Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Serious Question for Christians

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 5:26:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Christ's main message was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Love your enemy. In general love your fellow man no matter his sins etc. My difficulty, i think, is the word "love" as He used it. There is an inescapable level of intimacy connected to the word love that i find difficult to apply toward everyone.

Loving your enemy would mean that you no longer have an enemy, which might be the whole point, and i get that. Loving your neighbor as you love yourself, may mean that i see something in my neighbor that is the same as me, and in that identification i can find love? Not sure about any of this.

Perhaps i am missing something in the translation to English, or my general take on the word, but help me better understand the meaning of its use here.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 6:00:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Perhaps i am missing something in the translation to English, or my general take on the word, but help me better understand the meaning of its use here.:

Is it really not self-explanatory?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 6:04:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 6:00:42 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Perhaps i am missing something in the translation to English, or my general take on the word, but help me better understand the meaning of its use here.:

Is it really not self-explanatory?

There are times when the translation to English gets mangled, and there are people who understand the original language better than i. I am wondering if there is something here that i might be missing. Or perhaps my view of the word "love" is too superficial (or too complex) in this context.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:27:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think it's a pertinent question. I think love, the way that it's used, is meant "care for." For instance Brother Jed ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) visited campus yesterday, and his assistants carry signs declaring that feminists, liberals and those who listen to rock and roll are destined for Hell, along with homosexuals, fornicators and masturbators. Evangelists like that believe it's *loving* to preach this; in other words try and help save these sinners via reprimand much like a parent does a child (out of loving concern). In that way we see that love doesn't only refer to the positive. Loving thy neighbor probably means caring for thy neighbor and their well-being despite whatever sin they might choose. Punish the sinner who hurts you but help the sinner who hurts themselves (or god) ... something like that.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:33:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 7:27:53 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I think it's a pertinent question. I think love, the way that it's used, is meant "care for." For instance Brother Jed ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) visited campus yesterday, and his assistants carry signs declaring that feminists, liberals and those who listen to rock and roll are destined for Hell, along with homosexuals, fornicators and masturbators. Evangelists like that believe it's *loving* to preach this; in other words try and help save these sinners via reprimand much like a parent does a child (out of loving concern). In that way we see that love doesn't only refer to the positive. Loving thy neighbor probably means caring for thy neighbor and their well-being despite whatever sin they might choose. Punish the sinner who hurts you but help the sinner who hurts themselves (or god) ... something like that.

Not sure that's what Christ had in mind.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:36:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."

Love is to care for, to want around, to prioritize over all other things, to value. It's pretty straightforward.

Love, more than anything else, seems to be a word of comparison. When you "fall in love" with someone, you're denoting that you prioritize that person over everyone and everything else. When you love your family, it's prioritizing them above whomever else you know. When you love your friends, it's prioritizing them over acquaintances or strangers. You see what I mean?

Thus, to love the World, God had to Love man more than Himself, since outside of existence, there is only He.

For man to love his neighbor as he loves himself, man must concern himself for his neighbor as though he were seeking preservation for them in the same way he would seek self-preservation.

In other words, there is nothing more important than your fellow man. Support one another, become a unitary factor than can act in accordance with the needs and desires of all.

Jesus was the religious equivalent of a socialist, with God standing in for a government.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:38:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Love back in the day was a lot more loose and thrown around like a common greeting. It could just mean to not hold a grudge, never hate, and over all just be a nice decent person towards everyone.
Its lost its meaning in some ways, but its still semi-common. With family and friends its common to say you love them, even if you aren't really close. Its pretty much the same concept.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:46:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are times when the translation to English gets mangled, and there are people who understand the original language better than i. I am wondering if there is something here that i might be missing. Or perhaps my view of the word "love" is too superficial (or too complex) in this context.:

According to the concordance, the Greek word used in the original manuscript is Agapao.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

http://www.eliyah.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 9:51:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 7:36:20 AM, Ren wrote:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."

Love is to care for, to want around, to prioritize over all other things, to value. It's pretty straightforward.

Love, more than anything else, seems to be a word of comparison. When you "fall in love" with someone, you're denoting that you prioritize that person over everyone and everything else. When you love your family, it's prioritizing them above whomever else you know. When you love your friends, it's prioritizing them over acquaintances or strangers. You see what I mean?

Thus, to love the World, God had to Love man more than Himself, since outside of existence, there is only He.

For man to love his neighbor as he loves himself, man must concern himself for his neighbor as though he were seeking preservation for them in the same way he would seek self-preservation.

In other words, there is nothing more important than your fellow man. Support one another, become a unitary factor than can act in accordance with the needs and desires of all.

Can you explain the bolded item above? It sounds to me as if you are saying that God is outside of existence, ergo, He does not exist.

Jesus was the religious equivalent of a socialist, with God standing in for a government.
Can you explain this "metaphor" in more detail?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 9:58:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 9:51:52 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Can you explain the bolded item above? It sounds to me as if you are saying that God is outside of existence, ergo, He does not exist.


Sorry, you're right, it was worded misleadingly. I mean't outside of creation.

Jesus was the religious equivalent of a socialist, with God standing in for a government.
Can you explain this "metaphor" in more detail?

Well, I was displacing money for love. So, Jesus advocated standardized love, or rather, the abolishment of judgement in favor of universal acceptance. This is a comparison with standardized wages, or rather, the abolishment of individual support in favor of a societal support. He also advocated that man operate cooperatively as a unitary whole rather than constituent individuals, as an interpretation of "love thy neighbor as you love yourself."

In other words, that we are all responsible for one another as much as we are responsible for ourselves. Economically speaking, it's socialism. Religiously speaking, it's Christian.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 10:14:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was always taught that true Christians are socialists anyway, and none of them would want to be rich or keep any of their money.
But I was also raised by actuaally reading the bible, which most christians these days don't do.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 10:14:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
(^^ just expanding on Ren's observation)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 11:14:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 5:26:45 AM, innomen wrote:
Christ's main message was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Love your enemy. In general love your fellow man no matter his sins etc. My difficulty, i think, is the word "love" as He used it. There is an inescapable level of intimacy connected to the word love that i find difficult to apply toward everyone.

Loving your enemy would mean that you no longer have an enemy, which might be the whole point, and i get that. Loving your neighbor as you love yourself, may mean that i see something in my neighbor that is the same as me, and in that identification i can find love? Not sure about any of this.

Perhaps i am missing something in the translation to English, or my general take on the word, but help me better understand the meaning of its use here.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 11:27:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The 'self' that Christ was referring to was the same Divine Essence hidden Within each of us. When we at last SEE that all humans are outward representatives of that indescribable Inner Self and that they are all crucified upon the painful tree of animal life, then, we cannot but indeed feel a deep love and a royal pity for ALL concerned - especially the ignorant who the Lord forgave, for "they not what they do" and who are utterly blind to the actuality of this Secret Self at the back of themselves.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 12:36:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 5:26:45 AM, innomen wrote:

Loving your enemy would mean that you no longer have an enemy, which might be the whole point, and i get that.

why would you no longer have an enemy? in an Olympic race, no matter what you feel against the other opponents personally, they are still your adversaries in this event. If you debate someone on this site that you hold christian love for they are still the enemy as far as your debate is concerned

The love for you enemies I don't think means you are no longer conflicting with each other, its just the attitude of how you do it. It means fighting like Goku and not fighting like Vegeta.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 12:54:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 9:58:41 AM, Ren wrote:
At 8/31/2010 9:51:52 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Can you explain the bolded item above? It sounds to me as if you are saying that God is outside of existence, ergo, He does not exist.


Sorry, you're right, it was worded misleadingly. I mean't outside of creation.
OK. Makes sense.

Can you explain this "metaphor" in more detail?
Well, I was displacing money for love. So, Jesus advocated standardized love, or rather, the abolishment of judgement in favor of universal acceptance. This is a comparison with standardized wages, or rather, the abolishment of individual support in favor of a societal support. He also advocated that man operate cooperatively as a unitary whole rather than constituent individuals, as an interpretation of "love thy neighbor as you love yourself."
OK.

In other words, that we are all responsible for one another as much as we are responsible for ourselves. Economically speaking, it's socialism. Religiously speaking, it's Christian.
OK. It's quite interesting; however, would't this metaphor be even more fitting with Communism? Everything you said in your metaphor can be easily taken for Communism as well.

The problem with this is that it might lead one to think that Jesus was or would have been a Socialist or Communist, when in fact He wasn't or wouldn't have been.

At 8/31/2010 10:14:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
I was always taught that true Christians are socialists anyway, and none of them would want to be rich or keep any of their money.
Then you were taught wrong.

But I was also raised by actuaally reading the bible, which most christians these days don't do.
Sure, but judging by your knowledge of the Bible, I don't think you understand what you read.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 2:57:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 12:54:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 8/31/2010 10:14:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
I was always taught that true Christians are socialists anyway, and none of them would want to be rich or keep any of their money.
Then you were taught wrong.

How so?

But I was also raised by actuaally reading the bible, which most christians these days don't do.
Sure, but judging by your knowledge of the Bible, I don't think you understand what you read.

Then explain all the passages condemning the rich, and selfish and those that wont help others.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 3:07:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 2:57:02 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/31/2010 10:14:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
I was always taught that true Christians are socialists anyway, and none of them would want to be rich or keep any of their money.
Then you were taught wrong.
How so?
Jesus was not a socialist or communist, that's how so. As far as I know, He wouldn't have been associated with any political/economic movement. He tried to stay away from that.

Then explain all the passages condemning the rich, and selfish and those that wont help others.
He said that if being rich gets in the way of salvation, then give up your money. Not necessarily that all people should give up there money. Also, he said to donate it to the poor, not to the government. What does selfishness have to do with socialism or communism? Answer: nothing. One can be selfish & be a socialist or a communist or a capitalist, or a anything else. Helping others is great! Notice how Jesus said to help others, not to give your money to the government so that the government can help others: BIG difference.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 3:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 3:07:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/31/2010 2:57:02 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/31/2010 10:14:11 AM, lovelife wrote:
I was always taught that true Christians are socialists anyway, and none of them would want to be rich or keep any of their money.
Then you were taught wrong.
How so?
Jesus was not a socialist or communist, that's how so. As far as I know, He wouldn't have been associated with any political/economic movement. He tried to stay away from that.


He wasn't political, doesn't mean he'd like all the bible clingers getting pissy about their money. I think he said something to the effect of "If someone steals your cloak, give them your shirt as well" Not fight it just because its a government, didn't he say something about "unfair" taxes? As in "Give Caesar what is his"

Then explain all the passages condemning the rich, and selfish and those that wont help others.
He said that if being rich gets in the way of salvation, then give up your money. Not necessarily that all people should give up there money. Also, he said to donate it to the poor, not to the government. What does selfishness have to do with socialism or communism? Answer: nothing. One can be selfish & be a socialist or a communist or a capitalist, or a anything else. Helping others is great! Notice how Jesus said to help others, not to give your money to the government so that the government can help others: BIG difference.

You can't help everyone in the country, the government can. If the government spends the money used for helping people on something immoral, God will punish those involved, but not the ones giving the money.
I think Jesus would be sickened at seeing what some chirsitians advocate these days, and call them impersonaters.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 4:51:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 7:46:14 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There are times when the translation to English gets mangled, and there are people who understand the original language better than i. I am wondering if there is something here that i might be missing. Or perhaps my view of the word "love" is too superficial (or too complex) in this context.:

According to the concordance, the Greek word used in the original manuscript is Agapao.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

http://www.eliyah.com...

Yes however the Greeks used agape to mean a variety of forms of love - the issue is determining what sort the command relates to e.g. familial.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 5:21:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 4:51:54 PM, Puck wrote:

Yes however the Greeks used agape to mean a variety of forms of love - the issue is determining what sort the command relates to e.g. familial.

The Greeks did, but the authors of the New Testament used it in a fairly consistent manner. What is meant is illustrated pretty clearly in the parable of The Good Samaritan.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 3:13:35 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wasn't political, doesn't mean he'd like all the bible clingers getting pissy about their money.
I have no idea what you mean about "getting pissy about money."

I think he said something to the effect of "If someone steals your cloak, give them your shirt as well." Not fight it just because its a government...
Yes, He said a person stealing your cloak, not the government stealing your cloak.

...didn't he say something about "unfair" taxes? As in "Give Caesar what is his"
That's right: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto God what is God's! He said this because they wanted to trip him up: they were hoping that He'd say "you don't have to pay taxes" but He was smarter than that. He meant that it's fine to pay your taxes, so long as you remember to also "pay" your "dues" to God. You can also think of it as not mixing politics & religion!

You can't help everyone in the country, the government can.
First, not everyone in the country needs help. Second, the only thing the government does is make more government. Charity is 100 times more efficient at helping people than the government.

If the government spends the money used for helping people on something immoral, God will punish those involved, but not the ones giving the money.
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with anything, let alone Jesus being a commie.

I think Jesus would be sickened at seeing what some Chirsitians advocate these days, and call them impersonaters.
Sure, but He'd be sickened MUCH worse by those that didn't call themselves Christians!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:05:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 6:54:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/31/2010 3:13:35 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wasn't political, doesn't mean he'd like all the bible clingers getting pissy about their money.
I have no idea what you mean about "getting pissy about money."


Being possessive, attached, greedy.

I think he said something to the effect of "If someone steals your cloak, give them your shirt as well." Not fight it just because its a government...
Yes, He said a person stealing your cloak, not the government stealing your cloak.


The government is another word for a big huge gang of people that try to run your lives.

...didn't he say something about "unfair" taxes? As in "Give Caesar what is his"
That's right: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto God what is God's! He said this because they wanted to trip him up: they were hoping that He'd say "you don't have to pay taxes" but He was smarter than that. He meant that it's fine to pay your taxes, so long as you remember to also "pay" your "dues" to God. You can also think of it as not mixing politics & religion!


Which is another failure of christians. christians want religion to run the government, Christians want them to be seperate.

You can't help everyone in the country, the government can.
First, not everyone in the country needs help. Second, the only thing the government does is make more government. Charity is 100 times more efficient at helping people than the government.


Not really, too many greedy people with too much wealth.

If the government spends the money used for helping people on something immoral, God will punish those involved, but not the ones giving the money.
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with anything, let alone Jesus being a commie.


Jesus would be happy for people allowing the government to take their money under the guise of helping the less fortunate, he would be angry about people making excuses to cling to their money.


I think Jesus would be sickened at seeing what some Chirsitians advocate these days, and call them impersonaters.
Sure, but He'd be sickened MUCH worse by those that didn't call themselves Christians!

No, he ate with prostitutes, blessed some non-believers, treated everyone fairly. He destroyed a church full of christians (synagogue of jews at the time I suppose the equivalent to christians at that time tho) because they were acting blatently against their religion inside the place of worship.
He was not angry at the sins, but at the ones commiting them He was angry at the hypocrites.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 7:43:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 7:05:12 PM, lovelife wrote:

I have no idea what you mean about "getting pissy about money."
Being possessive, attached, greedy.
He'd have no problem with that, as long as they were good Christians.

Yes, He said a person stealing your cloak, not the government stealing your cloak.
The government is another word for a big huge gang of people that try to run your lives.
I'm glad we agree on what the government is; however, clearly not what is meant in that passage by "person."

Which is another failure of christians. christians want religion to run the government, Christians want them to be seperate.
Not at all. You are woefully misinformed. There is a universe difference between (a) the government trying to remove religion from every possible aspect that it has control over (your side of things) to (b) the Church running the government (what you think Christians want.) The Founding Fathers never intended either of these.

First, not everyone in the country needs help. Second, the only thing the government does is make more government. Charity is 100 times more efficient at helping people than the government.
Not really, too many greedy people with too much wealth.
No, really. Charities have done way more. Anyways, who's wealthier than the government? Answer: no one.

Jesus would be happy for people allowing the government to take their money under the guise of helping the less fortunate...
Not at all, because He knows that people can do a much better job on their own.

...he would be angry about people making excuses to cling to their money.
Only if that got in the way of them being a good Christian. Regardless, the US is the last place on earth He'd come to! Why? Cause there's a helluvalot more problems else where in the world! He'd go where He's most needed, not least needed. Probably Africa.

Sure, but He'd be sickened MUCH worse by those that didn't call themselves Christians!
No, he ate with prostitutes, blessed some non-believers, treated everyone fairly.
Yes, he treated everyone fairly that DESERVED it. So many do not deserve it today.

He destroyed a church full of christians (synagogue of jews at the time I suppose the equivalent to christians at that time tho) because they were acting blatently against their religion inside the place of worship.
Wow! You have an incredible ability to make things up from the Bible! This is what I mean about you having a very poor knowledge of the Bible. First of all, it was a a Jewish temple NOT a Christian church, as those could not possibly exist until Christ completed His mission: died & resurrected. He didn't destroy the temple, he turned over a couple of tables of the money lenders and whipped a few folks because of their disrespect for the house of God. Boy are you ill informed!

He was not angry at the sins, but at the ones commiting them He was angry at the hypocrites.
Yes. And what bigger hypocrite than one who claims to know the Bible but doesn't really know it and the stuff she does know, she wipes her arse with? Who do you think He'd be more pissed with?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 8:11:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lmao

At 8/31/2010 7:43:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/31/2010 7:05:12 PM, lovelife wrote:

I have no idea what you mean about "getting pissy about money."
Being possessive, attached, greedy.
He'd have no problem with that, as long as they were good Christians.


7 deadly sins; greed...really everyone seems to stem from greed, greed of beauty, possesions, image, sex, etc. All seem to be greed in some form or another, and greed still gets its own place. I'm sure he'd have a problem with it.

Yes, He said a person stealing your cloak, not the government stealing your cloak.
The government is another word for a big huge gang of people that try to run your lives.
I'm glad we agree on what the government is; however, clearly not what is meant in that passage by "person."


The government is a mega powerful gang of people.

Which is another failure of christians. christians want religion to run the government, Christians want them to be seperate.
Not at all. You are woefully misinformed.

Hmm, how so?

There is a universe difference between (a) the government trying to remove religion from every possible aspect that it has control over (your side of things)

Whats wrong with having religion not affect laws at all? Sure some laws may also be in religious books and practice (like don't kill), but why should it be law for being religious?

to (b) the Church running the government (what you think Christians want.)

Some/most do. They want to protect their religion and force people into following it.

The Founding Fathers never intended either of these.


They would have prefered a.

First, not everyone in the country needs help. Second, the only thing the government does is make more government. Charity is 100 times more efficient at helping people than the government.
Not really, too many greedy people with too much wealth.
No, really. Charities have done way more.

How so?

Anyways, who's wealthier than the government? Answer: no one.


Reason they should be taxed to help the less wealthy. I like Sweden. I want to learn more about it.

Jesus would be happy for people allowing the government to take their money under the guise of helping the less fortunate...
Not at all, because He knows that people can do a much better job on their own.


Oh really?

...he would be angry about people making excuses to cling to their money.
Only if that got in the way of them being a good Christian.

It does. (Matt: 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.")

Regardless, the US is the last place on earth He'd come to!

Did I say he'd come, or if he did that he'd come here? No, what I meant was that if he saw how his word, his father's word, was taken so out of context and used to justify things he would never aprove of he would be sick.

Why? Cause there's a helluvalot more problems else where in the world! He'd go where He's most needed, not least needed. Probably Africa.


He'd probably go to the middle east.

Sure, but He'd be sickened MUCH worse by those that didn't call themselves Christians!
No, he ate with prostitutes, blessed some non-believers, treated everyone fairly.
Yes, he treated everyone fairly that DESERVED it. So many do not deserve it today.


I'm pretty sure he treated everyone fairly, and gave everyone a chance whether or not they believed in him, or his father.

He destroyed a church full of christians (synagogue of jews at the time I suppose the equivalent to christians at that time tho) because they were acting blatently against their religion inside the place of worship.
Wow! You have an incredible ability to make things up from the Bible!

Que?

This is what I mean about you having a very poor knowledge of the Bible.

Again, what? Explain yourself.

First of all, it was a a Jewish temple NOT a Christian church, as those could not possibly exist until Christ completed His mission: died & resurrected.

Wow let me bold where I addressed that so you can see it. Moving on

He didn't destroy the temple, he turned over a couple of tables of the money lenders and whipped a few folks because of their disrespect for the house of God.

Basically the same thing. It was his biggest temper tantrum (to my knowlage), and scared everyone away.

Boy are you ill informed!


Not really.

He was not angry at the sins, but at the ones commiting them He was angry at the hypocrites.
Yes. And what bigger hypocrite than one who claims to know the Bible but doesn't really know it and the stuff she does know, she wipes her arse with?

No need to be harsh on yourself.

Who do you think He'd be more pissed with?

Those that are self proclaimed Christians, when they never believed, nor followed the word of God, those that preach the message without first understanding it, those that use religion to justify evil, and injustice.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 8:53:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 8:11:14 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/31/2010 7:43:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Being possessive, attached, greedy.
He'd have no problem with that, as long as they were good Christians.
Lmao
Well, the truth can be funny sometimes!

7 deadly sins; greed...really everyone seems to stem from greed, greed of beauty, possesions, image, sex, etc. All seem to be greed in some form or another, and greed still gets its own place. I'm sure he'd have a problem with it.
1) You've been watching too many movies.
2) Again, if you are a good Christian, why would He be upset? Answer: He wouldn't.
I think that what you need to realize is that it's not your opinion of what greedy is that matters here: it would be His.

The government is a mega powerful gang of people.
Most certainly. And again, the passage was not talking about "mega powerful gangs of people."

Not at all. You are woefully misinformed.
Hmm, how so?
Read below.
There is a universe difference between (a) the government trying to remove religion from every possible aspect that it has control over (your side of things)
Whats wrong with having religion not affect laws at all?
1) I didn't say laws explicitly. 2) They already are affected by religion. 3) If we took it all out, there wouldn't be very many laws that were any good.

Sure some laws may also be in religious books and practice (like don't kill), but why should it be law for being religious?
I agree. That is why those that are against religion in all facets of life are wrong.

to (b) the Church running the government (what you think Christians want.)
Some/most do.
Again, woefully misinformed. Most do not.

They want to protect their religion...
Agree.

...and force people into following it.
Again, woefully misinformed. Most do not.

The Founding Fathers never intended either of these.
They would have prefered a.
No way, no how. They would have preferred neither as both were equally bad to them.

No, really. Charities have done way more.
How so?
By doing it. Look it up.

Anyways, who's wealthier than the government? Answer: no one.
Reason they should be taxed to help the less wealthy.
Fail. They are the wealthiest/greediest so they should be reduced in size and given much less money.

I like Sweden. I want to learn more about it.
Go there...and stay! Well, if you like it. There are so many places like that on earth, which BTW, a big part has to do with the security THIS country affords them for free.

Not at all, because He knows that people can do a much better job on their own.
Oh really?
Yes really! Look it up. When has the government EVER done anything better than the private sector? Answer: never.

Only if that got in the way of them being a good Christian.
It does. (Matt: 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.")
Again, because the person's wealth was getting in the way of him being a good Christian. Read Matt 19 in it's entirety.

Regardless, the US is the last place on earth He'd come to!
Did I say he'd come, or if he did that he'd come here?
Not explicitly, but implicitly.

No, what I meant was that if he saw how his word, his father's word, was taken so out of context and used to justify things he would never aprove of he would be sick.
1) You wouldn't know it even if it were so, because it is clear that you don't understand His Word. As is evident with all your mistaken understanding of the Bible in all the above posts.
2) Most Christians do follow His Word, which also shows what poor understanding you have of Christians in general. But not surprising from reading all of your posts.

He'd probably go to the middle east.
Eventually, but I think it's worse in Africa. I was going to write middle east, but when He goes there, He's going as the Lion not the Lamb.

Yes, he treated everyone fairly that DESERVED it. So many do not deserve it today.
I'm pretty sure he treated everyone fairly, and gave everyone a chance whether or not they believed in him, or his father.
Fail. Did he treat the money lenders fairly? Hoisted on your own petard!

Wow! You have an incredible ability to make things up from the Bible!
Que?
You heard me!

Again, what? Explain yourself.
It's pretty self explanatory.

(synagogue of jews at the time I suppose the equivalent to christians at that time tho)
Wow let me bold where I addressed that so you can see it. Moving on
What you bolded is what makes you, well, seem silly. In short, you supposed wrong. You can't just say something stupid and then say I suppose and somehow it's ok.

He didn't destroy the temple, he turned over a couple of tables of the money lenders and whipped a few folks because of their disrespect for the house of God.
Basically the same thing.
Doesn't surprise me that you think it's the same thing, coming from a person who thinks that a "person" and "a mega powerful gang of people" are the same thing. I'd hate to think about the amount of hard core drugs it would take to get me to the hallucinatory state where I think that flipping some tables and whipping some people is the same as destroying a temple.

It was his biggest temper tantrum (to my knowlage), and scared everyone away.
You do realize that a temper tantrum is what children do (i.e. unjustified by reason) and that Jesus was justified by reason in doing what he did, right? Answer: clearly you do not.

Boy are you ill informed!
Not really.
Denial is not just a river in Africa! If you can honestly say that you are not ill informed about the Bible & Christianity after these posts, then it's clear to me that you are not well informed about reality either!

Yes. And what bigger hypocrite than one who claims to know the Bible but doesn't really know it and the stuff she does know, she wipes her arse with?
No need to be harsh on yourself.
I wasn't, I was harsh on you, hence "she."

Those that are self proclaimed Christians, when they never believed, nor followed the word of God, those that preach the message without first understanding it, those that use religion to justify evil, and injustice.
Right. And those should be punished...only those are the minority. The majority of Christians believe in their faith, follow the Word of God to their ability, preach precisely because they DO understand it, etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 7:29:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 7:33:35 AM, innomen wrote:
Not sure that's what Christ had in mind.

You don't think love = care for? What do you think, then?
President of DDO