosexuality?
Thus, your entire argument falls apart. Either porneia includes homosexuality *everytime* or it does not. Its use in the above verse proves that it does not.
As well, your quoting Jesus’ words about fulfilling the Law and the Prophets so as to claim that Jesus would approve of such laws as stoning a woman to death when she’s found not to be a virgin on her wedding night (for instance) are somewhat problematic, given that Jesus saved the adultress from such a stoning by saying “He who has not sinned cast the first stone.”
This is part of Jesus’ fulfilling the earlier law, in that he claims Oneness with the One who is the originator of that law. In your citing of the Law and the Prophets, you might also include Jesus’s updating of them in saying “love others as you love yourself” is the whole of the Law and that which all the Law hangs on.
Now: in order to try to make your point you have had to rely upon the dubious interpretive translation of a Greek word. I only have to refer to the fact that if Christ felt that homosexuality was a sin on par with murder (as the author of Revelations felt) then He could have used a specific word to state that; he used a word which most interpret to mean fornication – and its use in the verse I quoted shows that it doesn’t always (and perhaps rarely) means homosexuality.
Therefore, I take Christ at His word, a word which can be shown to directly contradict the Law of the Old Testament (the stoning of the adultress) and transcends it (‘Love one another is the whole of the Law).
The latter quote shows the spirit of the law, and of course the Pharisees judged Christ for not living in accordance to the letter of the law. Yet He Himself in his very existence is the reality to which the law strives: love.
Your comment shows a fair amount of learnedness, but you might want to keep in mind Christ’s admoniton to Martha: “You are concerned about a great many things…but only one is truly essential.”
Well Joe:
Who says that all the books of the Bible are inspired by the same holy Spirit Jesus said would come to comfort us after he died? The answer would have to be that the Church says this, since it is what has chosen the books to be included in the Bible.
But I don’t take the word of the Church over Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus says that He is the Son of God and no-one comes unto the Father except through him. So why would I put the decisions of the earthly Church, or of others who followed in Jesus’ wake, on the same level as Jesus Himself?
Why do you claim that I deny the Holy Spirit? How could I when Christ specifically stated that He had to die for the Spirit to come and comfort us? And do it has: since Christ’s appearance on the earth there is Holy Spirit here who comforts and instructs us, which did not exist before Christ’s appearance and now which will never depart, no matter how people try to obstruct it or muddy and misuse its teachings.
If you are trying to use what I have said to make it seem that by the same reasoning one should doubt the veracity of the Gospels, then you have little faith in a man who said “Before Abraham was, I AM”. Such a Being can certainly make His truth heard through thousands of years in the Gospels because, again, He wasn’t just divinely inspired – He and His Father were, are, one. No-one else in the Bible makes this claim about themselves – that’s why I believe in Jesus above all else. I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. I’m only taking Christ at His word.
Thanks for not inferring I’m a fool this time around, Joe. I’m sure you are aware of what Christ had to say about that (Matt. 5:22)
Cjunk
You not merely an agnostic. You are also a fabulist.
What other term would apply to one who smears another with no basis for the smear? To one who makes a speculation he has no objective basis for making, and presents it as fact?
I’m far from a perfect one, but I am a Christian. And you are a fabulist – objectively speaking.
Well mouth that you are incapable of seeing the fallacy of your argument I won’t belabor the point. When you disparage the rest of the Bible you disparage the parts you believe. Why? Because the ‘Words’ that you choose to believe are contained in the Bible. Should you question one part, you put all parts into question. However that obviously goes right over your head so I won’t waste any more of Kate’s bandwidth debating you.
Mouth: I gave you my basis, and it’s accurate.
Your tactics and crude disjointed use of scripture are those of a non-Christian, period. It’s as transparent as the day is long.
You – are – a – troll.
… but then again, perhaps I should’ve asked you to define what you take “being a Christian” to be. Given that “being a Christian” can mean just about anything for some, you may very well be one.
Joe,
I’m not disparaging any parts of the Bible. I’m only taking Jesus at His word. He makes claims for Himself and His Teachings that no-one else makes about theirs’ – i.e., that He is the Son of God, that the Son and the Father are One, and that no-one comes unto the Father except through the Son.
I don’t ‘question’ parts of the Bible. I merely say that the Old Testament injunction to stone a non-virgin woman is contradicted by Jesus’ assertion that no-one has the right to thow stones, given that all sin. Since Jesus was surely aware of the old law, we must say that He knew that He was contradicting it, and doing so, ‘fulfilling’ it, bringing it to its fulfillment, its final evolution.
I’ve explained in some depth why I believe this and how this belief is based on the teachings of Christ.
Yet you have not explained, if you believe all parts of the Bible to equally God’s word, how you resolve the obvious contradiction between Jesus’ words and the old law in this instance, and whether you abstain from eating shellfish, or regard eating beef and milk together as a sin, or think that women to be found non-virgins at marriage sgould be stoned, as the the old law proscribes. If you do not dothese things, why not?
Cjunk
You merely continue asserting the same thing over and over, as though your asserting it made it fact.
You say my “tactics” are those of a non-Chistian, again, as though your mere statement makes it fact. Why not explain *why* they are those of a non-Christian, in your view?
I have substantiated my views with the words of Christ that I believe substantiate them. But you don’t present any of the reasoning behind your assertion.
Without that reasoning, all you’re engaging in is name-calling. If you all you really want is to do that, fine, but why keep posting the same unsubstantiated assertion over and over?
Ok mouth have it your way. You can’t trust what the disciples wrote or what the Church recognizes as being what the disciples wrote. Its all a bunch of bunk. Having said that prove to me that the words you like to recite are in fact the words of Jesus. Prove to me that they were actually the words of Christ and not some made up imaginings of those despicable disciples and that rotten church. According to your logic since not all scripture is God breathed can you can’t be sure which part is God breathed. You say those are the words of Christ I call you a liar. Prove your point. Did Jesus actually say “Love your neighbour as yourself” or did Mark just make it up? After all Mark was never part of Jesus’ inner circle so how would he know what Jesus said or didn’t say? Did Jesus actually say, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”? Prove it! Did Jesus say “I am the Way”? Prove it!
Logic isn’t your strong point is it. You have successfully cut off the branch you are sitting on. Congratulations. Now please stop removing all doubt.
Joe
I guess you either believe in Christ or you don’t. I do. I believe when he said “Before Abraham ever was, I AM”, meaning that he is and always has been.
If evryone in the Bible made the claim that they are the son of God, and that no-one comes unto God except through them, that would be another story. But they don’t make that claim. He does make the claim, and I have assessed it and believe it to be true. Therefore, believing that Christ was (and is ) who He said He was, I hold that his words are of higher truth than others who do not make that claim. Do you not believe Christ was who He said He was?
I have pointed out the contradictions between Old Testament teachings and the word of Christ. I resolve these contradictions by believing that Christ, as He said He was, was speaking on behalf of his Father, God. You do not resolve these contradictions. So: how do you, a logical person, resolve teachings that you hold to be equal to each other, but which contradict each other?
Why do you say “despicable diciples” and “rotten church” as though you are paraphrasing my feelings? I’ve said no such negative words. You seem to be expressing yourself in a pretty hostile way.
The fact is: there have been a great many wise people inthe history of the world; and in the context of the Bible, a great many God-seeking men wrote inspired words articulating God’s law as best they knew how. But there was only one Christ, the one which the whole Old Testament leads towards – as Jesus said, he came to fulfill the Law. When we say a promise is fulfilled or a dream is fulfilled, we say it’s made good on, come to its final actuality.
Therefore, since Christ says He is one with the God that the Old Testament spends all its length defining, describing and articulating, I think He can be looked upon as the final word on the matter. Such reasoning seems to me to be the height of logicality.
What isn’t logical at all is to believe, as you seem to do, that God directs you to stone a non-virgin woman while at the same time not to stone her because you don’t have the right. It is you who believe inthe illogical. I have found that believing in Christ, while not always easy, always turns out to be logical – how could it not?
mouth nobody else says they were the God the Son. Why would they. If they did they would be liars and not to be trusted. If God the Son argued using the words of the “Law and Prophets” it legitimizes the Law and Prophets as being a source for guidance. Jesus sent the disciples out to “Make disciples”. Therefore it is expected that we the disciples of disciples would listen to the disciples of Christ. After all it is only their word we have to excise Christ’s words from. If you deny the one who is sent you deny the sender.
Because Mouth, the “words” of Christ must be taken in context, especially with the writings of the Apostle (Saint) Paul, who single handedly created the entire belief structure of the Christian church. Without considering the rest of the New Testament, and using both the “words” of Christ and the incredibly in-depth teachings that followed,you are simply doing what non-Christians who want to bait Christians do … which is to toss verses around willy-nilly, void of context. And, that context must contain historic reality, and later “explanations” that were handed down after Christ via Apostle Paul. Your “quotes” are those used by atheists to bait Christians … they are standard fair … I know, because I’ve used them all in my day to twist Christians into knots, and knowing all the while that they were being used grossly out of context.
Mouth doesn’t speak for the Christian Right at all. If anything he’s looking to undermine the true meaning of the term Christian
Cjunk:
“Because Mouth, the “words” of Christ must be taken in context, especially with the writings of the Apostle (Saint) Paul, who single handedly created the entire belief structure of the Christian church.”
No, they “musn’t” be taken in context with the writings of Paul or anyone else. This is mere dogma someone told you and you unquestioningly believe. The words of Christ are not susceptible to the dogma created by those who came later – dogma which was created only strengthen their own power. You simply have no right to tell me that the words of Christ are subject to the words of Paul or anyone else.
You give more power to the “church” than to the actual words of the Son of God. Please show us where Christ specified “Hey there’s gonna be a guy named Paul later who will properly illumuinate what I’m saying”.
And if so please specify how the later interpretation of Paul changes the meaning of the quotes I used of Jesus above.
You can’t do it – you merely sit there glibly relating ‘knowledge’ of dogma you gathered from your ‘previous life’ – which you don’t even believe yourself, because you don’t actually believe in Christ anyway (in a way, I don’t blame you, for the form of Christianity you’ve been exposed to, in which the actual words of Christ can’t be ‘understood’ without recourse to the words of Paul and the ‘church’ is frankly not worth believing in anyway).
Again, to quote you: “that context must contain historic reality, and later “explanations” that were handed down after Christ via Apostle Paul.” – utter nonsense. If your particular church believed that that’s fine, but don’t tell me that because I follow the actual words of Christ then I’m not a Christian. Surely the absurdity of your position must strike even you – and it sounds more than a little Pharisaical.
… then you clearly aren’t a Christian; you’ve created some sort of parallel “faith” that I suppose, to you, is Christianity. Like I said earlier though, you’d have to clearly define what “being a Christian” is to “you”. Anybody, can be anything in their own mind; even if in reality their belief structure is nowhere near that of what they deem themselves to be.
But back to the reason for our gathering here … what did you think of the vid?
Wow cjunk
You’ve really outdone yourself here. You claim that one who follows the words of Christ above all else isn’t a Christian. But one who puts he words of Paul and the church onthe same level of Christ – or above – is a “Christian”. One can only be a “Christian” in your view if one interprets the words of Christ through Paul and the church.
In this you ae utterly at variance with the words of Christ Himself (no surprise):
Luke 10:25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
10:27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
10:28 He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.”
Strange – no mention there of ‘wait for Paul and the church to reinterpret My words, put them in historical context etc.’ Jesus Himself doesn’t apply the same litmus test as you do to determine who’s a real “Christian” or not. How dare He!
Your position is: “I don’t believe in Christ, but I do believe in the dogma of the church I was raised in, and I use that determine whether others are Christian or not!”
In this, you are like the Pharisee and rabbis of Jesus’ time, who, as Christ said, wouldn’t go through the door of Heaven themselves, but tried to block others from going in. They, like you, didn;t believe, and saw religion only as cultural tradition and organization.
You’ll note too the verbal gymnastics that yourself and others go through to justify your positions. Yet I only have to refer to the words of Christ to justify mine. And along with all the insults you guys have flung my way, no-one has ben able to refute my opening point that your right-wing ideology is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Revealing.
mouth isn’t a valid christian but someone who lifts bits and pieces from Christianity and hides his elitist socialism behind those sentences.
You see, a geuine Christian accepts others as they are; ‘love thy neighbour’ but mouth doesn’t. Either you agree with him or you are not someone whom he considers on the ‘same level’ as him. So, he won’t debate.
A genuine Christian Progressive accepts the beliefs of others and doesn’t put them down.
A genuine Christian accepts others as equal. Not mouth.
Again, mouth, you haven’t justified your support of statism. You haven’t defined ‘wealth’ nor explained why you reject it. In fact, you haven’t done a thing, except repeat platitudes taken out of context, declared they are inviolate truths and hidden your real agenda – which is socialist enslavement of people.
You ought to be ashamed; to promote enslavement of people to a state.
Breitbart is right about the corruption in the liberal press and the progressive educational system. The left-wing parties have also moved more to the left. Centuries old classical liberalism, that championed personal freedoms, has been subverted by Marxism and instead now preaches socialist statism. The personal man means nothing to them.
Progressive Christian? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Lenin and Stalin’s radical “Progressives” managed to do in a number of my extended family members, that is, after they did in the moderate progressives who sided with Lenin’s bunch when push came to shove.
Somehow Marxism and many now only nominal Christian mainline churches have melded their ideologies during the last five decades. This sickness has even infiltrated some of the evangelical Christian churches.
ET,
you are most correct again ET you must read my previous post about real and fake christians/churches.
Sadly there are alot …that does not mean that if agree with slaughtering unborn babies that you don’t love christ …it means what you have been taught is wrong and you have been misled.
Pasotrs and the churches themsleves are responsible for this a pastor must guide and tend to his flock and that is very true ET ….Also ET as a real christian i agree with you on debating,I Agree with all you have stated about accepting others beleif’s no matter how far of from mine they are ,I love my nieghboor even if he is a radical islamist who would love nothing more than to sever my head and show it to my daughter….it is tough to do but i do it ,And also i accept everyone as my equal again why i am a pro lifer and i am so much against pre-screening for downsyndrome babies..that is humanity at it’s worst we have fallen so far ..and i beleive that god will soon return i hope and pray that he does. ET are you an athiest?
Paul in calgary.
I’m guessing that ‘mouth’ is really ‘bleet’ under another alias. He’s always there to look out for the salvation of us crazy right-wingers.
I always find it funny when people like mouth/bleet try to sell Jesus’s teachings about the personal journey of faith as advocating left wing policies that result in bigger government, higher taxes and bureaucrats lining their own pocket.
Sorry mouth/bleet. The government doesn’t represent God and I don’t need a bureaucrat to “donate” my money to someone who they feel is in need. I can do that myself.
paul in calglary – yes, I’m an atheist.
As for your ‘love thy neighbour’ – this doesn’t mean an enslaved love which is one without reason. That is, you, as a human being, endowed with reason, have the duty to evaluate the acts of others, and define some of those acts as evil and unwelcome in your society. Such as the Islamist agenda of death. Such as the socialist agenda of enslavement of the individual to a state.
I refer you to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, where he said “it is still necessary to raise the question of God through the use of reason”. You will note that mouth rejects this.
And ‘not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature”..and ‘Logos means both reason and word–a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication precisely as reason”.
The pope also says that ‘it is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity…when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it”. Again, mouth rejects the use of reason; he just mouths platitudes without thought.
If you have read Jean Bethke Elshtain’s great work on ‘Sovereignty: god, state and self’ (she is a catholic thinker); she supports this use of reason in the act of faith’. When applied to the state, this mean the loss of the transcendent powers of the state.
But mouth rejects reason and instead, inserts Will. That’s a transcendent force that ‘overcomes’ evil by triumphalism (you are saved!…by the theistic god or the authority of the socialist state).
The socialist left, cocooned by its ‘christian progressivism’ sets up statism as a transcendent authority over the individual, who loses his right to reason, think, critique, and thus gives up his freedom.
Mouth is not a Christian, he’s just baiting you.
I’m an agnostic, so I have no dog in this fight, but it’s clear that no Christian who knows anything about the Foundations of Christianity, the New Testament, and most important of all, the historic context, would spew out the disjoint and irrelevant bible verses that Mouth did. It’s classic baiting by a non-Christian troll. Been there, done that.
I find the tactic offensive, not because I believe that there even is a god(s), but because it’s so transparently disingenuous and in the end accomplished what the non-Christian troll Mouth wanted … to get you all off the topic of the wonderful vid posted by Kate.
You guys, mouth=T. Same troll, same lack of coherent argument.
Hey T-mouth, why aren’t you up on the CBC Civillian casualties thread defending your honour? Such as it is.
Everyone:
“mouth”, like so many, takes the “eye of a needle” quotation out of historical context. Think back to Christ’s time – how did one become “rich” at that time? Plunder was one way. Owning a lot of slaves was another. Yet a third, as Matthew well knew, was to become a “taxman”. And of course, the rulers demanding taxes and the priests demanding tithes were yet another group.
All of those methods depended on the suppression of, or the theft from, others, usually the poor. No wonder Christ looked down on rich men.
But let’s fast forward to a capitalist society. Take any small business in the classic economic sense – e.g. a “price taker”, and a market of “many buyers, many sellers”. Let’s say a baker. There are seven or eight small bakers within a few miles of me. Each one strives to cook good bread, and offer it to the public at a fair price. If someone skimped on the quality of their flour in an attempt to raise profits, they might get away with it for a while, but eventually people would move to other bakeries, and the skimper’s profits would fall. If someone tried to charge more than a fair profit, they might get away with it for a while, but eventually people would move to other bakeries, and the gouger’s profits would fall. The only way to stay in business consistently is offer a fair product at a fair price. The only way to make more money than your competitors in the long run is to offer a higher quality (better recipe or technique?) product.
Now, let’s put the above in Christian terms. You work as hard as you can, and offer an honest product into an open marketplace. If people buy from you, it’s because they judge your service to them is worth the money give you. In fact, it’s because they judge your service is worth more than the money they give you. Your service is, in effect, making them richer. Now, what could be more Christian than putting yourself in the service of others and enriching their lives?
An honest business in an open marketplace is as Christian an endeavour as one could imagine. Timothy Eaton became rich because he offered many people good products at fair prices with a real guarantee. He provided jobs for thousands. And he never forgot his Christian roots. He may have been rich, but if there’s a Heaven, I’m pretty sure he’s there.
“ET”
You stated:
“You see, a geuine Christian accepts others as they are; ‘love thy neighbour’ but mouth doesn’t. Either you agree with him or you are not someone whom he considers on the ‘same level’ as him. So, he won’t debate.”
I said nothing about anyone not beng on the ‘same level’ as me. Why do you make things up? That doesn’t exactly make one trust other things you might say.
It is you who stated that you believe the principles I base my life on are “irrational” and “meaningless”. I didn’t say the same thing about right-wing principles: I did say, however, that they are not Christian, using quotes from Christ to prove this. What’s to debate?
I’m not putting the beliefs of others down, as you attest. I’m merely pointing out that they’re not Christian. I don’t care if they hold these beliefs; however, if they dishonetly point out that they are Christian, I’m compelled to point out that they are not – which is done you’ll notice, merely by quoting the words of Christ.
You also have no basis to state that I don’t accept others as equal – merely because I denote that some ideologies are irreconcilable with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Again, you’re making things up.
mouth may be Christian, but he/she isn’t very Biblically literate to not know about the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28)
Paul
You’ve taken it upon yourself to call me a “fake Christian” so allow me the opportunity to question some of the assertions in your post.
A brief glance over your post reveals a strange emphasis on homosexuality. It’s mentioned in several paragraphs, and I consider the emphasis strange because homosexuality is mentioned only scantly in the Bible as a whole – and not at all by Jesus Christ.
You will note that many of the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality also condemn the eating of shellfish, or propose that woman found not to be a virgin at marriage should be stoned to death, or that beef and milk should not be consumed together.
I’ll wager that you don’t heed any of these other directives. Yet you, like others, seem convinced of the necessity of condemning homosexuslity.
Why? It’s hard for me come up with any other reason than that you and others have a pre-existing prejudice against homosexuality and so choose passages which justify this prejudice.
Of course, I’m only presuming this. But I see no other reason for you – and others – to ignore all these other rules and to focus so heavily on the rules about homosexuality.
As well, the great emphasis on the condmenation of homosexuality, while ignoring the commands given by Christ that I quoted above, amounts to a perversion of Christianity – which would seem to put the obsessive condemnation of homosexuality on the “Fake” side of the real/fake Christianity definitions you’re so interested in.
Remember: Christ said not one word regarding homosexuality, which is telling in itself. It’s called CHRISTianity, not Deuteronomyism or Paulianity.
I live by the words of Jesus Christ. I reject your calling me a “fake Christian” and would ask you to question whether your service to Christ is enriched by focuing on issues wbout which He never said a word.
Cjunk
As you are an agnostic, it is understandable that you think the seminal and quintessential teachings of Christ I quoted above are “disjointed” and “irrelevant”.
Of course, you’re welcome to call me any name you like. ET has weighed in with her ad hominem as has Paul. It’s all rather humourous that you, an agnostic, and ET, an athiest, have gotten so bent out of shape simply because I said right-wing principles are irreconcilable with genuine Christianity. You’ve both gotten so nasty – and you don’t even believe in Christ to begin with! So what gives?
In the end though, it just makes me sad – and makes me shudder a bit, too – that anyone could consider the beautifully profound truths of Christ quoted above to be “irrelevant”.
Nice clip Kate. Its about time the MSM gets it own back for all the lies.
If not treason, sown over the years.
Mouth .
i must ask you again ….do you or does the church you attend beleive that the bible “contains” the word of god or do you and or your church beleive that the bible “is” the word of god because your telling me that i do eat shellfish but i don’t agree with homosexuality….well you have fisrt of all bounced around the scripture jumping from old testament (don’t eat shell fish and beef and milk ) and then the condeming of homosexuality witch is also in the new testament you see somethings were left in the past and some transfered over so while i follow scripture ,as a new christian of only 2 years from athieism .
I am learning alway’s so sorry if i have a hard time quoting chapter and verse but i know enough that i am a sinner just like you i don’t hate homo’s or anything like and i did not know that picking a topic that is common to debate was being an “emphasis” on homosexuality i was mearly refering to what you wrote previously to soccer mom ,that’s all.
You must wake up mouth if you think entrusting a govornment with the say all end all be all type of power have you not learned your history …look at vietnam,the camere rouge, pole pot ,kim jong ill,lenin,stalin,hitler,the bulshivic’s,marxism,castro,chavez..and look at there countries and what state they are in now can you not see what your doing …did you know that russia used to be a once great christian nation and all of a sudden lenin or stalin armies hunted down and burned churches and killed christians ….do you know why ? becasue just like islam ,hindhu’s ,and all of the others we have a huge importance on FAMILY .ALL great societies through out history had a great strong family value system as a christian i must oppose you on this.
Socialism is no good for none…it has been and is proven time and time and time again…why do you fight this ? As a christian you should opose socialism to the tenth degree why is this not visible to you ? in every one of the countries and seocieties listed above they attacked the church first and formost …aetheism is a huge part of communism in russia did you know that russia made it’s govornment the peoples god it literaly destroyed the church becasue they new the only way to take total power over the people was to debase the family Aethism grew out of force they ripped christ from peoples hands in russia and now we have aethism growing here and it is because we have bred into our culture the me atitude the what ever feels good to me is right and you suppose this mouth you need to do some research on more than just the gospel there is real evil in this world and you can very easily become a victim of it if you don’t learn it’s many forms…there is no doubt in my mind that if an athiest was in power here in canada all the great things that christians had done in canada and have done in canada would be destroyed in years if not month’s you see aethist’s have basically one purpose in life to destroy christianity and religion period even though aethism is a religion in it’s self i beleive that it is the goal of aethist’s to destoy all that christians have done in these countries they want every single cross ripped out of the ground where a soldier was burried becasue it is govornment property and you know separation of church and state , they want you to just stand in front of court and say i swear to tell the truth so help me ,myself? aethist’s in general have a loathing for christians becasue they feel that we ripped them off …becasue only aethist’s are able to invent ,reason ,build ,be achitecht’s ,and geoligist’s, and be intellegent. Christians are anchient usless and unintellegent being’s who beleive in something that they are not able to produce physically so there for it is imposible to beleive that god exsist’s . Sorry ET i was an aethist for 13 years of my life and it ruined me.
Mouth
You were first to bring up homosexuality.
But if memory serves correctly I do recall Christ say ” a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife..”
Additionally anyone knowledgeable of bible knows it is emphatic in its rejection of homosexuality. Its stand on this is hardly ‘scanty’ and there is no way around it.
As to wealth? Would God (the father of Christ….) have restored Jobs great wealth or allowed Christ to be buried in the rich man’s tomb? Was King David a poor man?
It is greed to be condemned or allowing money to be your idol and these sins are on both sides of the aisle in equal measure.
I’m with ET, your use of ‘Progressive’ Christian sound like a leftist cover.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak”
– Ecclesiastes 3:1-7
Might be a great time to reflect a bit on the Good Book, “mouth”, and observe some thoughtful – and blessed – silence. Perhaps you’ll sound a bit less self-righteous that way. And while you’re doing us the favor of clamming up, you could brush up on Romans 14:10; I missed the scripture that makes YOU sole arbiter of what’s “Christian” behaviour and what isn’t.
One might best serve the poor by not joining them; or is this concept also radically “un-Christian” to you?
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
The “eye of a needle” quote is something I learned about in the last couple of years or so.
The “eye of the needle” was a gate in the old city of Jerusalem. It was a gate which was only wide enough for a camel to go through. But, it had to do so without any of its cargo, nobody could ride it, it had to be stripped bare because the opening was so tight.
This reference was likened to: “you can’t take it with you” in its context.
So, mouth, with this being said how does this fit into your theology?
You seem to be a lot out of your “Christian” context and league. Please share your church affiliation and when you started to attend. When did you first meet Jesus?
Mouth, You need to listen to glacierman as the ancients spoke in parables. Also, I think that the words of Christ were “the LOVE of money’ not just money or wealth (will lock a person out of Heaven); that said, Jesus was the champion of Freedom for mankind in thought and movement. No man is truly free unless he is his own boss and owns the house he/she calls home. Jesus had no use for thieves and liars and irresponsibly – a person who loves money above his God and his family and his people is doomed because his passion is wasted on the acquisition of wealth, in order to isolate that person from living with and caring for, other people because the money lover does not like people.
A capitalist is rarely any of the above, a Communist is always all of the above.
Andrew Breitbart is a champion for all of us – I love what he says about the msm who are camp followers of the progressives; the destroyers of joy, trust and freedom.
Thanks for posting this excellent video, Kate.
“Agent Smith”
I made a passing reference to homosexuality. Paul referenced it in several paragraphs.
I said that homosexuality was referred to only scantly thoughout the Bible. Which is true, given that it is arguably condemned in only four of Bible’s 1189 chapters. Given this scarcity of mention I question Paul’s – and others’ – emphasis on what the Bible has to say on homosexuality, while they ignore or minimize many other teachings as they see fit to do so.
I reiterate that those passages which ‘reject homosexuality’ contain many other directives which the same ones who seize on the parts concerning homosexuality roundly ignore.
And I reiterate that Jesus considered the entire subject of so little concern that He mentioned it not once. Surely you are not insisting that the quote of Christ’s that you presented amounts to a condemnation of homosexuality.
But sure, tell me that my Christianity is merely a ‘cover’, call me a ‘fake Christian’ as Paul did and evoke Hitler and Stalin as he was moved to do, say I’m not a ‘valid Christian’ as ET did, and compare me to radical Islamists…such hostility and ad hominem, merely prompted by my observation that right-wing ideology is irreconcilable with genuine Christianity.
Such quick and panicked anger – even on the parts of non-believers! – is revealing in itself.
yes, I agree that mouth or bleet or whoever is not a Christian but a troll. And an ignorant one at that. He hides behind rhetoric, words, lifted from the bible, but without understanding of them.
He can’t even understand the arguments of Pope Benedict or Elshtain on the use of reason. Mouth instead has trapped himself in defining religious belief as ‘will’.
Of course I compare his mindset as similar to that of the Islamists, for they too believe in Will and reject the use of Reason. That’s not ad hominem; that’s a valid comparison. That is why his use of scriptural texts is irrational and meaningless. He has no understanding of them and uses them as a cover for his support of leftist socialist statism.
He’s irrelevant. He doesn’t know the theories of Christianity, can’t debate them, I’ll bet he knows nothing of and has never read the theorists of Christianity, including Benedict, Augustine, Aquinas, and Elshtain. He’s hiding behind a few quotes which he doesn’t understand.
That leaves his real agenda, statist socialism, and far left agendas, as the only thing he considers. You’ll note that he’s unable to debate on Christian theology but spends a great deal of time on abortion, homosexuality. He can’t even debate the principles of ‘the right’ vs his ‘progressive christianity’ because he doesn’t even provide the principle beliefs of either.
That is, he’s in favour of that Big Brother Nanny govt that Breitbart is criticizing; yet, he won’t debate this approach. Instead, he actually declares that it’s a Christian approach. Heh. Prove it. He can’t. I referred to Benedict’s Regensburg analysis and mouth can’t even debate it.
He who holds the definition holds the power.
Mouth has no ability to even produce a definition, so his words are as hollow as his understanding of the concepts of the Christian faith.
A troll at best, a dead soul for sure. May you have the revelation of Jesus, that is if you are true seeker of truth.
All I want is the TRUTH!!!
How did this thread get side tracked by a know nothing basement dwelling sock puppet troll like mouth/bleet, or whatever handle the left wing zombie is using.
Again mouth i must ask you do you beleive the bible IS the word of god or does the bible CONTAIN the word of god ….that is where you are most concerned becasue you seem to think that all that matters in scripture is what jesus said .
What is your denomination and how long have you attened ? I think you have been seriously misled .
I wasn ot once comparing you to hitler mouth i was simply saying that if you are not careful and you and the lefties keep pushing for the leftist agenda we could end up liek a stalin or a hitler or any one of the atrocities that has happened before our of socialism,communism,yadda yadda yadda.
I never called you a fake christian i simply stated that fake christians beleive that the bible contains the word of god and that allows them to tip toe around thing’s like homosexuality .
Again i am not interested in homosexuality i am just using it as a refrence becasue you asked soccer mom what christ said about and homosexuality so i chose to use that as a refrence.
I am sorry if i seem like i am attacking you mouth i am not i am just tring to show you some of the thing’s that the left has not learned through 100 years or more of terror and suffering all of the lefties agendas and ideas have all been done before and failed miserably, And i just dont want you to become a vitim of your own cause maybe you can’t see it for what it is so i am tring to show you .
I rather emjoyed that!
Thank you GLACIERMAN and ET my debating with mouth bleet or troll or t or who ever it is is done thank you . It is hard to talk and reason with someone who will not give an inch to even try to see what we are tring to explain or show them
Paul in calgary
A little late to the debate but mouth is sadly mistaken when he attempts to put Christianity into the “left/right” paradigm of modern politics. I believe it was Chesterton who described Christianity as being a very skillful horseman who is able to appear about to fall off one side of the horse or the other at any given moment. In other words my right wing points of view are constantly being challenged by the left leaning passages contained in the Bible just as my left leaning points of view are challenged by the right leaning passages of the Bible.
While it would be nice to say “Love your neighbour as yourself” means that I just accept everything about him, another passage of scripture says that we are to force our selves to do things we may not want to do. While one passage says to give to whomsoever asks, another says if a man won’t work let him not eat. One passage says we are dead to the law and another New Testament passage says that homosexuals and other sexual deviants shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
In other words it is very easy to cherry pick it is another to “Not conform the the nature of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”.
A good point, Joe.
I once went to a lecture by a prominent theologian. In response to a question, he said something very profound. I paraphrase from memory:
“I make a point of reading the Bible every day. You might think that someone like me, who has been reading the Bible all his life and is a professional theologian, would know what’s in the Bible by now. But you’d be wrong. The Bible doesn’t say what you think it says, and it doesn’t say what you remember it saying. It says what it says. Every time I read it, I’m surprised by what I read. Often I’m shocked.”
Paul:
I was surprised to see this quote in your latest comment to me:
“I never called you a fake christian . . . ”
When it was preceded by this earlier quote of yours:
“Mouth and all the rest of the fake christians i appologize if this offends you . . .”
Surely you are aware that the Bible has a few things to say about misrepresenting the truth and bearing false witness.
ET:
You claim I am ‘hiding’ behind the words of Christ without understanding them.
If you say that I do not understnd them, you must have an understanding of them yourself.
Well, the words are right there earlier in the thread – so why don’t you explain your understanding of them – the ‘correct’ understanding of them, in your opinion.
You might have difficulty in that you do not believe in God – so that therefore when Christ states that He is the son of God, and that no man comes unto God except through Him, you have no alternative other than to conceive of Christ as either a lunatic or a liar.
Which is it? And if to you, Christ can only be a lunatic or liar, given that He claims kinship with a Being which you say does not exist – why are you so up in arms when I say that right-wing ideology does not have the blessing of a Being that you say doesn’t exist?
You want me to debate the sayings of the Pope, Augustine, Acquinas…why? They have never claimed to be the Son of God, they have never claimed to be the only way to God. But Jesus Christ did.
If Paul’s still listening: no-one else in the Bible claimed to be the Son of God either. Christ did. I believe Him. Your problem is that you want to follow everything in scripture except what Christ said. But again it’s called CHRISTianity. You either believe Christ is who Hs said He was or you do not. I do believe – so I follow Him – not your pastor or the rest who came after Him all with their own agendas.
The alternative is to think as you guys do: that Christianity is an elastic term which can mean whatever you want it to. It’s strange that you have cast your lot with ET, Paul, in that she doesn’t believe in God at all…evidently she thinks Christianity is purely a cultural phenomenon which, having no meaning in and of itself, can be made to prop up any viewpoint she chooses.
That’s not the case at all. Christ articulates very specific principles, which are evidently a little too specific for folks here, who want to divert His message by bringing up what the Pope, or Aquinas, or their local pastor said….
There’s simply no need for these other voices. Christ said it all. He was, and is, the son of God. No person comes to the Father except through Him, just as He said. Go back to Him, to His words.
Mouth: Tis better to silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
How much of the Bible was written by Jesus?
Answer either all (All Scripture is God breathed) or none since the Gospels that record the words of Christ were written by Jesus’ disciples and were not written down by Jesus Himself.
The problem with your idea is that you deny the third person of the Trinity the Holy Spirit. Men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Scripture we now have and to disavow what Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke, Mark, Matthew wrote is to deny the Holy Spirit. Let’s put it this way: How important is Scripture? Jesus quoted it all the time. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of Scripture would pass away. In other words you have fallen into the trap of the atheist by saying only the ‘words of Christ’ while denying others spoke by the Holy Spirit.
Joe
It is true that Jesus said He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. In the sense that His teachings fulfill it and that He, as the Mesiah prophesized in the Old Testament has come to fulfill that prophecy.
If, as you seem to claim, the entire Bible is as divinely inspired as the words of Christ, what guidance do you derive from the love poem which is the Song of Solomon, or the image-filled prophecy of Revelations? Do you believe that one should treat others as one would like to be treated as oneself, or do you think that a woman should be stoned to death if she’s not a virgin on her wedding day?
Fact: only Jesus claims to be the son of God, only Jesus says no person comes to God except by him. All the rest of the New Testament defers to Him. And, as He himself says, He is the fulfillment of all the teachings of the Old Testament.
So…how is taking Christ at His word “falling into the trap of the atheist”? That sounds like a bit of doubletalk to me. Would you care to explain your assertion?
BTW your opening by inferring that I’m a fool sadly falls into the tradition of ET and Paul of substituting name-calling for discussion. I’d have thought reasonable adults could discuss these issues – especially adults which claim superior knowledge of Christ’s teachings! – without slipping into childish name-calling. Why so angry?
relax mouth .
You still will not answer me i have one question for YOU .
Do you beleive that the bible “IS” the word of god? or do you beleive that it “CONTAINS” the word of god?
If you can answer this you will definatley confirm where you stand and therefore no more discusion will need to happen ,as eevryone in here will understand weather or not you have been misled.
I again appologise for offending you mouth i bet your an ice person , we will just have to agree to disagree sound fair?
Paul in calgary.
mouth:
I am also a little late to this but, in my opinion, no one has adequately answered your claims about the Lord Jesus and his statements about the sin of homosexuality. I believe you have made a few other errors but I will confine my initial comments to this particular error.
If you really were a student of Scripture, you would know that there is a word in Greek which is often used in the Scripture to denote sexual sin. That word is porneia. Any Greek lexicon would teach you that porneia includes all types of sexual sin such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, beastiality, prostitution, and incest. Because of the large scope of the meaning of porneia, it is not always translated the same way in all English Bibles. For the sake of clarity, I will quote my version of choice (NASB) with the Greek word porneia or its related word pornos in the text. Although adultery is included in porneia, a separate Greek work moicheia is also commonly used in Scripture to specifically denote adultery.
Matthew 15
18 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications(porneia), thefts, false witness, slanders.
20 “These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
Revelation 21
6 Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
7 “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons(pornos) and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 22
13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons(pornos) and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Perhaps one of your greatest errors is the embracing of antinomianism. Your comments on Deuteronomy reveal much. While much has been debated about the maximum reach of the following statements from the Lord Jesus, the minimum that can be determined from the following is that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are valid for today as are the stories from Genesis including the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The two passages in Revelation classify homosexuality (and other sexual sins) with sins that are considered the most heineous and their connection with eternal damnation is obvious. The passage from Matthew 5 demonstrates Mosaic continuity in the teaching of the Lord Jesus and also indicates that obedience to this teaching demonstrates a ranking in his kingdom.
Although I do not normally restrain myself to only direct quotes from the Lord Jesus in developing Christian theology, you have indicated that you follow only the words of the Lord Jesus. Hmmmm. We shall see.
Well mouth how do you deny the words of others inspired by the Holy Spirit when Jesus said He was sending the Holy Spirit to remind and teach us?
Second where do you see that the disciples contradicted Jesus?
Finally, through out history mankind has tried to deny the Triune nature of God. The JW’s and formerly the Seventh Day Adventist denied the Divinity of Christ. They were thus excluded from the broad tent definition of Christian. Others have denied the Father still others deny the Spirit. You unfortunately fall into the latter group and so place yourself outside the realm of Christianity.
So before I answer your question I’m waiting for the answer to mine. How many of the words of Jesus do we have directly from Jesus and how many of those words came from Jesus through the memory of His Disciples. After all how can you be certain that the words of Christ you cite are actually the words of Christ and not the creation of His warped disciples? If you can’t trust John when he was writing his epistles how can you be certain about his Gospel?
Mouth: Yes I am an agnostic, but I failed to tell you that I am incredibly well studied in the New Testamant, in fact, more so than most Christians I know … a past life gave me that advantage. So, I feel more than qualified in calling you out in what is simply trolling by a non-Christian.
You did a good job though, they went for it.
Brent Weston:
John 8:41
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
The orginal word for “fornication” in this verse was porneia. Do you think that the people were exclaiming to Jesus that they weren’t born from homosexual acts? Do you believe that in this case porneia means homosexuality – or something else?
And if the definition of porneia always – as you claim – includes homosexuality, what did the people mean in this instance? Why wouldn’t they specifically use another word – one which *doesn’t* include homosexuality within its definition – to state exactly what they mean, if they were under the impression that porneia always included homosexuality?
Thus, your entire argument falls apart. Either porneia includes homosexuality *everytime* or it does not. Its use in the above verse proves that it does not.
As well, your quoting Jesus’ words about fulfilling the Law and the Prophets so as to claim that Jesus would approve of such laws as stoning a woman to death when she’s found not to be a virgin on her wedding night (for instance) are somewhat problematic, given that Jesus saved the adultress from such a stoning by saying “He who has not sinned cast the first stone.”
This is part of Jesus’ fulfilling the earlier law, in that he claims Oneness with the One who is the originator of that law. In your citing of the Law and the Prophets, you might also include Jesus’s updating of them in saying “love others as you love yourself” is the whole of the Law and that which all the Law hangs on.
Now: in order to try to make your point you have had to rely upon the dubious interpretive translation of a Greek word. I only have to refer to the fact that if Christ felt that homosexuality was a sin on par with murder (as the author of Revelations felt) then He could have used a specific word to state that; he used a word which most interpret to mean fornication – and its use in the verse I quoted shows that it doesn’t always (and perhaps rarely) means homosexuality.
Therefore, I take Christ at His word, a word which can be shown to directly contradict the Law of the Old Testament (the stoning of the adultress) and transcends it (‘Love one another is the whole of the Law).
The latter quote shows the spirit of the law, and of course the Pharisees judged Christ for not living in accordance to the letter of the law. Yet He Himself in his very existence is the reality to which the law strives: love.
Your comment shows a fair amount of learnedness, but you might want to keep in mind Christ’s admoniton to Martha: “You are concerned about a great many things…but only one is truly essential.”
Well Joe:
Who says that all the books of the Bible are inspired by the same holy Spirit Jesus said would come to comfort us after he died? The answer would have to be that the Church says this, since it is what has chosen the books to be included in the Bible.
But I don’t take the word of the Church over Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus says that He is the Son of God and no-one comes unto the Father except through him. So why would I put the decisions of the earthly Church, or of others who followed in Jesus’ wake, on the same level as Jesus Himself?
Why do you claim that I deny the Holy Spirit? How could I when Christ specifically stated that He had to die for the Spirit to come and comfort us? And do it has: since Christ’s appearance on the earth there is Holy Spirit here who comforts and instructs us, which did not exist before Christ’s appearance and now which will never depart, no matter how people try to obstruct it or muddy and misuse its teachings.
If you are trying to use what I have said to make it seem that by the same reasoning one should doubt the veracity of the Gospels, then you have little faith in a man who said “Before Abraham was, I AM”. Such a Being can certainly make His truth heard through thousands of years in the Gospels because, again, He wasn’t just divinely inspired – He and His Father were, are, one. No-one else in the Bible makes this claim about themselves – that’s why I believe in Jesus above all else. I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. I’m only taking Christ at His word.
Thanks for not inferring I’m a fool this time around, Joe. I’m sure you are aware of what Christ had to say about that (Matt. 5:22)
Cjunk
You not merely an agnostic. You are also a fabulist.
What other term would apply to one who smears another with no basis for the smear? To one who makes a speculation he has no objective basis for making, and presents it as fact?
I’m far from a perfect one, but I am a Christian. And you are a fabulist – objectively speaking.
Well mouth that you are incapable of seeing the fallacy of your argument I won’t belabor the point. When you disparage the rest of the Bible you disparage the parts you believe. Why? Because the ‘Words’ that you choose to believe are contained in the Bible. Should you question one part, you put all parts into question. However that obviously goes right over your head so I won’t waste any more of Kate’s bandwidth debating you.
Mouth: I gave you my basis, and it’s accurate.
Your tactics and crude disjointed use of scripture are those of a non-Christian, period. It’s as transparent as the day is long.
You – are – a – troll.
… but then again, perhaps I should’ve asked you to define what you take “being a Christian” to be. Given that “being a Christian” can mean just about anything for some, you may very well be one.
Joe,
I’m not disparaging any parts of the Bible. I’m only taking Jesus at His word. He makes claims for Himself and His Teachings that no-one else makes about theirs’ – i.e., that He is the Son of God, that the Son and the Father are One, and that no-one comes unto the Father except through the Son.
I don’t ‘question’ parts of the Bible. I merely say that the Old Testament injunction to stone a non-virgin woman is contradicted by Jesus’ assertion that no-one has the right to thow stones, given that all sin. Since Jesus was surely aware of the old law, we must say that He knew that He was contradicting it, and doing so, ‘fulfilling’ it, bringing it to its fulfillment, its final evolution.
I’ve explained in some depth why I believe this and how this belief is based on the teachings of Christ.
Yet you have not explained, if you believe all parts of the Bible to equally God’s word, how you resolve the obvious contradiction between Jesus’ words and the old law in this instance, and whether you abstain from eating shellfish, or regard eating beef and milk together as a sin, or think that women to be found non-virgins at marriage sgould be stoned, as the the old law proscribes. If you do not dothese things, why not?
Cjunk
You merely continue asserting the same thing over and over, as though your asserting it made it fact.
You say my “tactics” are those of a non-Chistian, again, as though your mere statement makes it fact. Why not explain *why* they are those of a non-Christian, in your view?
I have substantiated my views with the words of Christ that I believe substantiate them. But you don’t present any of the reasoning behind your assertion.
Without that reasoning, all you’re engaging in is name-calling. If you all you really want is to do that, fine, but why keep posting the same unsubstantiated assertion over and over?
Ok mouth have it your way. You can’t trust what the disciples wrote or what the Church recognizes as being what the disciples wrote. Its all a bunch of bunk. Having said that prove to me that the words you like to recite are in fact the words of Jesus. Prove to me that they were actually the words of Christ and not some made up imaginings of those despicable disciples and that rotten church. According to your logic since not all scripture is God breathed can you can’t be sure which part is God breathed. You say those are the words of Christ I call you a liar. Prove your point. Did Jesus actually say “Love your neighbour as yourself” or did Mark just make it up? After all Mark was never part of Jesus’ inner circle so how would he know what Jesus said or didn’t say? Did Jesus actually say, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”? Prove it! Did Jesus say “I am the Way”? Prove it!
Logic isn’t your strong point is it. You have successfully cut off the branch you are sitting on. Congratulations. Now please stop removing all doubt.
Joe
I guess you either believe in Christ or you don’t. I do. I believe when he said “Before Abraham ever was, I AM”, meaning that he is and always has been.
If evryone in the Bible made the claim that they are the son of God, and that no-one comes unto God except through them, that would be another story. But they don’t make that claim. He does make the claim, and I have assessed it and believe it to be true. Therefore, believing that Christ was (and is ) who He said He was, I hold that his words are of higher truth than others who do not make that claim. Do you not believe Christ was who He said He was?
I have pointed out the contradictions between Old Testament teachings and the word of Christ. I resolve these contradictions by believing that Christ, as He said He was, was speaking on behalf of his Father, God. You do not resolve these contradictions. So: how do you, a logical person, resolve teachings that you hold to be equal to each other, but which contradict each other?
Why do you say “despicable diciples” and “rotten church” as though you are paraphrasing my feelings? I’ve said no such negative words. You seem to be expressing yourself in a pretty hostile way.
The fact is: there have been a great many wise people inthe history of the world; and in the context of the Bible, a great many God-seeking men wrote inspired words articulating God’s law as best they knew how. But there was only one Christ, the one which the whole Old Testament leads towards – as Jesus said, he came to fulfill the Law. When we say a promise is fulfilled or a dream is fulfilled, we say it’s made good on, come to its final actuality.
Therefore, since Christ says He is one with the God that the Old Testament spends all its length defining, describing and articulating, I think He can be looked upon as the final word on the matter. Such reasoning seems to me to be the height of logicality.
What isn’t logical at all is to believe, as you seem to do, that God directs you to stone a non-virgin woman while at the same time not to stone her because you don’t have the right. It is you who believe inthe illogical. I have found that believing in Christ, while not always easy, always turns out to be logical – how could it not?
mouth nobody else says they were the God the Son. Why would they. If they did they would be liars and not to be trusted. If God the Son argued using the words of the “Law and Prophets” it legitimizes the Law and Prophets as being a source for guidance. Jesus sent the disciples out to “Make disciples”. Therefore it is expected that we the disciples of disciples would listen to the disciples of Christ. After all it is only their word we have to excise Christ’s words from. If you deny the one who is sent you deny the sender.
Because Mouth, the “words” of Christ must be taken in context, especially with the writings of the Apostle (Saint) Paul, who single handedly created the entire belief structure of the Christian church. Without considering the rest of the New Testament, and using both the “words” of Christ and the incredibly in-depth teachings that followed,you are simply doing what non-Christians who want to bait Christians do … which is to toss verses around willy-nilly, void of context. And, that context must contain historic reality, and later “explanations” that were handed down after Christ via Apostle Paul. Your “quotes” are those used by atheists to bait Christians … they are standard fair … I know, because I’ve used them all in my day to twist Christians into knots, and knowing all the while that they were being used grossly out of context.
Mouth doesn’t speak for the Christian Right at all. If anything he’s looking to undermine the true meaning of the term Christian
Cjunk:
“Because Mouth, the “words” of Christ must be taken in context, especially with the writings of the Apostle (Saint) Paul, who single handedly created the entire belief structure of the Christian church.”
No, they “musn’t” be taken in context with the writings of Paul or anyone else. This is mere dogma someone told you and you unquestioningly believe. The words of Christ are not susceptible to the dogma created by those who came later – dogma which was created only strengthen their own power. You simply have no right to tell me that the words of Christ are subject to the words of Paul or anyone else.
You give more power to the “church” than to the actual words of the Son of God. Please show us where Christ specified “Hey there’s gonna be a guy named Paul later who will properly illumuinate what I’m saying”.
And if so please specify how the later interpretation of Paul changes the meaning of the quotes I used of Jesus above.
You can’t do it – you merely sit there glibly relating ‘knowledge’ of dogma you gathered from your ‘previous life’ – which you don’t even believe yourself, because you don’t actually believe in Christ anyway (in a way, I don’t blame you, for the form of Christianity you’ve been exposed to, in which the actual words of Christ can’t be ‘understood’ without recourse to the words of Paul and the ‘church’ is frankly not worth believing in anyway).
Again, to quote you: “that context must contain historic reality, and later “explanations” that were handed down after Christ via Apostle Paul.” – utter nonsense. If your particular church believed that that’s fine, but don’t tell me that because I follow the actual words of Christ then I’m not a Christian. Surely the absurdity of your position must strike even you – and it sounds more than a little Pharisaical.
… then you clearly aren’t a Christian; you’ve created some sort of parallel “faith” that I suppose, to you, is Christianity. Like I said earlier though, you’d have to clearly define what “being a Christian” is to “you”. Anybody, can be anything in their own mind; even if in reality their belief structure is nowhere near that of what they deem themselves to be.
But back to the reason for our gathering here … what did you think of the vid?
Wow cjunk
You’ve really outdone yourself here. You claim that one who follows the words of Christ above all else isn’t a Christian. But one who puts he words of Paul and the church onthe same level of Christ – or above – is a “Christian”. One can only be a “Christian” in your view if one interprets the words of Christ through Paul and the church.
In this you ae utterly at variance with the words of Christ Himself (no surprise):
Luke 10:25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
10:27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
10:28 He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.”
Strange – no mention there of ‘wait for Paul and the church to reinterpret My words, put them in historical context etc.’ Jesus Himself doesn’t apply the same litmus test as you do to determine who’s a real “Christian” or not. How dare He!
Your position is: “I don’t believe in Christ, but I do believe in the dogma of the church I was raised in, and I use that determine whether others are Christian or not!”
In this, you are like the Pharisee and rabbis of Jesus’ time, who, as Christ said, wouldn’t go through the door of Heaven themselves, but tried to block others from going in. They, like you, didn;t believe, and saw religion only as cultural tradition and organization.
You’ll note too the verbal gymnastics that yourself and others go through to justify your positions. Yet I only have to refer to the words of Christ to justify mine. And along with all the insults you guys have flung my way, no-one has ben able to refute my opening point that your right-wing ideology is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Revealing.