NationStates Jolt Archive

Another thread was being derailed by a discussion of pride so I brought it here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10612669&postcount=182
I'll tell you what. Wanna play the Bible game, what does fornication mean in the King James Version of the Bible? You studied it so thoroughly, that you must realize that what the word meant at the time of translation and what it means now are different, no? Tell me a little bit about the culture surrounding when Paul lived, because that's an important part of the his letters. Tell me a little bit about how the Bible was compiled and who compiled it. I know. Do you? Explain to me some things about the culture in which Jesus lived, since that is of course germaine to the stories. And tell me where you got the informaiton, because it can't be found in the BIble. Anyone who relies solely on the Bible is ignoring the important context that is necessary to understand it as much as a person reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn needs to know the culture of the time in which the book is set. However, the majority of people know nothing about these things and then attack anyone who dares to actually understand the Bible and what it ACTUALLY means.

You did very little for your agument when you attacked me. I can't prove to you that I was a Marine. And what difference does it make if I do? It doesn't make my arguments have any more merit. I can't prove to you that I teach. And what difference does it make if I do? My arguments stand on their own.

You're upset because I pwned you when you made expertise claim that didn't hold up under cross. Fine. Be upset. But attack my arguments or walk away.

1 Corinthians 7:1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now, of course, you'll notice that the Paul says that man should not marry, but if a man cannot abstain from sex then he should have a wife and a wife a husband so that may fulfill their carnal desires without sinning. However, feel free to better interpret this passage if you'd like. Notice how Paul says he wish all men were chaste as he is, but that he knows they won't be. Notice how he says sex is a duty of marriage. Notice how he says that the marriage is necessary to avoid sinning for those that are not like him.

This post began a discussion in which a very prideful poster announced their place on the moral high ground because of their virginity. Let's discuss Pride and the lessons of the Bible. I'll give you the discussion so far.

Here is the post the reply, which randomly brings up his virginity and then how it makes him superior.

4. I myself know this. It is the main reason I am still a virgin even though I am already 32. Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life. You have to choose one or the other. That is why you don't have everyone volunteering to become monks or catholic priests. It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded. I don't say this as judgment, but as understanding. Everyone has weakness. This is a weakness that almost everyone has.
I thank God that I have been able to abstain this long cause there were so many close encounters that could have ended up differently if not for my devotion to the vows I have taken before God to:
1. abstain until marriage
2. never take advantage of a woman

and other stuff that is unrelated.
I take those vows seriously. I made those oaths when I was just a wee, 13 year old. I think I've done a pretty good job of keeping them.

In fact was by reading this passage and others like, that inspired me to make those oaths. But as Paul says, what works for me will not work you or other people reading this post.
It is not for all men to abstain as I have. You have to have a gift for it.
This is not the only gift that God has given me.
In the rest of the post, he discusses how people having sex is destroying the world, but I gave you all the meat of it.

This is my reply-
Good to know that you listened the words of Jesus as well as the words of Paul. Let's see if I can find something appropriate. I'm certain you've read this passage, being an expert and all, but I'll post it anyway.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

...

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

You gotta love those pharisees who can't wait to show their "good works", the ones that just HAVE to tell you about their fasting or abstaining from sex and how good they are because they do it. The fallacy of Pride. The Bible is riddled with lessons about this fallacy, and so many seem to close their eyes to such lessons.

I'd like to say you're caught up, but I think there are a couple more posts to see.

Here is his reply. Seriously, folks, you can't make this stuff up.

Note: I did trim some of these posts and the bolding is added by me. I also added spacer lines to make it easier to read.

5. I must have touched a nerve there. I pass judgment on no one. The reason I say that some gays will have an easier time than straight people who are promiscuos has to do with that fact that promiscuous straight people tend to be arrogant whereas there are gays who are more humble than the typical straight person who has promiscuous sex. It was an observation, not a judgment.

I am not boasting of this. For some reason, it has touched a nerve and now you are upset. I am doing nothing more than recounting my own personal experience. It is nothing I should ashamed of, neither is it something that I should hide. Nor does it make me better than other people. Though I sin not in sex, there have been other areas in which I have sinned. One of which is fabrication of stories. Which I used to do a lot more, to get more support for my side of an issue or an action I wanted to take. Much like how AI is pumping up the numbers in their report to get support for their side of the rape issue. Everyone has their faults. Only Jesus was completely sinless. If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people. Nor is he saying that it is bad to abstain from sex and then recount your own experience. In fact to do such things in the closet is the same as being ashamed of doing them. And if you are ashamed of that then you are ashamed of God. And if you are ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of you and shun you.

The problem he was addressing was on of pride. As in the parable he told of two people. A pharisee who went into the city center and began praying loudly, "Thank you God for making me better than these filthy sinners. Thank you for making me cleaner than they." Whereas, nearby, also praying in the city center where there was a lot of people, was a tax collector who prayed, softly, "Forgive my sins Lord...." They were both praying in a place where other people could see them. The difference was that the pharisee had an arrogant attitude and as such his prayers never reached God. The tax collector on the other hand, prostrated himself before God. He knew his own spiritual status and hence, his prayers did reach God.

As for fasting, I don't tell anyone. I just do it. The only time I mention it is when I am offered food during the period in which I am fasting.

It has nothing to do with me being better than anyone else. But I do note, that it does give me a higher moral standing to attack those who criticize people for being morally inferior to themselves.

Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil. I don't cast judgment on those below me on this issue. What is the point. Judging it won't make it stop. What I can do from this moral high ground how ever, is raise up a standard that other people can look to for encouragement. That standard includes doing stuff like, if Debbie and Arnold had lots of promiscuous sex when they were younger, and now they are wanting to arrest people for having promiscuos sex, my higher grounding gives me a sacred duty to tap them on the shoulder and remind them of their hypocrisy.

In fact, this is one of the few places where I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers. There are many areas where there are a lot of people who are my moral superiors. But in this one, it can't be denied that I outdo most people out there. But its not something that I brag about everyday.

From your response, I take it that you are offended by this. You ought not to take this to mean that you should be ashamed of stuff you did earlier in your life. They are the past, there is nothing you can do about them except to live a better life now. Feeling bad about them now will get you no where. The best thing to do is learn from them and always keep moving forward with your eyes focused on the future.

Oh, come on, Jocabia, cut him some slack.

He obviously needs to get laid :p

from what I can see, there are several thoughts to be examined.

First, Pride is a sin. confidence is great, so is the willingness to teach as well as learn, but to assume the high ground and ignore the possiblity that you might be wrong is the Sin of Pride.

Second. Virginity is great... (I am one too.) but does that make me better than anyone? Oh Hell no!

So what is the point of this thread? to examine the Sin called 'Pride?'

Here is my reply -

5. I must have touched a nerve there. I pass judgment on no one. The reason I say that some gays will have an easier time than straight people who are promiscuos has to do with that fact that promiscuous straight people tend to be arrogant whereas there are gays who are more humble than the typical straight person who has promiscuous sex. It was an observation, not a judgment.

I'm not angry. I think you're a hypocrite, but I'm not mad about it. You make bizarre comments that have nothing to do with nothing. You suggest you're not judgemental, but you ENTERED the thread attacking me and jumping into a conversation you clearly hadn't actually read (since after saying I didn't know what I was talking about you backed up my point).

I am not boasting of this. For some reason, it has touched a nerve and now you are upset. I am doing nothing more than recounting my own personal experience. It is nothing I should ashamed of, neither is it something that I should hide. Nor does it make me better than other people. Though I sin not in sex, there have been other areas in which I have sinned. One of which is fabrication of stories. Which I used to do a lot more, to get more support for my side of an issue or an action I wanted to take. Much like how AI is pumping up the numbers in their report to get support for their side of the rape issue. Everyone has their faults. Only Jesus was completely sinless. If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people. Nor is he saying that it is bad to abstain from sex and then recount your own experience. In fact to do such things in the closet is the same as being ashamed of doing them. And if you are ashamed of that then you are ashamed of God. And if you are ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of you and shun you.

I'm not upset and I'm not talking about me. You clearly miss the point. It doesn't matter how fallible you admit you are. By holding yourself up, out of the blue and for no real reason, you explemplify what Jesus was speaking about. Jesus said to do good things in private and be rewarded in private and do it in public and you have already received your reward. You announced it on the internet completely out of the blue. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing other than the fact that the passage mentioned sex. You jumped all over that opportunity to announce how chaste you are. I'm not upset about it, but you should be.

The problem he was addressing was on of pride. As in the parable he told of two people. A pharisee who went into the city center and began praying loudly, "Thank you God for making me better than these filthy sinners. Thank you for making me cleaner than they." Whereas, nearby, also praying in the city center where there was a lot of people, was a tax collector who prayed, softly, "Forgive my sins Lord...." They were both praying in a place where other people could see them. The difference was that the pharisee had an arrogant attitude and as such his prayers never reached God. The tax collector on the other hand, prostrated himself before God. He knew his own spiritual status and hence, his prayers did reach God.

One, you were being prideful. Second, WHAT? Did you even read that passage? Here, I'll help you out here.

Matthew6:5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Notice he addresses both babbling on and praying in public. Amusingly, that's not the part I was addressing. I was actually pointed out the parts I was talking about.

You gotta love those pharisees who can't wait to show their "good works", the ones that just HAVE to tell you about their fasting or abstaining from sex and how good they are because they do it. The fallacy of Pride. The Bible is riddled with lessons about this fallacy, and so many seem to close their eyes to such lessons.

I love how you act like you're correcting me when I said exactly what you're claiming I didn't get.

The problem he was addressing was on of pride.

As for fasting, I don't tell anyone. I just do it. The only time I mention it is when I am offered food during the period in which I am fasting.

You don't understand do you? You announce your 'fasting from sex' on the internet to everyone here as a point of pride when no one brought it up. I'm fairly certain I wasn't offering you sex, so the part above about fasting is fairly well proven to be false.

Next time, keep your mouth shut and don't announce to your left hand what your right hand is doing.

It has nothing to do with me being better than anyone else. But I do note, that it does give me a higher moral standing to attack those who criticize people for being morally inferior to themselves.

Ha. It doesn't make you better it only 'gives [you] a higher moral standing'? Seriously, the pride is simply flooring. You don't have a higher moral standing than ANYONE else and you are in no position to judge such things. Nor I. No one is. Your position is one of equality and if there is any hierarchy, that hierarchy is for God to decide and no other, prideful one.

Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil. I don't cast judgment on those below me on this issue. What is the point. Judging it won't make it stop. What I can do from this moral high ground how ever, is raise up a standard that other people can look to for encouragement. That standard includes doing stuff like, if Debbie and Arnold had lots of promiscuous sex when they were younger, and now they are wanting to arrest people for having promiscuos sex, my higher grounding gives me a sacred duty to tap them on the shoulder and remind them of their hypocrisy.

Ha. Yep, no pride there. It's not enough to read the Bible. You actually have to learn the lessons of it. Particularly the ones about PRIDE. Jesus tells you to keep these kinds of things to yourself, but you know better, huh? He tells you to pray in the corner, but you know better right? He tells you to keep your acts of morality to yourself, but you know better right? Forgive me if I follow his teaching and not yours. I'm pretty certain He had the moral high ground.

In fact, I'm certain the only human being that has ever had the moral high ground is Jesus and it takes a prideful human to say otherwise.

By the way, the hypocrites where the ones who tapped people on the shoulder to tell them about the dust in their eyes while they had a plank in their own. When Jesus said that he wasn't talking about specific areas, he was talking in general. That's also the lesson he teaches when he says "let he who is without sin..." You missed all of that. How about "do not judge"?

Matthew7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

He called your behavior, hypocrisy, and called you a hypocrite and you twisted it to your means. How can that be less than PRIDE?

[indent]John 8:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."[/quote]

He teaches through example and here he teaches that we are not in a position of judgement on any sin unless we are sinless. He doesn't "If any one of you is without THIS sin, let him..."

In fact, this is one of the few places where I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers. There are many areas where there are a lot of people who are my moral superiors. But in this one, it can't be denied that I outdo most people out there. But its not something that I brag about everyday.

"I'm not prideful, I only have a sense of superiority." Son, you are in no position to decide superiority. The PRIDE here is just sad. Jesus said you can NEVER justifiably claim the high ground and that it is what hypocrites and pharisees do. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it as a compliment.

From your response, I take it that you are offended by this. You ought not to take this to mean that you should be ashamed of stuff you did earlier in your life. They are the past, there is nothing you can do about them except to live a better life now. Feeling bad about them now will get you no where. The best thing to do is learn from them and always keep moving forward with your eyes focused on the future.
I'm not offended. You should be. You needn't be ashamed of your are. But there aren't only two choices, shame and pride. Both are unhealthy acts. Try this. How about confidence and humility? Heard of humility? Try it.

Another thread was being derailed by a discussion of pride so I brought it here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10612669&postcount=182


This post began a discussion in which a very prideful poster announced their place on the moral high ground because of their virginity. Let's discuss Pride and the lessons of the Bible. I'll give you the discussion so far.

The Bible: Pride goeth before the fall.

I don't like using this phrase but it is appropriate here: 'nuff said.

from what I can see, there are several thoughts to be examined.

First, Pride is a sin. confidence is great, so is the willingness to teach as well as learn, but to assume the high ground and ignore the possiblity that you might be wrong is the Sin of Pride.

Second. Virginity is great... (I am one too.) but does that make me better than anyone? Oh Hell no!

So what is the point of this thread? to examine the Sin called 'Pride?'

The point of the thread is to finish the conversation without hijacking the other thread and to examine the sin called pride. I think this is an excellent example of confusing humility with shame and confidence and commitment with pride.

Here is the final post from the other thread including his reply to the above.

Ok. Step back a minute. This has nothing to do with me having pride or being arrogant. You like most people wrongfully think that being a virgin makes a person evil and arrogant.

No. I think being a virgin is commendable. However, I think claiming that you have the moral high ground and announcing to the world that you're morally superior, even if it's only in this way, is arrogant. Who you are doesn't make you evil or arrogant. It's what comes out of you that makes you arrogant (I don't judge evil nor do would I guess that you are).

You say it was not related to what we were talking about. I brought it up to show that it was possible for people to abstain from sex as Paul had done. Now you are the one being prideful and arrogant. You talk about the splinter in my eye when their is a whole plank in your own.

Who suggested it wasn't possible? Paul was the one talking about it, not me. I abstained from sex until the first time I fell in love. We viewed ourselves as married and were simply waiting until our parents could plan a ceremony (it was a tradition thing). I was 21. We didn't end up legally marrying, because she cheated. I think sex should be reserved for real love. However, that doesn't give me the moral high ground. Whether I've done well is for God to judge and myself to judge and none other. See the difference in the way I tell that. I did what I thought was the right thing to do. Whether it was is for God to decide. I'm not better than the man who had sex at thirteen and I'm not worse than you despite your claims. T

I don't judge whether you are a moral person or not in terms of sin. I do see that you are prideful and as you have involved me in your pride I'm telling you that you're doing so. I don't think I'm better than you because I'm not boasting about my personal moral achievements. But I do think you would do better to follow the lessons of the Bible and I point you to them.

I have a huge plank in my own eye. I don't judge you in terms of sin. I tell you that you are not of the moral high ground. I didn't say that I was. I dis say you can't be. It's not possible. None of us are good, not one.

You say I should never mention that I am a virgin and that I should keep to it myself like a closet virgin. I am not a closet virgin. I have nothing to be ashamed of. Nor did Jesus preach that praying in a public place itself was bad.

No. I didn't say that. You boasted of it proudly. It wasn't germaine to the conversation. Even if you thought it was germaine. You didn't say, "some can abstain from sex. I do." You gave a good long speech about how you're so good because you abstain from sex and how bad the world is, etc. Those two actions are not equivalent.

Now I ask you, what gain do I get from admitting I am a virgin on public internet forum? I will tell you what I gain from it. Absolutely nothing.

You boasted of it proudly and claimed the moral high ground. It was PRIDEFUL. You don't have to get rewards to be proud. That's the point. Humble yourself, hypocrite.

In fact, when the subject comes up and I say that I am a virgin (the one thing I have never lied about), people like you come along screaming how evil I am for being a virgin and how evil I am for not hiding it.
Really? Quote me. I didn't call you anything for being a virgin. I called you a hypocrite for boasting and being prideful. Virginity has nothing to do with it.

I am not ashamed for being virgin, nor am I ashamed for mentioning it when I think it would prove a point. Which in this case it was supposed to.
Most people think it is absolutely impossible to abstain from sex as long as I have. My bringing it up, is not a judgement about others, it is to show that it abstaining for as long as I have, is very much possible for men to do.

You didn't just bring it up. You boasted. I never chastised you for being a virgin. I never chastised you for even admitting you were a virgin. I chastised you for PRIDE and for claiming superiority. You could have been talking about virginity or barbequeing.

Your way of thinking and my way thinking clearly conflict here. You think its bad thing and I think its a good thing.
If you really think that tapping someone on the shoulder and pointing them their hypocrisy is a bad thing, then you need to remember that the same finger points back at you as well. Not just to me or some other guy.

No, I think it's a great thing. Get off the cross, chop that bad boy up and try building a bridge to the realm of reading comprehension. I'm not claiming the moral high ground here. I know that I am sometimes prideful and I love when people point it out to me. GnI does it all the time. I know that I'm not better than you. But I'm not claiming superiority. You ARE. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy. I'm not judging you as a Christian. I'm debating with you as a person and your failing. You claim moral high ground contrary to EVERY lesson of Jesus. Your virginity is not the problem or a problem at all. It's not even a problem that you mentioned it. It's being boastful and proud that belies your fault here. You don't deserve to be put on a pedestal for your virginity or anything else. You deserve be down here in the muck with the rest of us, doing your best to get yourself clean. Christianity is about personal responsibility, personal accountability, personal relationships with God. The fact that you would interfere with the relationship others have to God is the height of pride. The fact that you think you can EVER speak as a Christian from a position of superiority says you don't read the simplest lesson in the Bible even though you spoke of it earlier.

Can you take ur fights to the TG?
thsi is a personnal challenge, so please dont clog up the forums.

Second. Virginity is great... (I am one too.) but does that make me better than anyone? Oh Hell no!

Virginity's not all it's cracked up to be.

I highly respect someone who wants to wait until he's in love with a person before he starts having sex. I don't think too highly of people who abstain from intercourse from a notion that sex is sinful, wrong and dirty. It's not.

Can you take ur fights to the TG?
thsi is a personnal challenge, so please dont clog up the forums.

It's a discussion of pride. If you wish to avoid it, you can simply skip to the next thread, friend. You have a habit of reading threads and complaining that they exist. If you don't wish to involve yourself in a thread, here's a tip - DON'T.

This discussion started between two people, but in the other thread GnI suggested he was interested in the discussion, I am, Whittier is and others have joined in. It's an interesting topic that you don't feel the need to address, so don't address it. K? K.

man.. sex is great when your sharing that love with someone.. theres nothing wrong with it.. jesus.. the guy lives in a past that never really made sense..

Virginity's not all it's cracked up to be.

I highly respect someone who wants to wait until he's in love with a person before he starts having sex. I don't think too highly of people who abstain from intercourse from a notion that sex is sinful, wrong and dirty. It's not.

Sex isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's not wonderful on its own, but as an expression of love. It's meant to be pleasurable but it is no more so than 100 less dangerous activities. Sex in love though is a whole different brand of wonderful. However, that's a topic for another thread. This thread isn't about virginity. It's about pride.

man.. sex is great when your sharing that love with someone.. theres nothing wrong with it.. jesus.. the guy lives in a past that never really made sense..

First, this thread is about pride not virginity. Second, the guy believes in sex and love, he just hasn't found love yet so he doesn't have sex.

First, this thread is about pride not virginity. Second, the guy believes in sex and love, he just hasn't found love yet so he doesn't have sex.
Nothing wrong with a bit of pride. Arrogance, yes, but not pride.

Well, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least five times, and it declaims against both pride and fornication.

Fornication is any sex outside of marriage, according to the Bible.

Pride is unacceptable for anyone who is trying to follow the Bible's teachings. As a matter of fact, it is displayed as the very first "sin," Satan having been so prideful of his position and power that he presumed to rebel against God.

Not all that hard to understand.

ON A SIDE NOTE: I went through the same interrogation when I first began to post on General. "Everyone [ on here ] knows that you're not a Vietnam veteran!" Riiiight! Just try to shrug it off and go on about your posting. Some of the people on here are so cynical and so anti-military that they simply refuse to believe that any veteran could post on General. Sad, but true.

I agree that excessive pride is a sin. Fortunately, I would never be guilty of that, which is why I'm better than the guy you're talking about. :D

The Bible: Pride goeth before the fall.

I don't like using this phrase but it is appropriate here: 'nuff said.

Actually - "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall".

But, almost no one uses the actual version...

(Proverbs 16:18, by the way)

Well, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least five times, and it declaims against both pride and fornication.

Fornication is any sex outside of marriage, according to the Bible.

Actually, no. When KJV was translated, the first version to use the term, the term did not mean what it does now. It was a reference to sex with hookers. Hookers would take people into hidden places around and next to buildings, an archway called a fornix. Sex with these hookers was fornication. When the bible is referring to other types of sex it says so explicitly. The word fornication evolved to mean all sex outside of marriage but that is not what it meant in the original text of the Bible or when the word was first used in translation.

Look up the origin of the word.

Pride is unacceptable for anyone who is trying to follow the Bible's teachings. As a matter of fact, it is displayed as the very first "sin," Satan having been so prideful of his position and power that he presumed to rebel against God.

Not all that hard to understand.

ON A SIDE NOTE: I went through the same interrogation when I first began to post on General. "Everyone [ on here ] knows that you're not a Vietnam veteran!" Riiiight! Just try to shrug it off and go on about your posting. Some of the people on here are so cynical and so anti-military that they simply refuse to believe that any veteran could post on General. Sad, but true.

Actually - "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall".

But, almost no one uses the actual version...

(Proverbs 16:18, by the way)

I thank you Grave_n_Idle and the first part is so very true in this case.

Second. Virginity is great... (I am one too.) but does that make me better than anyone? Oh Hell no!


And THAT was Jocabia's big contention there, I believe...

If you look at what wasaid:

"I myself know this. It is the main reason I am still a virgin even though I am already 32. Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life. You have to choose one or the other. That is why you don't have everyone volunteering to become monks or catholic priests. It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.

First - it creates a premise that is untrue... (or, at least VERY arguable), in the form of: "Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life".

One only has to look at Tantrism to see a complete refutation of this attitude, but it needs no such extreme to see that sex and spirituality need not compete or detract. Indeed - the Bible itself tells us that sex is BETTER than abstinence, if abstaining is a problem.

Second - "You have to chose one or the other"... follows on from the first point, and is demonstrably as false as the first was.

Third - Look at the clauses: "I myself know this. It is the main reason I am still a virgin even though I am already 32... It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded".

Intentionally or not, the original poster is saying that he has authority, because he is doing something MOST men are "too weak minded" to do.

I'd argue against the idea that it is hard to be abstinent... after all, if you never have the oppurtunity, it is no problem. Also, if you believe that sexuality and expression of emotion should be connected, it is not at all hard to refuse casual sex.

I remained abstinent, myself, until very late teens... because I believed sex and love were best observed as expressions of each other. Abstinence is not hard. That doesn't mean I didn't want sex... just that it is not hard to refuse something just because you want it.

I certainly don't consider my OWN abstinence to be any kind of validation, or that it was 'superior' to what "other men" can do.

That - I believe - is where Jocabia was headed with the 'pride' reference... an appeal to authority granted by the 'ability' to have not had sex.

I thank you Grave_n_Idle and the first part is so very true in this case.

Most welcome. I help where I can.

ok i didnt read all the posts. i dint read them in the original thread and im not really gonna read them here

but

what did whittier do that st paul didnt do? st paul declared that chastity was the superior way of living and that HE was chaste and superior to all those men who are forced to marry to satisfy their lusts.

all whittier did was say the same thing. that he was a virgin, that he had avoided temptation and that he sees it as a superior way of living.

if its OK for st paul to brag, why is it so wrong for whittier to brag?

Actually, no. When KJV was translated, the first version to use the term, the term did not mean what it does now. It was a reference to sex with hookers. Hookers would take people into hidden places around and next to buildings, an archway called a fornix. Sex with these hookers was fornication. When the bible is referring to other types of sex it says so explicitly. The word fornication evolved to mean all sex outside of marriage but that is not what it meant in the original text of the Bible or when the word was first used in translation.

Look up the origin of the word.
I don't use the KJV. I use either the NIV or the Amplified Bible.

I Corinthians 7:1-2 "It is well [ and by that I mean advantageous, esxpedient, profitable, and wholesome ] for a man not to touch a woman [ to cohabit with her ] but to remain unmarried. But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [ man ] have his own wife and let each [ woman ] have her own husband."

I Corinthians 7:8-9 "But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well ( good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome ) for them to remain [ single ] even as I do. But if they have not self-control ( restraint of their passions ), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [ with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire ]."

NOTE: The above quotes are from the Amplified Bible, which doesn't even use the word "fornication."

I also have a scriptural bone to pick, with Socialist Whittier:

"If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people."

If you look at the passages carefully:

"1Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

...

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

The KEY phrase is the part I bold in the sentence: "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full".

Indeed - despite your protestation, the passage really DOES mean we should pray in isolation, and give, and fast in secret.

Because our actions should glorify God - not us... and they should do so in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of man.

As the passage says, the man who is seen doing good, who draws attention to his piety, receives HIS reward on earth, in the appreciation of mortal men.

What possessed him to write that? I don't have time to read all of it, but he does come across as very arrogant. I commend him for his abstinance, but keeping your virginity means nothing if you're a liar, thief etc. Sex outside marriage is a sin, but then again so is stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.

Sin is all the same, we may choose to put standards on things, such as its okay to tell a white lie, or that mass-murder is a terrible sin, but to God it's all the same weight, it's all wrong-doing.

Pride is a sin, although I'm not really sure where you draw the line. If all pride is sinful then are we supposed to grovel like worms with our heads in the dirt? As a Christian, I certainly hope not. Because I must admit that I'm a fairly confident person, and without that confidence I would probably feel terrible about myself, leading to all sorts of other sins. But immense pride in my own virginity... well he certainly has confidence in announcing that to the world, albeit anonymously. I'm not a sex-driven person but even still I'd be the last to admit I was perfect...

But then I guess that's the point isn't it? Is immense pride in not sinning a sin? Massive paradox.

Well, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least five times, and it declaims against both pride and fornication.


Got your Bible close to hand?

Look in Genesis One - and find out what God's first words are to the new-born humanity.

Look in Genesis Two - WHO proclaims what marriage 'should' be?

Look at Genesis 3:16 - note the use of the word 'multiply'. Not 'add', or even 'cause'. What do you think that 'means'?

I don't use the KJV. I use either the NIV or the Amplified Bible.

I Corinthians 7:1-2 "It is well [ and by that I mean advantageous, esxpedient, profitable, and wholesome ] for a man not to touch a woman [ to cohabit with her ] but to remain unmarried. But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [ man ] have his own wife and let each [ woman ] have her own husband."

I Corinthians 7:8-9 "But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well ( good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome ) for them to remain [ single ] even as I do. But if they have not self-control ( restraint of their passions ), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [ with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire ]."

NOTE: The above quotes are from the Amplified Bible, which doesn't even use the word "fornication."

The King James Version was old, but was it wrong? It evidences what most people don't know. It's the reference to fornication does not mean all sex outside of marriage.

Now, as far as Paul, Paul thought sex was a dirty act and urged all people to avoid it in the interest of being more spiritual if they could possibly do so. He often spoke, not with the authority of God, but the authority of Paul. I do not his authority any more than I do yours. Unless you quote Jesus, your claims have no standing with me.

Is immense pride in not sinning a sin?

Yes. Scripture says NONE are without sin.

Is immense pride in not sinning a sin? Massive paradox.
"He who has transgressed in the smallest way of the law has transgressed against all of the law."

"Who then can be saved?"

"Although the law was given through Moses, grace ( unearned, undeserved favor and spiritual blessing ) and truth come through Jesus Christ."

And, "he who [ tries ] to live by the law, will die by the law."

ok i didnt read all the posts. i dint read them in the original thread and im not really gonna read them here

but

what did whittier do that st paul didnt do? st paul declared that chastity was the superior way of living and that HE was chaste and superior to all those men who are forced to marry to satisfy their lusts.

all whittier did was say the same thing. that he was a virgin, that he had avoided temptation and that he sees it as a superior way of living.

if its OK for st paul to brag, why is it so wrong for whittier to brag?

One, I don't recognize sainthood. Two, you're right Paul did that and I don't accept his authority either. His letters were chosen to be treated as the word of God by a 'council' whose efforts were political not spiritual. Paul often admits he does not speak for God and I take him at his word on that count.

Jesus took a much different tack and his view on pride is a clear one.

As a matter of fact, it is displayed as the very first "sin," Satan having been so prideful of his position and power that he presumed to rebel against God.

Arguable. Got a quote for it?

What possessed him to write that? I don't have time to read all of it, but he does come across as very arrogant. I commend him for his abstinance, but keeping your virginity means nothing if you're a liar, thief etc. Sex outside marriage is a sin, but then again so is stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.

Sin is all the same, we may choose to put standards on things, such as its okay to tell a white lie, or that mass-murder is a terrible sin, but to God it's all the same weight, it's all wrong-doing.

Pride is a sin, although I'm not really sure where you draw the line. If all pride is sinful then are we supposed to grovel like worms with our heads in the dirt? As a Christian, I certainly hope not. Because I must admit that I'm a fairly confident person, and without that confidence I would probably feel terrible about myself, leading to all sorts of other sins. But immense pride in my own virginity... well he certainly has confidence in announcing that to the world, albeit anonymously. I'm not a sex-driven person but even still I'd be the last to admit I was perfect...

But then I guess that's the point isn't it? Is immense pride in not sinning a sin? Massive paradox.

It's not a paradox. I am not proud of my lack of sin, because I don't lack sin. We are all sinful. When I manage to avoid sin, I'm not acting 'better'. I'm behaving as expected. Don't confuse shame and humility. One can be humble and not be ashamed of their 'good' acts.

Now, as far as Paul, Paul thought sex was a dirty act and urged all people to avoid it in the interest of being more spiritual if they could possibly do so. He often spoke, not with the authority of God, but the authority of Paul. I do not his authority any more than I do yours. Unless you quote Jesus, your claims have no standing with me.

Indeed. Paul NEVER met the living Christ.

Thus - wise or no, he is nothing more than a commentator, not a 'witness'... and CERTAINLY not appointed to speak for him.

You know, I have full respect for Christianity and it's teachings. If you want to live your life by the bible and judge yourself by what's written in the bible, you have my full endorsement.

Just..don't force it on me, and don't judge me by it. I don't believe in the bible and have every right to live my life by my own moral standards.

That's what Christians need to learn to do. Live their life by the bible - but don't expect other people to.

One, I don't recognize sainthood. Two, you're right Paul did that and I don't accept his authority either. His letters were chosen to be treated as the word of God by a 'council' whose efforts were political not spiritual. Paul often admits he does not speak for God and I take him at his word on that count.

Jesus took a much different tack and his view on pride is a clear one.
i dont disagree with you about st paul. but i think that is a different issue.

christianity has a long tradition of saying that sex outside of marriage is a sin. that there can be different, maybe even correct, interpretation of the bible doesnt change that.

good christians are supposed to live a good life as an example to non believers (among other reasons) they are a living example of christian ideals and the benefits of living a christian life.

whittier believes, as most christians do, that sex outside of marriage is a sin. instead of wishing it away with the hypocricy of "all sin is equal and no one is perfect" he lives the way he feels he is commanded to live. if that means being a 32 year old virgin, then so be it. that he commits other sins (as we all do) does not excuse him from the necessity of not committing THIS one. im sure he is working on identifying other sins he commits and to find a way to stop committing those too.

unless whittier is going around in his every day life bragging about being a virgin and how superior he is to all the fornicating sinners around him, i dont see that advocating chastisty on an online forum and witnessing with the example of his own life is a sin of pride. perhaps if he didnt get attacked for his position, he wouldnt come across as so arrogant.

i dont disagree with you about st paul. but i think that is a different issue.

christianity has a long tradition of saying that sex outside of marriage is a sin. that there can be different, maybe even correct, interpretation of the bible doesnt change that.

The Church has a tradition, long is debatable. I don't turn to the Chuch as an authority. I think it's clear that Jesus had more than a little spite for the idea of Church elders.

good christians are supposed to live a good life as an example to non believers (among other reasons) they are a living example of christian ideals and the benefits of living a christian life.

Be an example. That's not the same as claiming superiority, nor is it the same as judging them as sinful.

whittier believes, as most christians do, that sex outside of marriage is a sin. instead of wishing it away with the hypocricy of "all sin is equal and no one is perfect" he lives the way he feels he is commanded to live. if that means being a 32 year old virgin, then so be it. that he commits other sins (as we all do) does not excuse him from the necessity of not committing THIS one. im sure he is working on identifying other sins he commits and to find a way to stop committing those too.

He should live that way. Good for him. I don't fault him for being a virgin. In fact, I applaud his conviction. I wish him the best. He claimed the moral high ground and literally said he was superior. I fault him for pride which he knowingly and blatantly displayed. Virginity is not the point. Pride is.

unless whittier is going around in his every day life bragging about being a virgin and how superior he is to all the fornicating sinners around him, i dont see that advocating chastisty on an online forum and witnessing with the example of his own life is a sin of pride. perhaps if he didnt get attacked for his position, he wouldnt come across as so arrogant.
He can advocate chastity and I didn't fault him for doing such a thing. What he said was that he was a better, stronger, not weak-minded, like all the other lesser people, which is what I chastised him for. His being a virgin or advocating virginity is not at issue. Have the courage to stand behind your convictions is admirable and scripture supports such things. Being boastful and proud is not and scripture condemns such actions. See the difference. Know the difference. Live the difference.

He can advocate chastity and I didn't fault him for doing such a thing. What he said was that he was a better, stronger, not weak-minded, like all the other lesser people, which is what I chastised him for. His being a virgin or advocating virginity is not at issue. Have the courage to stand behind your convictions is admirable and scripture supports such things. Being boastful and proud is not and scripture condemns such actions. See the difference. Know the difference. Live the difference.
well now whittier isnt my favorite poster either but i think you are being too harsh in this. you have backed him against the wall and he is over stating his case, coming across as incredibly arrogant and prideful. i think its more of a defensive reaction than a reflection of how he behaves in every day life (or at least i hope it is)

in the same way that st paul might have come across as bragging about his superiority in his letters, he was just stating his view of proper intimate behavior and using his own life as an example. as he puts himself up as an example of superior living, so is whittier. since we dont live our day to day lives with whittier, we cant see him as an example of good christian living unless he tells us how he lives and why he feels its the better way to live. i dont see it as being any more prideful than the person who recommends getting a Phd and uses himself as an example of how hard but rewarding it is.

I wonder if the problem here is not pride, but arrogance.

There seems to me nothing wrong with someone being proud of themselves for doing something right. What appears to be wrong is being boastful and arrogant about it.

Perhaps it is just that excessive, unwarranted pride so often slops over into boastfulness.

Second. Virginity is great... (I am one too.) but does that make me better than anyone? Oh Hell no!

What's so great about virginity? It has no inherent value.

What's so great about virginity? It has no inherent value.
It does on Ebay.

well now whittier isnt my favorite poster either but i think you are being too harsh in this. you have backed him against the wall and he is over stating his case, coming across as incredibly arrogant and prideful. i think its more of a defensive reaction than a reflection of how he behaves in every day life (or at least i hope it is)

in the same way that st paul might have come across as bragging about his superiority in his letters, he was just stating his view of proper intimate behavior and using his own life as an example. as he puts himself up as an example of superior living, so is whittier. since we dont live our day to day lives with whittier, we cant see him as an example of good christian living unless he tells us how he lives and why he feels its the better way to live. i dont see it as being any more prideful than the person who recommends getting a Phd and uses himself as an example of how hard but rewarding it is.

I think (although I could be wrong) that what is bothering Jocabia is not something like this, but the fact that the comments were more like:

"I have a Ph.D. This means that I am intellectually superior to most people. Most people can't handle getting a Ph.D because their minds are too weak. I'm so glad I was able to get one. Now I can be an example to people and tell all those people who don't have Ph.D's how wrong they are when they tell others that they should get Ph.D's. I'm the one with the authority to tell people that, since I've got one. Mind you, I'm not judging those less educated than I, I just know that they are less intelligent than I, but I'm sure they're better at other things."

Could it be that Whittier got pushed into a corner and got really defensive? Perhaps, but he still needs to realize that comments such as the one above, every single portion of which came directly from his own comments about virginity, come off as sounding very arrogant and judgemental.

Virginity's not all it's cracked up to be.

I highly respect someone who wants to wait until he's in love with a person before he starts having sex. I don't think too highly of people who abstain from intercourse from a notion that sex is sinful, wrong and dirty. It's not.

Quite true. Whilst sex is overly marginalised in normal teen culture, it is by no means dirty or malign.

Moreover, how on earth does being a virgin afford one a higher moral platform? It rather implies one has overly high morals and wishes to impose them upon others.

I think (although I could be wrong) that what is bothering Jocabia is not something like this, but the fact that the comments were more like:

"I have a Ph.D. This means that I am intellectually superior to most people. Most people can't handle getting a Ph.D because their minds are too weak. I'm so glad I was able to get one. Now I can be an example to people and tell all those people who don't have Ph.D's how wrong they are when they tell others that they should get Ph.D's. I'm the one with the authority to tell people that, since I've got one. Mind you, I'm not judging those less educated than I, I just know that they are less intelligent than I, but I'm sure they're better at other things."

Could it be that Whittier got pushed into a corner and got really defensive? Perhaps, but he still needs to realize that comments such as the one above, every single portion of which came directly from his own comments about virginity, come off as sounding very arrogant and judgemental.

Actually, that's an excellent synopsis of what is bothering me.

More importantly, he has said similar comments about education. Also if you look in that thread he mentions details of my life that I've mentioned like I should prove them and they matter. I've mentioned being a Marine in the past, but just so people see where I'm coming from, not because my opinion is of more value than theirs. Or like we always talk about being a scientist doesn't make your opinion scientific, but rather your opinion has the weight of the evidence behind it. Whittier and others like Whittier take labels and attach superiority to those labels. So he's an expert because he has a degree or he's superior because he's chosen a particular path.

And pride is fine, but if you're going to justify your behavior with the Bible, you better be prepared to get nailed on your behavior by the Bible as well.

I think (although I could be wrong) that what is bothering Jocabia is not something like this, but the fact that the comments were more like:

"I have a Ph.D. This means that I am intellectually superior to most people. Most people can't handle getting a Ph.D because their minds are too weak. I'm so glad I was able to get one. Now I can be an example to people and tell all those people who don't have Ph.D's how wrong they are when they tell others that they should get Ph.D's. I'm the one with the authority to tell people that, since I've got one. Mind you, I'm not judging those less educated than I, I just know that they are less intelligent than I, but I'm sure they're better at other things."

Could it be that Whittier got pushed into a corner and got really defensive? Perhaps, but he still needs to realize that comments such as the one above, every single portion of which came directly from his own comments about virginity, come off as sounding very arrogant and judgemental.

im not terribly comfortable defending whittier. i just think he should be cut some slack. not everyone is good at moderating their comments to come off in the best light. whittier tends to come off in the worst light possible.

for someone like him who comes off as rude, arrogant, judgemental and crazy, we should look past his mode of communication and see if he has a legitimate underlying point.

i say he DOES have a legit underlying point and that even if his way of expressing himself is obnoxious, he is witnessing his own life as regards his efforts to live within his understanding of christianity. and that unless he is this bad in real life, we should take his point and think about it while overlooking his poor communication skills.

im not terribly comfortable defending whittier. i just think he should be cut some slack. not everyone is good at moderating their comments to come off in the best light. whittier tends to come off in the worst light possible.

for someone like him who comes off as rude, arrogant, judgemental and crazy, we should look past his mode of communication and see if he has a legitimate underlying point.

i say he DOES have a legit underlying point and that even if his way of expressing himself is obnoxious, he is witnessing his own life as regards his efforts to live within his understanding of christianity. and that unless he is this bad in real life, we should take his point and think about it while overlooking his poor communication skills.

This is not a problem of communication style. It's not even about Whittier. This is about a prevailing grouping of Christians who think some part of the Bible gives them the right to claim moral superiority. Whittier didn't accidentally claim superiority or imply it or something. Let me quote him.

I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil.

...

I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers.

He puts himself on a pedestal of superiority and the moral high ground in those specific terms and talks about how he looks down on the rest of the world and calls them EVIL. He passes judgement on them and deliberately refers to him as lesser than he is. It wasn't an accident or miscommunication. It's what he thinks. And it's appalling.

Here is the post the reply, which randomly brings up his virginity and then how it makes him superior.


In the rest of the post, he discusses how people having sex is destroying the world, but I gave you all the meat of it.

This is my reply-


I'd like to say you're caught up, but I think there are a couple more posts to see.
LMAO. I'm going to read the thread before saying anything. But I couldn't help laughing at this post. Especially that part where you say: "he discusses how people having sex is destroying the world,.."
I'm still laughing. Did I say that really? Where?

Indeed. Paul NEVER met the living Christ.

Thus - wise or no, he is nothing more than a commentator, not a 'witness'... and CERTAINLY not appointed to speak for him.
He met him on the road to Damascus when Jesus smote him and blinded him, when his name was still Saul.
Jesus did speak to Paul, that is how he became an apostle.

Hahahahaha. He's a 32 year old virgin!


*falls on floor laughing

well now whittier isnt my favorite poster either but i think you are being too harsh in this. you have backed him against the wall and he is over stating his case, coming across as incredibly arrogant and prideful. i think its more of a defensive reaction than a reflection of how he behaves in every day life (or at least i hope it is)

in the same way that st paul might have come across as bragging about his superiority in his letters, he was just stating his view of proper intimate behavior and using his own life as an example. as he puts himself up as an example of superior living, so is whittier. since we dont live our day to day lives with whittier, we cant see him as an example of good christian living unless he tells us how he lives and why he feels its the better way to live. i dont see it as being any more prideful than the person who recommends getting a Phd and uses himself as an example of how hard but rewarding it is.
still reading the thread but this post cuts right to the heart of the matter.
I do feel defensive because of the way Jocabia attacked my position. And because I've been automatically attacked before for mentioning I was a virgin I thought he was just another person attacking me for being a virgin and promoting.
yes, I agree, that I overstated my case. It was a response to being backed against a wall.
It was not and is not my intention to come off sounding like being a virgin makes me sinless. It doesn't. I know my faults, and yes I do try to find ways to overcome them. But this is pretty much the only area where I have succeeded. When I said moral high ground, I meant a place from which to present a standard. Not a place of boasting. If you are committing the same kinds of sin as the people you criticize (for edification purposes, not for boasting purposes) then you are a hypocrite. How can I tell people that they should abstain until marriage if I myself do not do it. If I engaged in sex orgies and told you that you should not engage in sex outside of or before marriage would I not be hypocrite. What good would be my example? Or what example would there be in today's world. As Paul was an example in his time, I strive to be an example on this matter in our time.
And what good would be the example I set, or the standard I point the way to, if I do not talk about it or mention it?
Jocabia rightly talks about not being boastful in prayer and giving. But he neglects the scriptures where Jesus also says, Let your light shine before men. Jesus, on the mount also said, you are the salt of the earth. We are to show our good works before men so that they may come to Christ and glorify him. That they may know the good things about being a christian. If those of us who are true believers kept our beliefs and our practices to ourselves and in the closet then the only christian witness left is the hypocrites. I am not willing to leave the mission of christianity to the hypocrites for they are bring a dark mark upon our faith. The number one comlaint non christians have against christianity is the hypocrisy. How can you tell some one to abstain if you are not abstaining yourself? How can you tell someone not to lie if you yourself lie?
Jesus said you will know his followers by the fruit they produce.
Jesus chided the pharisees not just for their arrogance but for their hypocrisy. In Paul I found a standard and most of my life I have sought to follow that standard. And for my most of my life, I have been condemned and personally attacked for choosing that kind of life.
What I meant by weakminded is that most people do not have self control. Even Paul mentions. If I really wanted sex, all I have to do is get it on with some street hooker. So its not really about opportunity. Cause if you think about it, everyone has an opportunity to have sex unless you are on an island somewhere all by yourself.
Not everyone can abstain as long as I have. Abstaining in your teens, while commendable is not very hard. Try doing it into your 30's with temptation and pressure everywhere you turn. Trying to abstain for as long as I have is very difficult and trying. That is why I do not fault people who are not virgins. Let me tell you what it's like to abstain this long and this is why I know that Paul had a very good point in that scripture: I daydream about sex with different women about 60% of the time. Many times, when I am alone with a girl, I feel magnetically attracted to her lips. These are called temptations both the feeling of attraction and the daydream. Women are my achilles heel. See, I am willing to do almost anything for women, cause I cannot have sex with them without marrying them first or breaking my vow of abstinence which I made, ironically, in a closet. Satan knows I am having a very hard time at this. Yet I push forward and he thus sends thoughts and feelings and scents to torment me.
It is very difficult and it is a painful proposition to do. To pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. I have passed up at least 200 opportunities in keeping with my convictions on the matter. The problem is I am often tormented with regret later on.
It is like following Jesus command to "take up your own cross".
I am often under the attack of Satan because of the way I have chosen to live. Because this is the one area where I succeed best at, it is the one area where I am attacked the most.
Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person. As Paul states, not everyone has the same gifts or abilities.
But God does not give us these abilities just so we can bury them in the sand and hide them. God expects us to go out and earn interest on what he has given us. If we hide our abilities, they will not gain interest. That is, they will bring other people to Christ.

As for pride, I am very suspceptible to it. All people who have the primary gift of prophecy are susceptible to pride.
http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/Services/Gifts/Eng/eng-prop.html
Every gift test I take, prophecy comes out on top. It has been this way since I was a child. Prophets tend to come off as judgmental of others.

im not terribly comfortable defending whittier. i just think he should be cut some slack. not everyone is good at moderating their comments to come off in the best light. whittier tends to come off in the worst light possible.

for someone like him who comes off as rude, arrogant, judgemental and crazy, we should look past his mode of communication and see if he has a legitimate underlying point.

i say he DOES have a legit underlying point and that even if his way of expressing himself is obnoxious, he is witnessing his own life as regards his efforts to live within his understanding of christianity. and that unless he is this bad in real life, we should take his point and think about it while overlooking his poor communication skills.
Yes yes yes. What you say is very true.
Thanks for explaining my position better than I can.

I think (although I could be wrong) that what is bothering Jocabia is not something like this, but the fact that the comments were more like:

"I have a Ph.D. This means that I am intellectually superior to most people. Most people can't handle getting a Ph.D because their minds are too weak. I'm so glad I was able to get one. Now I can be an example to people and tell all those people who don't have Ph.D's how wrong they are when they tell others that they should get Ph.D's. I'm the one with the authority to tell people that, since I've got one. Mind you, I'm not judging those less educated than I, I just know that they are less intelligent than I, but I'm sure they're better at other things."

Could it be that Whittier got pushed into a corner and got really defensive? Perhaps, but he still needs to realize that comments such as the one above, every single portion of which came directly from his own comments about virginity, come off as sounding very arrogant and judgemental.
you judge correctly

He met him on the road to Damascus when Jesus smote him and blinded him, when his name was still Saul.
Jesus did speak to Paul, that is how he became an apostle.

Care to show me the verses you think refute what I said?

I fear you are being a little disingenuous... what I referred to was the Jesus of LIVING ministry, not the resurrection.

I didn't say that Paul was not touched by the spirit... there is no external way to verify it - although the tales ABOUT Saul/Paul meeting the spirit are inconclusive about what even HAPPENED... which puts questions in my mind.

Read back over what I said... you have constructed something of a strawman, here.

This is not a problem of communication style. It's not even about Whittier. This is about a prevailing grouping of Christians who think some part of the Bible gives them the right to claim moral superiority. Whittier didn't accidentally claim superiority or imply it or something. Let me quote him.



He puts himself on a pedestal of superiority and the moral high ground in those specific terms and talks about how he looks down on the rest of the world and calls them EVIL. He passes judgement on them and deliberately refers to him as lesser than he is. It wasn't an accident or miscommunication. It's what he thinks. And it's appalling.
You pick out specific words. But unlike Ashmoria and Dem. you do not look at the underlying message.
I did not mean that being a virgin made me better than other people. I meant that because I have chosen this path I am in a better position to present it than is someone who has not walked down the path. Would you prefer me to be a hypocrite and promote those failing hypocritical abstinence programs that Bush has placed in our schools? Programs which I, as a some one who has abstained for a long time, have very very little respect for. To me, they are programs being forced on our teens by people who nothing more than hypocrites. If you think abstinence is so good then how come you are not practicing it? Is it any wonder why government promoted abstinence pledges are such big failures.
Would you prefer someone who has walked down a particular path to present it or would you prefer it to be presented by someone who has not walked down it? The person who has truly abtained or the person who hypocritically forces people into abstinence only plans?
I present myself as an example that it can be done. It is very hard for anyone to do. It leads to emotional and spiritual torment so great that it is quite easy to fall into sin and do the things you want not to do.
Do you think really think it is wrong to say, this is the way I am and I think other people should be this way too, but I understand if they cannot.

I agree with you that there are large groups of hypocrites in the church. But I am not one of them.

Hahahahaha. He's a 32 year old virgin!


*falls on floor laughing
umm. well. at least you haven't called me evil

:)

Care to show me the verses you think refute what I said?

I fear you are being a little disingenuous... what I referred to was the Jesus of LIVING ministry, not the resurrection.

I didn't say that Paul was not touched by the spirit... there is no external way to verify it - although the tales ABOUT Saul/Paul meeting the spirit are inconclusive about what even HAPPENED... which puts questions in my mind.

Read back over what I said... you have constructed something of a strawman, here.
So you think Jesus was not alive when he spoke to Paul?

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/roaddam.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Damascus

Acts 9

On the road to Damascus, he was hit by a great light that knocked him to the ground and blinded him.
A voice spoke to him saying "Saul why do you persecute me?"
Saul said, "Who are you?"
The voice said "I am Jesus who you are persecuting"
Note that it does not say "I am the spirit" rather it says "I am Jesus"
It was not the spirit that Paul met but rather Jesus.
Jesus told him to get up and go into Damascus where his messenger would tell Saul what to do.
The people who were with Saul heard the voice but they did not see anyone. We should note they in the middle of no where so there was no place for any one to hide behind.
For 3 days Saul, who we know as Paul, could not see, eat, or drink.
And Jesus sent Ananias to Saul to minister to him.
Verse 17, Ananias went to lay hands on Saul and to teach him so that he may be healed and recieve the holy spirit, who up to this point, he had not yet met.
In fact it was only at this point, not on the road to Damascus, that Paul met and received the spirit.
Even Ananias notes that Paul met Jesus, not the holy spirit, on the road to Damascus.

Now I have a bone to pick with the interpretation that Bible says that marriage is only for sex. Not according to my reading of Genesis.

So you think Jesus was not alive when he spoke to Paul?

Again with the strawman.

When you are discussing apotheosis, 'alive' is a relative term.

Genesis 2:

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."
18
The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
19
So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20
The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.
21
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
23
5 the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."
24
6 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.
25
The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.


The purpose of a man marrying a woman is so that he doesn't have to be alone. Your wife is meant not to be your sex toy, but your best freind for life.
Likewise the husband is not the woman's sex toy, but rather is meant to be her best friend for life.

Note verse 24. this is why a man leave his parents and gets married to his wife. That the two of them may become one body.

You pick out specific words. But unlike Ashmoria and Dem. you do not look at the underlying message.
I did not mean that being a virgin made me better than other people.

Well, that is most certainly what you said. You said it gives the high ground which Christians know no one has. You said it makes you superior, which Christians know none are. Dem and Ash both very clearly admitted that you may not have meant what you said, but you did say. What you do here is apologize for being arrogant, not launch more attacks.

I meant that because I have chosen this path I am in a better position to present it than is someone who has not walked down the path. Would you prefer me to be a hypocrite and promote those failing hypocritical abstinence programs that Bush has placed in our schools? Programs which I, as a some one who has abstained for a long time, have very very little respect for. To me, they are programs being forced on our teens by people who nothing more than hypocrites. If you think abstinence is so good then how come you are not practicing it? Is it any wonder why government promoted abstinence pledges are such big failures.

They're failures because the people preaching them are claiming to be holier-than-thou and spitting in the face of reality. The fact is that education doesn't make people engage. People engage. They always have. They always will. You think sex education had anything to do with why Paul was addressing it. In our society we don't want young people to form relationships, but their bodies tell them differently. When Jesus was around people were often married by high school age, bearing children. Children today are getting one message to their minds and one to their bodies. The problem is that abstinence-only acts like they'll only listen to their minds and it's bullocks.

Would you prefer someone who has walked down a particular path to present it or would you prefer it to be presented by someone who has not walked down it? The person who has truly abtained or the person who hypocritically forces people into abstinence only plans?

I would prefer that things be explained to young people in total and that be given all the access to be safe when they don't listen to the abstinence-only plans. They don't work. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with young people not always doing what's best for them.

Personally, I always found the descriptions of how certain mistakes wrecked their lives by former drug addicts, sex addicts, and various other recovered people. The people who speak of their experiences and how they were hurt or nearly destroyed by certain mistakes really pull a lot of people. That's why at AA they sit in a room with other alcoholics and are sponsered by other alcoholics and not holier-than-thou "I'm strong enough to have never tasted a drink" people.

I present myself as an example that it can be done. It is very hard for anyone to do. It leads to emotional and spiritual torment so great that it is quite easy to fall into sin and do the things you want not to do.
Do you think really think it is wrong to say, this is the way I am and I think other people should be this way too, but I understand if they cannot.

No. I think it's wrong to say, I think they are too weak-minded to be strong like me, which is EXACTLY what you said. You didn't say it because I was attacking your chastity, you simply brought it up because it REMOTELY touched the topic of discussion. Telling them it could be done and that you did it is not what you did. You told them how you were better than most people and this is why you were capable of doing it. You barely gave any credit to God for your position, which would have redeemed you, and most suggested your abstinence is a credit to how much stronger you are than other weak people.

I agree with you that there are large groups of hypocrites in the church. But I am not one of them.
Hmmmmm...perhaps... unless of course one uses the definition Jesus used, then as I've shown, you most certainly are.

Let's not pretend like I back you against the wall. Let me again post your first post, before I'd said anything to you. You came in with guns blazing. Don't blame me because I used scripture rather than taking the holier-than-thou tack and it left your more than wanting.

Not trying to get into an argument but what you are saying is what is false. Reading your posts, you are proving that you have no real knowledge of the Bible or of christianity.
But I am not going to debate cause I know from all of your previous posts that you think you know everything[b] just because as you put it:
[b]you're an "ex marine" which I put in qouation marks cause you haven't proven it.
you're a teacher. though I find even that questionable.
Now what are you claiming it is that makes you qualified to talk to about the Bible?
I suppose you are going to say that just because you read it once, that makes you a complete expert on it.
Have you actually studied it though, with people who know more about it than you? You can't get everything from it from simply reading it. If you do, you often end up misreading passages.

This is Whittier's first post in that thread. The one that started the discussion. He entered the thread attacking me. He entered the thread BEGGING to be addressed harshly and now claims that I backed him in a corner simply by knowing my scripture.

Here is the gist of my reply regarding the scripture he said I knew nothing about.

You're upset because I pwned you when you made expertise claim that didn't hold up under cross. Fine. Be upset. But attack my arguments or walk away.

1 Corinthians 7:1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now, of course, you'll notice that the Paul says that man should not marry, but if a man cannot abstain from sex then he should have a wife and a wife a husband so that may fulfill their carnal desires without sinning. However, feel free to better interpret this passage if you'd like. Notice how Paul says he wish all men were chaste as he is, but that he knows they won't be. Notice how he says sex is a duty of marriage. Notice how he says that the marriage is necessary to avoid sinning for those that are not like him.

I address only the passage. His reply was to claim the moral high ground for being virginal as if that had ANYTHING to do with what we were arguing. He didn't explain it in a line or two. It was several paragraphs of how good he is and how men are weak and he is strong, etc.

LMAO. I'm going to read the thread before saying anything. But I couldn't help laughing at this post. Especially that part where you say: "he discusses how people having sex is destroying the world,.."
I'm still laughing. Did I say that really? Where?

Perhaps you meant the world was doing well when you said it was "wallowing in sin and evil" while you looked down on it from the "moral high ground". But hey, maybe you were really talking about the success of a world wallowing in sin and evil. Silly me.

Acts 9

On the road to Damascus, he was hit by a great light that knocked him to the ground and blinded him.
A voice spoke to him saying "Saul why do you persecute me?"
Saul said, "Who are you?"
The voice said "I am Jesus who you are persecuting"
Note that it does not say "I am the spirit" rather it says "I am Jesus"
It was not the spirit that Paul met but rather Jesus.
Jesus told him to get up and go into Damascus where his messenger would tell Saul what to do.
The people who were with Saul heard the voice but they did not see anyone. We should note they in the middle of no where so there was no place for any one to hide behind.
For 3 days Saul, who we know as Paul, could not see, eat, or drink.
And Jesus sent Ananias to Saul to minister to him.
Verse 17, Ananias went to lay hands on Saul and to teach him so that he may be healed and recieve the holy spirit, who up to this point, he had not yet met.
In fact it was only at this point, not on the road to Damascus, that Paul met and received the spirit.
Even Ananias notes that Paul met Jesus, not the holy spirit, on the road to Damascus.


Well - first I'm going to quibble scripture, since, you surely know that one reference you make here is a 'biblical contradiction'?

If we read Acts 9:7, we find: "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

And this is the passage you referred to... however, Paul himself says otherwise:

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

So - there is some inconsistency in the story already. It's hard to NOT question the story, if the details don't even match between descriptions.

Next point - you are discussing a different 'spirit'. You are referring to the Holy Spirit, I am talking about the less-than-corporeal manifestation of Jesus.

Is it even worth mentioning that it is IRRELEVENT what Ananias says? Was he there?


Now - back to my pioint - you have still not touched what my argument was about. Paul was NOT a witness to the earthly ministry, and never saw the earthly Jesus.

Thus, whether you think he was epileptic, or that he actually was visited by a spectre of Messiah... he is a commentator - NOT a witness.


Now I have a bone to pick with the interpretation that Bible says that marriage is only for sex. Not according to my reading of Genesis.

And I eagerly await seeing that. I'll post no arguments to it until I see it.

Genesis 2:

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."
18
The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
19
So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20
The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.
21
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
23
5 the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."
24
6 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.
25
The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.


The purpose of a man marrying a woman is so that he doesn't have to be alone. Your wife is meant not to be your sex toy, but your best freind for life.
Likewise the husband is not the woman's sex toy, but rather is meant to be her best friend for life.

Note verse 24. this is why a man leave his parents and gets married to his wife. That the two of them may become one body.

I won't waste too much time on this one...

Have you read the Hebrew?

If you read it in Hebrew, the 'marriage' in Eden is fairly obviously a metaphor for the creation of man... not a 'wedding ceremony'.

Second - the text has been edited (quite obviously, if you look for it). The speech given to Adam is anachronistic, although I note the translation you offer is one of those that covers it, by cutting Adam's speech in half.

Third - the first words God EVER offers to man, are actually in Genesis one... you MIGHT want to look at what his VERY first instruction to our kind is.

Fourth - it might be worth mentioning that sex is not mentioned AT ALL in the (so called) 'marriage' context here. The 'relationship' described in Genesis two is (one hopes) entirely platonic, and NOT one of equals. Otherwise, God is either not so smart, or wasted a lot of time, or is just plain perverted... after all - he offered Adam ALL of the animals first...

Fourth - it might be worth mentioning that sex is not mentioned AT ALL in the (so called) 'marriage' context here. The 'relationship' described in Genesis two is (one hopes) entirely platonic, and NOT one of equals. Otherwise, God is either not so smart, or wasted a lot of time, or is just plain perverted... after all - he offered Adam ALL of the animals first...
Meaning that women are not equal, or just that the Scripture was not referring to that specific issue in any case?

Meaning that women are not equal, or just that the Scripture was not referring to that specific issue in any case?

Who can tell?

When one looks over the Hebrew scripture, it is not hard to see a lot of different threads running through it, as the religion evolved.

Right there in the language, we see certain evidences of polytheism in the earliest texts. We also see evidence of 'primative' animism mixed up in the stories, and evidence of a point where the Hebrew faith was one of the 'earth-mother/sky'father' religions.

The 'marriage' in Genesis two is a combination of elements... the earliest part of it being a simple description of where life came from. Added to this later, we have a 'search for a companion'... and, at an even later date, we have Adam and Eve fully formed as 'people'... with actual 'script' attributed.

Women might have been 'equals' when the first oral traditions began that lead to the Genesis story... but by the time it was codified, the Hebrews followed a patriarchal, phallo-theistic faith.

still reading the thread but this post cuts right to the heart of the matter.
I do feel defensive because of the way Jocabia attacked my position. And because I've been automatically attacked before for mentioning I was a virgin I thought he was just another person attacking me for being a virgin and promoting.

Then you should have actually read what I said. Because I wrote that you were claiming superiority and your response was to *gasp* claim superiority. And as far as attacking you, you entered the thread attacking me. Don't get upset because you were outgunned. We do what we can with what we have and I'm a bit of a bully. For bullying you, I apologize. But next time don't walk up the guy that continually makes you look silly and beg him to do it again. It's generally a bad idea.

yes, I agree, that I overstated my case. It was a response to being backed against a wall.

Again, you dismiss your part in this matter. You came in swinging and then act like I was being unfair for dropping you like it's hot. This is the first of your excuses for your behavior. If people read on they will see you make many more. You are not the humble Christian who admits and attones for their shortcomings, but the boastful hypocrite who blames Satan, me and being a prophet for why people react to you the way they do and why you think and act the way you do. Personal responsibility is a major lesson of Christianity.

It was not and is not my intention to come off sounding like being a virgin makes me sinless. It doesn't. I know my faults, and yes I do try to find ways to overcome them. But this is pretty much the only area where I have succeeded. When I said moral high ground, I meant a place from which to present a standard. Not a place of boasting.

You came into the thread boasting and attacking. You mentioned how you were better people. You haven't succeeded. That's the point. What you need to do is to set an example not just in chastity, but with humility in your faith, and accept that you don't have all the answers, in fact there is only one answer you do have and that is knowing who does have the answers. When you claim you are in a position to tell young people how to behave rather then simply pointing them to scripture and guiding them to a personal relationship with Jesus you start from a position of arrogance.

What is more arrogant than claiming that you can better teach people than scripture can (as you claimed earlier in this discussion)? People need to be brought to Jesus. Answer their questions, tell them your choices and how they affected you, but do not suppose that you are in a position to tell them how to live. It's the height of pride.

If you are committing the same kinds of sin as the people you criticize (for edification purposes, not for boasting purposes) then you are a hypocrite.

That is not Jesus' definition of hypocrite. That's yours. Jesus defined the term as anyone who claimed to tell people about the dust in their eyes when a plank resides in their own. In other words, unless you are sinless you are not in a position to criticize the sins of others, PERIOD. You are no less a hypocrite if you are a murderer criticizing adultery than you are as an adulterer criticizing adultery.

How can I tell people that they should abstain until marriage if I myself do not do it. If I engaged in sex orgies and told you that you should not engage in sex outside of or before marriage would I not be hypocrite. What good would be my example? Or what example would there be in today's world. As Paul was an example in his time, I strive to be an example on this matter in our time.

Or you don't tell them. You point them to scripture and let the Lord guide them. You offer to help them when they ask for your help and to answer their questions but you don't make the prideful mistake of claiming that you are in a position to tell people how to live.

And what good would be the example I set, or the standard I point the way to, if I do not talk about it or mention it?

You are welcome to talk about it or mention it when it is germaine. You are not welcome to proclaim it from the rooftops. I mean, if you wish to follow the teachings of Jesus. Does he say that you should tell people to fast and be like you or that you should make it appear just like you're not fasting (not lie about it, just not announce it to the world)? Does he say you should announce your charity (clearly another good example one can set for others) or that you should not make your right aware that your left hand is doing it? Again, he doesn't advocate lying about it or even going out of your way to hide it, simply to not go out of your way to announce it to the world.

Jocabia rightly talks about not being boastful in prayer and giving. But he neglects the scriptures where Jesus also says, Let your light shine before men.

He means to be an example by doing not to be an example by telling everyone about what you did. He is very clear about this.

Matthew6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

He is not suggesting you lie or that you actively prevent people from knowing about it, but simply that you do not actually hold your good deeds up to be viewed by the world. Let your actions speak on their own, but DO NOT attempt to make them seen or you have received your reward in full, clearly according to God. And he clearly says that those that do otherwise are hypocrites. He does not use the term the way you do.

Jesus, on the mount also said, you are the salt of the earth. We are to show our good works before men so that they may come to Christ and glorify him.

Really? Can you quote the scripture instead of bastardizing it, please? He says let your light shine before men so THEY will notice your good deeds, not to make them see your good deeds so they will see your light. It's completely different. He said to be an example by simply being a Christian and doing your best to live as you are directed to live by Jesus and that people will see your light and notice your good deeds. The evidence of your light should be in who you are not, not in what you do. What you do should simply be guides them to do the same. You have totally backwards and saying it says what you claim makes him contradict himself, which I will not accept.

Matthew5:14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

It's not like the passages were written by two different authors. These are chapters right next to one another. It is a unified description of what we are to be. Notice the difference. In one you are a light and people are drawn to you to see your good works and in Matthew 6 he references the hypocrite who holds up his good works to draw people to him.

Be a light and your good works will be seen. Stopping acting like your good works are evidence of your light. With or without that light people can perform good works. You only evidence yourself to be a hypocrite by Jesus' description of the word. Choose better. Actually listen to what the scripture says and not what allows you to claim the moral high ground and superiority.

When you find it, it will actually feel good to be a light instead of feeling attacked for being a hypocrite. Then you won't be so defensive about your virginity and you won't feel like someone suggesting that you excercise humility is saying being a virging is evil and whatnot.

That they may know the good things about being a christian.

Good works don't make you Christian. Good works are simply something we can spread to Christians and non-Christians alike. The light is what makes you Christian and the light should be visible even in absense of those good works. Without them knowing about your charity or your abstinence, your light should be visible simply by who you are and how you live. That you think that good works are somehow the point says to me that you missed the meaning altogether.

If those of us who are true believers kept our beliefs and our practices to ourselves and in the closet then the only christian witness left is the hypocrites.

That's not what he suggests at all. Not even in the most ridiculous reading of that verse. It doesn't say lie about your works. The point is to make Christianity about WHO you are and not WHAT you do. The hypcrites stand on the mountain and cry out "look I'm a Christian and I'm doing X good work." The true Christian simply trudges forward, being a Christian and when people see that light that cannot be hidden away, people will ask. And when they do, you tell them why you are inspired to behave as you do. You thrust your good works out there and wonder why no one sees your light.

I am not willing to leave the mission of christianity to the hypocrites for they are bring a dark mark upon our faith.

Nor am I and that is why I chastised you for being one.

The number one comlaint non christians have against christianity is the hypocrisy. How can you tell some one to abstain if you are not abstaining yourself? How can you tell someone not to lie if you yourself lie?

No, it isn't. Look at an Christian-bashing thread and it's not your description of hypocrisy they protest, it's Christ's. They don't like that Christians speak from a holier-than-thou platform. They almost always add the caveat that they very much like the Christian that lives as an example and leads people instead of pushing people. You push and wonder why people turn around and tell you to stop pushing. Instead trudge onward and be an example and have faith that there will be those who will see follow your light.

Jesus said you will know his followers by the fruit they produce.
Jesus chided the pharisees not just for their arrogance but for their hypocrisy.

I know. I quoted it. He chided them for both. You display both. His version of hypocrisy is not yours.

In Paul I found a standard and most of my life I have sought to follow that standard. And for my most of my life, I have been condemned and personally attacked for choosing that kind of life.

Not for choosing that kind of life. For thrusting your will on others. Paul's guidance was sought not thrust on people. People came to him, not the other way around. Christianity is a torch not a whip. You are meant to lead people not drive them like cattle.

What I meant by weakminded is that most people do not have self control. Even Paul mentions. If I really wanted sex, all I have to do is get it on with some street hooker. So its not really about opportunity. Cause if you think about it, everyone has an opportunity to have sex unless you are on an island somewhere all by yourself.

Yes, yes, we're very impressed that you aren't willing to pay for sex. That doesn't make you exactly like, oh, about 90% of the population or anything.

Not everyone can abstain as long as I have. Abstaining in your teens, while commendable is not very hard. Try doing it into your 30's with temptation and pressure everywhere you turn. Trying to abstain for as long as I have is very difficult and trying.

Oh, hey, I love how we get this long speech about how you didn't intend to be arrogant and then we get to see you hollow out your cheeks and double over from hunger pains while you fast. Annoint yourself with oil and wash your face and smile while you fast. Because telling about how strong you are for doing as you believe you are supposed to is what the hypocrites do.

Matthew 6:16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Notice he doesn't suggest you lie about fasting (abstaining) but simply that you don't make it a big deal and show people how hard it is for you and how strong you are for doing so. Hypocrites don't impress me. Jesus told me to expect them. I have never been disappointed by this passage. Hypocrites seem to be very good at making themselves seen by men. They seem to be particularly prevalent seeking public office.

That is why I do not fault people who are not virgins.

No, you just tell them they are wallowing in sin and evil.

Let me tell you what it's like to abstain this long and this is why I know that Paul had a very good point in that scripture: I daydream about sex with different women about 60% of the time. Many times, when I am alone with a girl, I feel magnetically attracted to her lips. These are called temptations both the feeling of attraction and the daydream. Women are my achilles heel.

Hmmmm... not sure what your point is here, but I would note one thing.

Matthew5:27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

See, I am willing to do almost anything for women, cause I cannot have sex with them without marrying them first or breaking my vow of abstinence which I made, ironically, in a closet. Satan knows I am having a very hard time at this. Yet I push forward and he thus sends thoughts and feelings and scents to torment me.

Satan? You are responsible for your thoughts and feelings and take responsibility for them. Jesus was very clear on that as well as in the passage I noted. He didn't say the person was tempted by sin, but that they sinned. Satan has nothing to do with your shortcomings. I have never had much stomach for people who simply won't admit that it is them and not Satan that err. It is also very prideful.

It is very difficult and it is a painful proposition to do. To pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. I have passed up at least 200 opportunities in keeping with my convictions on the matter. The problem is I am often tormented with regret later on.

Yep, nothing boastful about the part I bolded. Gosh, maybe it's my fault for backing you in a corner. How about a little personal responsibility?

It is like following Jesus command to "take up your own cross".
I am often under the attack of Satan because of the way I have chosen to live. Because this is the one area where I succeed best at, it is the one area where I am attacked the most.

Since you can't hear me, I'll tell you, here is where I laughed. You have a huge issue with taking personal responsibility. Your behavior, your thoughts, your desires, your lust, your personal attacks, your boastfulness, your arrogance, your pride is ALL YOU. Don't put your sins on Satan. You committed the sins. Take them to Jesus and apologize, don't make excuses to men about Satan did it.

Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person.

Again, this is laughable. "I'm not boasting. It's not their fault they're not as great as me and as capable of being so wonderful." There is nothing humble about the way you speak.

As Paul states, not everyone has the same gifts or abilities.
But God does not give us these abilities just so we can bury them in the sand and hide them. God expects us to go out and earn interest on what he has given us. If we hide our abilities, they will not gain interest. That is, they will bring other people to Christ.

I don't intend to continue to repeat myself, but you missed the point by a mile.

As for pride, I am very suspceptible to it. All people who have the primary gift of prophecy are susceptible to pride.
http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/Services/Gifts/Eng/eng-prop.html
Every gift test I take, prophecy comes out on top. It has been this way since I was a child. Prophets tend to come off as judgmental of others.
Ah, more boasting and excuses. It's not your fault, it's that you're a prophet, or it's satan, or it's that I backed you in a corner. Sad.

And THAT was Jocabia's big contention there, I believe...

If you look at what wasaid:



First - it creates a premise that is untrue... (or, at least VERY arguable), in the form of: "Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life".

One only has to look at Tantrism to see a complete refutation of this attitude, but it needs no such extreme to see that sex and spirituality need not compete or detract. Indeed - the Bible itself tells us that sex is BETTER than abstinence, if abstaining is a problem.

You don't even have to go as far afield as Tantrism. Just look at the family of Christian religions. The vast majority of Protestant pastors/ministers marry, and Orthodox priests must be married before they can minister to communities. As these priests and pastors are all spiritual guides, teachers and intermediaries with god, obviously, the churches do not think having sex detracts from their spiritual lives.

It's the same with the other big, monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam. Apparently, this idea that sex detracts from spirituality is a minority view.

I agree with Jocabia that Whittier is being prideful in his claims that his choice to be celibate grants him spiritual superiority over others. But rather than focus on what Whittier said and what he meant by it, can we expand this debate to the question of pridefulness in general, as I think GnI hoped we would when he suggested this thread?

I can't participate in a debate over what the Bible tells Christians about the sin of pride because I'm not a Christian, I don't follow the Bible, and I don't believe in the concept of sin as understood by Christians.

But I do believe that pride is a fault in lots of people of lots of different faiths or no faith, and I do believe that pride is a driving force in a lot of the conflicts the world is currently dealing with. I think we could have a productive debate if we focused on what pride is, why we think it's bad, how it affects how people act and think. Whittier certainly is not the only person to claim some authority to say he is better than others. I'm interested in why people want to feel they are better than others, and why they seek authority for feeling that way -- in the Bible, the Quran, their social class, their college degrees, or what have you.

This is just a suggestion. It would alter the topic of the debate, so feel free to ignore me.

Absolutely expand the debate to pridefullness in general. I think we can see the folly of pride with or without the Bible.

Absolutely expand the debate to pridefullness in general. I think we can see the folly of pride with or without the Bible.

I've been reading up on some renderings of Buddhism, and it seems that humility is valued, but for a different reason.

If my sources are sound, engaging in discouraged acts such as destroying life, stealing, or making time with somebody else's spouse are thought to reduce your harmony and make it more difficult to escape the bonds of suffering/illusion/imbalance, but outside that consequence, they aren't really "immoral", per se.

So, making a more diligent effort to embrace "right" speech, action, etc doesn't give you moral superiority, but it improves your progress towards some kind of more genuine perspective.

This probably isn't a complete or totally accurate sense, and it comes from a series of Western translations, but I found it interesting.

When it comes right down to it, I think extreme pride is actually often a sign of insecurity. If one is unsure of their accomplishments or their self-worth, they will feel the need to get reassurance from others - so they brag in order to get it. Whereas, if they were truly comfortable in their own accomplishments and traits, the need for acceptance wouldn't be there.

When it comes right down to it, I think extreme pride is actually often a sign of insecurity. If one is unsure of their accomplishments or their self-worth, they will feel the need to get reassurance from others - so they brag in order to get it. Whereas, if they were truly comfortable in their own accomplishments and traits, the need for acceptance wouldn't be there.

ARGH! I totally agree. I think that people who are simply trying to be leaders display humility as if they are just lucky in their accomplishments (sort of) or credit quantitative things (I can dunk because I'm 7 feet tall), whereas people who are trying to tout their accomplishments credit it to some form of qualitative superiority (I didn't give in to temptation because I'm stronger than the weak-minded individuals out there). Generally, but no always, I view that to be the line. The middle of the road is the person who simply states it matter-of-factly (Yeah, I survived the hurricane, but what are you gonna do... lay down and die?)

I think some of the greatest leaders are people who already trudged down the road we trudged down, something W hit on earlier. And I think it's important to share with people on that road, if they're interested, that you understand their struggle, but I also think it's important to let them choose their own path and choose to follow you unless they ask you for guidance. For example, there is a significant difference between giving the pitfalls and advantages of choosing the path you chose and telling them you are a better person for having chosen it.

A buddy of mine wasn't quite the scholar type (I think he got a zero on the pre-ASVAB, the first time he took it). He always wanted to be a carpenter but his father was a professor. It was his dream to have all of his children be college graduates. Rather than hearing from his father how an education helped him or about the struggles he would face in college, his father instead presented him with how much better he was than my friend's uncles because they had become 'dumb' carpenters and not chosen to get an education. He illustrated their failures and how they were 'less successful' than him to encourage his son's path. He used his hopes for his son like a whip instead of a torch. Personally, I think what he should have done is to help give my friend a realistic view of what it's like to go to college and how it can benefit a person but also to give him a REALISTIC view of the alternative. Today, my friend makes way above the national average income as a carpenter, he loves his work and is married with children and wildly happy. However, even if it was a terrible choice, he would have still been driven to it by his father.

Pride drives us to drive others. Humility and conscious drives us to try to help others avoid mistakes by helping them and leading them.

I look at trying to be an example to someone through Pride versus leadership like the difference between trying get a mule to move by using a hot poker or with a carrot. In both cases, the mule will move but in only one of those cases will it be up to the mule and will it be in the direction you'd like.

Women might have been 'equals' when the first oral traditions began that lead to the Genesis story... but by the time it was codified, the Hebrews followed a patriarchal, phallo-theistic faith.
So basically, the Old Testament says very little on the matter in reality.

Absolutely expand the debate to pridefullness in general. I think we can see the folly of pride with or without the Bible.

Yes we can. *points to the US, Britain, USSR, and other nations who were very prideful* And the US still is which is not good.

So basically, the Old Testament says very little on the matter in reality.

Not necessarily. It says a whole lot about a whole lot. It's just a matter of finding the 'reality' in there.

Well, that is most certainly what you said. You said it gives the high ground which Christians know no one has. You said it makes you superior, which Christians know none are. Dem and Ash both very clearly admitted that you may not have meant what you said, but you did say. What you do here is apologize for being arrogant, not launch more attacks.



They're failures because the people preaching them are claiming to be holier-than-thou and spitting in the face of reality. The fact is that education doesn't make people engage. People engage. They always have. They always will. You think sex education had anything to do with why Paul was addressing it. In our society we don't want young people to form relationships, but their bodies tell them differently. When Jesus was around people were often married by high school age, bearing children. Children today are getting one message to their minds and one to their bodies. The problem is that abstinence-only acts like they'll only listen to their minds and it's bullocks.



I would prefer that things be explained to young people in total and that be given all the access to be safe when they don't listen to the abstinence-only plans. They don't work. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with young people not always doing what's best for them.

Personally, I always found the descriptions of how certain mistakes wrecked their lives by former drug addicts, sex addicts, and various other recovered people. The people who speak of their experiences and how they were hurt or nearly destroyed by certain mistakes really pull a lot of people. That's why at AA they sit in a room with other alcoholics and are sponsered by other alcoholics and not holier-than-thou "I'm strong enough to have never tasted a drink" people.



No. I think it's wrong to say, I think they are too weak-minded to be strong like me, which is EXACTLY what you said. You didn't say it because I was attacking your chastity, you simply brought it up because it REMOTELY touched the topic of discussion. Telling them it could be done and that you did it is not what you did. You told them how you were better than most people and this is why you were capable of doing it. You barely gave any credit to God for your position, which would have redeemed you, and most suggested your abstinence is a credit to how much stronger you are than other weak people.


Hmmmmm...perhaps... unless of course one uses the definition Jesus used, then as I've shown, you most certainly are.

Let's not pretend like I back you against the wall. Let me again post your first post, before I'd said anything to you. You came in with guns blazing. Don't blame me because I used scripture rather than taking the holier-than-thou tack and it left your more than wanting.



This is Whittier's first post in that thread. The one that started the discussion. He entered the thread attacking me. He entered the thread BEGGING to be addressed harshly and now claims that I backed him in a corner simply by knowing my scripture.

Here is the gist of my reply regarding the scripture he said I knew nothing about.



I address only the passage. His reply was to claim the moral high ground for being virginal as if that had ANYTHING to do with what we were arguing. He didn't explain it in a line or two. It was several paragraphs of how good he is and how men are weak and he is strong, etc.
No they are failures because of the hypocrisy involved. It is highly unrealistic to tell young people to "do what we say and not what we do". Young people, by nature, will do what they see other people doing. If your words say one thing, and your actions another, then the youth will follow the example of your actions, because your words will have no value. No meaning.
You can say, "You kids should abstain". But unless you have actually abstained or are in the process of abstaining yourself, then your word have nothing to back them up.
People won't engage unless they know there is something to engage. That is where the value of education comes in. Education tells them there is stuff worth knowing and engaging.
I know what our society wants kids to do. I believe firmly that what our kids do in regards to this matter is between them and God. Not them and society.
Even today, in the majority of nations, people still get married in their high school years. Who are you to say they are wrong for doing so?
I think if they really love each other they should go for it regardless of how old they are. Provided they are capable of making their own rational decisions.
You give our world's youth less credit than they observe. Most of them do use contraception when they are given access to it. It's not a matter of us thinking we know better what's right for them than they do. We made the same mistakes we are condemning them for. I say we need to free them to make their own mistakes so they can grow and become better people.
If you have no regrets you are not human.
WTF? You seem to be talking as if sex was something bad. Abstinence from sex cannot be successfully promoted the same way you promote abstinence from alcohol. The idea of having AA meetings to get people to not have sex is absurd.
The problem with your example, is that you only the people who make mistakes. You don't allow for people who haven't made the mistakes. You give only one side of the equation. For abstinence programs to work you need both sides. Not people who have been 75 sexual relationships and ended up with STD's or broken marriages and what not. That doesn't make them any more qualified than me. It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.
Likewise, in addition to people who really are abstaining, such as myself, you would need to include who have had the opposite experience.
You need both sides. To have just one side and totally exclude the other is hypocrisy that will doom your efforts.

I excluded God from the post because many people on here are not christians. Speaking of which, God himself said that if you reject any part of scripture then you have rejected all of scripture. Yet, you reject the teachings of Paul, an Apostle of Christ. Paul, like the original 12, also spoke with Christ. The only difference is that the original 12 got to hang out with Jesus when he was in human flesh form whereas Paul only got to talk to him when the resurrected Jesus knocked him down on the road to Damascus. The words of Paul, are just as scriptural as any other part of the Bible.
By rejecting Paul's words, you reject God's words for Jesus said "If any reject you, they reject me." (Jesus was speaking to his followers, not just the disciples).

You might want to reread the gospels when Jesus speaks of the Pharisees. He notes that they say one thing and do another. "Outside their cup is clean. But on the inside their cup is filthy."

I should have read back more. That is true. But you did not say that. What you're post implied, to me, was that you held that scripture taught that women meant to be the sexual servants of men and nothing more.
I don't know what kind of weird God it is you worship, but I worship a God who created men and women to be equal partners.

Well - first I'm going to quibble scripture, since, you surely know that one reference you make here is a 'biblical contradiction'?

If we read Acts 9:7, we find: "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

And this is the passage you referred to... however, Paul himself says otherwise:

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

So - there is some inconsistency in the story already. It's hard to NOT question the story, if the details don't even match between descriptions.

Next point - you are discussing a different 'spirit'. You are referring to the Holy Spirit, I am talking about the less-than-corporeal manifestation of Jesus.

Is it even worth mentioning that it is IRRELEVENT what Ananias says? Was he there?


Now - back to my pioint - you have still not touched what my argument was about. Paul was NOT a witness to the earthly ministry, and never saw the earthly Jesus.

Thus, whether you think he was epileptic, or that he actually was visited by a spectre of Messiah... he is a commentator - NOT a witness.



And I eagerly await seeing that. I'll post no arguments to it until I see it.
My bad, I thought you were talking about the Holy Spirit.

But his testimony is still just as valid as that of the original 12. Because he spoke to Christ. Not while he dwelled on earth, rather when he already ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, because he did talk to Jesus his testimony hold equal validity.

Actually Grave_n_Idle. There is a theory out there that God can speak to individual people without others knowing.

I won't waste too much time on this one...

Have you read the Hebrew?

If you read it in Hebrew, the 'marriage' in Eden is fairly obviously a metaphor for the creation of man... not a 'wedding ceremony'.

Second - the text has been edited (quite obviously, if you look for it). The speech given to Adam is anachronistic, although I note the translation you offer is one of those that covers it, by cutting Adam's speech in half.

Third - the first words God EVER offers to man, are actually in Genesis one... you MIGHT want to look at what his VERY first instruction to our kind is.

Fourth - it might be worth mentioning that sex is not mentioned AT ALL in the (so called) 'marriage' context here. The 'relationship' described in Genesis two is (one hopes) entirely platonic, and NOT one of equals. Otherwise, God is either not so smart, or wasted a lot of time, or is just plain perverted... after all - he offered Adam ALL of the animals first...

Genesis one, gives an overview of the creation story. Genesis 2 delves more into the specific creation of man. Genesis 1 does not tell you what marriage is for. You do not need marriage to reproduce and make children. Genesis 2 gives the real reason for marriage. So men don't have to be alone. That is why it is wholesome for men to treat their women properly and respectfully and as equal partners. Without women, men would be alone and miserable.
You can have sex outside of marriage and most people do in fact.

My bad, I thought you were talking about the Holy Spirit.

But his testimony is still just as valid as that of the original 12. Because he spoke to Christ. Not while he dwelled on earth, rather when he already ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, because he did talk to Jesus his testimony hold equal validity.

You jumped to conclusions, I'm afraid... and I don't see why. The text says 'God is a spirit'... the ascended Jesus appeared 'in spirit', and there is the 'Holy Spirit'. Three entities in one... three spirits in one.

Is his testimony 'as valid' as the original twelve?

I'd argue that, since Paul himself says there were NO witnesses... it is entirely possible he fell on his head and had an 'episode' of some kind... no?

But, even if you assume that Paul saw what he claims... he was STILL not a witness to the earthly ministry... and over the millennia thousands of people have reported talking to the spirit of Jesus... does that mean that THEIR testimony 'holds equal validity'?

I argue that you CAN claim something special for those that SAW Jesus' ministry on earth... because they are recording history they saw. I argue that, inspired or not, Paul was never a witness.... only a commentator.

Actually Grave_n_Idle. There is a theory out there that God can speak to individual people without others knowing.

Really? Most people believe that God can't talk directly to mankind, at all, no?

But - regardless - we have two accounts of the meeting between Saul and Jesus... and they disagree.

There is a contradiction in the scripture... how do we know what is true? Indeed - since it IS a contradiction, how do we know EITHER is true?

Genesis one, gives an overview of the creation story. Genesis 2 delves more into the specific creation of man. Genesis 1 does not tell you what marriage is for. You do not need marriage to reproduce and make children. Genesis 2 gives the real reason for marriage. So men don't have to be alone. That is why it is wholesome for men to treat their women properly and respectfully and as equal partners. Without women, men would be alone and miserable.
You can have sex outside of marriage and most people do in fact.

You avoided the issue, and used your response as an oppurtunity to 'preach'.

You failed to address any of my points.

You don't even have to go as far afield as Tantrism. Just look at the family of Christian religions. The vast majority of Protestant pastors/ministers marry, and Orthodox priests must be married before they can minister to communities. As these priests and pastors are all spiritual guides, teachers and intermediaries with god, obviously, the churches do not think having sex detracts from their spiritual lives.

It's the same with the other big, monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam. Apparently, this idea that sex detracts from spirituality is a minority view.
Yet, you have to note that they still follow Paul's admonition to either abstain from sex or get married. Marriage is not a distracting as being sexually profligate outside of marriage.

Really? Most people believe that God can't talk directly to mankind, at all, no?

But - regardless - we have two accounts of the meeting between Saul and Jesus... and they disagree.

There is a contradiction in the scripture... how do we know what is true? Indeed - since it IS a contradiction, how do we know EITHER is true?

Depends really on what God can do, dont you think?

Yet, you have to note that they still follow Paul's admonition to either abstain from sex or get married. Marriage is not a distracting as being sexually profligate outside of marriage.

Wow... talk about the king of false dichotomy...

Those are the only two choices are they? Marriage (Christian, conventional) or abandoned licentiousness?

Of course - Paul doesn't say we shouldn't be wildly sexual beings within marriage, either... does he?

You seem to have constructed a world view where there are pure, chaste virgins that have exchanged vows, but have babies by mail, or something. And, on the other hand, anyone that is NOT 'married' is out there bumping like bunnies.

I agree with Jocabia that Whittier is being prideful in his claims that his choice to be celibate grants him spiritual superiority over others. But rather than focus on what Whittier said and what he meant by it, can we expand this debate to the question of pridefulness in general, as I think GnI hoped we would when he suggested this thread?

I can't participate in a debate over what the Bible tells Christians about the sin of pride because I'm not a Christian, I don't follow the Bible, and I don't believe in the concept of sin as understood by Christians.

But I do believe that pride is a fault in lots of people of lots of different faiths or no faith, and I do believe that pride is a driving force in a lot of the conflicts the world is currently dealing with. I think we could have a productive debate if we focused on what pride is, why we think it's bad, how it affects how people act and think. Whittier certainly is not the only person to claim some authority to say he is better than others. I'm interested in why people want to feel they are better than others, and why they seek authority for feeling that way -- in the Bible, the Quran, their social class, their college degrees, or what have you.

This is just a suggestion. It would alter the topic of the debate, so feel free to ignore me.
It is germaine. I agree that we should expand this to pride in general across faiths. The majority of posters on this forum are non christians and may not understand fully what we are talking about because we are confining the discussion to narrowly.
I was hoping someone else would suggest it. If I did, I don't think it would have been allowed.

Depends really on what God can do, dont you think?

Indeed. With God, ALL things are possible.

And yet, God can't lie (theoretically)... so how can two versions of the same story, in the inspired word of god, contradict?

To GnI, I see you are replying to my posts, but I am still catching up on this thread. I'll get to you asap. Just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you.

Yet, you have to note that they still follow Paul's admonition to either abstain from sex or get married. Marriage is not a distracting as being sexually profligate outside of marriage.
Anything personal that becomes a source of pride for a Christian is sin. "Glory rather in the Lord." This was why Jesus railed so against the Scribes and Pharasees; they were very prideful in their position and "righteousness" by being obedient to the Law.

I've been reading up on some renderings of Buddhism, and it seems that humility is valued, but for a different reason.

If my sources are sound, engaging in discouraged acts such as destroying life, stealing, or making time with somebody else's spouse are thought to reduce your harmony and make it more difficult to escape the bonds of suffering/illusion/imbalance, but outside that consequence, they aren't really "immoral", per se.

So, making a more diligent effort to embrace "right" speech, action, etc doesn't give you moral superiority, but it improves your progress towards some kind of more genuine perspective.

This probably isn't a complete or totally accurate sense, and it comes from a series of Western translations, but I found it interesting.
I've read the translations of the original texts, and they're pretty close to what you are saying.

To GnI, I see you are replying to my posts, but I am still catching up on this thread. I'll get to you asap. Just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you.

It's all good. I'm still playing catch up in other threads. (I just respond to this one when it's top of the page).

Indeed. With God, ALL things are possible.

And yet, God can't lie (theoretically)... so how can two versions of the same story, in the inspired word of god, contradict?
That the Bible was written, re-written, modified and added to by men is an inescapable fact.

Indeed. With God, ALL things are possible.

And yet, God can't lie (theoretically)... so how can two versions of the same story, in the inspired word of god, contradict?

Actually, these are written memories if I recall correctly.

That the Bible was written, re-written, modified and added to by men is an inescapable fact.

Oh, I know that...and you know that, but neither of us seems to be trying to argue the scripture as the 'inerrant word of god'.

Actually, these are written memories if I recall correctly.

So, what you are saying is - any testimony written after the fact could be wrong?

You realise, of course, that ALL of the (New Testament) scripture was written at least a generation AFTER the events it described...?

You avoided the issue, and used your response as an oppurtunity to 'preach'.

You failed to address any of my points.
How did I avoid the issue?
I was only elaborating on the point I was making. If you don't want me to elaborate just say so.

Oh, I know that...and you know that, but neither of us seems to be trying to argue the scripture as the 'inerrant word of god'.
Heh! Exactly. That's the trap the fundamentalists have fallen into.

How did I avoid the issue?
I was only elaborating on the point I was making. If you don't want me to elaborate just say so.

And, you just posted another response that failed to address any of the points I made....

Wow... talk about the king of false dichotomy...

Those are the only two choices are they? Marriage (Christian, conventional) or abandoned licentiousness?

Of course - Paul doesn't say we shouldn't be wildly sexual beings within marriage, either... does he?

You seem to have constructed a world view where there are pure, chaste virgins that have exchanged vows, but have babies by mail, or something. And, on the other hand, anyone that is NOT 'married' is out there bumping like bunnies.
actually, according to Paul, they are.
And he did say one man gets one wife and one woman gets one husband.
Other than that I don't get what you mean by "wildly sexual beings within marriage".

So, what you are saying is - any testimony written after the fact could be wrong?

You realise, of course, that ALL of the (New Testament) scripture was written at least a generation AFTER the events it described...?
Yes, but there is sufficient overlap to conclude that something of great significance happened to these men. Deciding what it was that happened is a matter of individual choice. Somehow, I rather suspect that this was intentional on God's part, providing you believe in God.

Heh! Exactly. That's the trap the fundamentalists have fallen into.

So true. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it was 'inspired', or if you think it is a control mechanism for the proletariat... the fact remains that the 'book' is actually the best part of a hundred books, written over a space of a thousand years, by an unknown number of authors.

And, to top it all - we don't even read THAT book... we read translations... or updates of translations.

Honestly - it's like saying that West Side Story is the 'inerrant word of Shakespeare'.

So true. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it was 'inspired', or if you think it is a control mechanism for the proletariat... the fact remains that the 'book' is actually the best part of a hundred books, written over a space of a thousand years, by an unknown number of authors.

And, to top it all - we don't even read THAT book... we read translations... or updates of translations.

Honestly - it's like saying that West Side Story is the 'inerrant word of Shakespeare'.
LOL! Now there's an analogy that never occured to me. :D

This is one of the many reasons why faith, of whatever sort, is a matter for personal thought and decision. It's also one of the primary reasons why I no longer participate in organized religion; there's way too much "group think" going on.

actually, according to Paul, they are.
And he did say one man gets one wife and one woman gets one husband.
Other than that I don't get what you mean by "wildly sexual beings within marriage".

No - not even according to Paul.

Paul said if you could do without it, do so. (Option One)

If you can't do without it, marry. (Option Two)

He also discusses those who sin in the flesh... outside of marriage (Option Three).

The point is, though... you cited 'married' or 'profligate' as the alternatives... which is illogical, because one COULD be 'profligate' with one partner, and one could be celibate outside of marriage. You constructed a dichotomy based ona fallacy.

To explain a little more clearly - you can be unmarried and bump like bunnies, or you can be unmarried and occassionally fool around, or you can be unmarried and NOT fool around.

Conversely - you can be married and NOT fool around, married and occassionally fool around, or married and bump like bunnies.

Your two 'ends of the spectrum' are not the Black and White you claim.

Anything personal that becomes a source of pride for a Christian is sin. "Glory rather in the Lord." This was why Jesus railed so against the Scribes and Pharasees; they were very prideful in their position and "righteousness" by being obedient to the Law.

That is true. Everyone is guilty of pride. Even if I am not prideful in that I am a virgin, (fact is that most of time everyone makes me feel uncomfortable because I am a virgin), there are other areas where I am prideful and it reflected in my earlier posts in earlier threads.

I don't boast of being virgin, because in this world, being a virgin is treated as something bad or terrible.
That is why when I mention my virginity to make a point, I do it in a defensive way. Not because I think I am better than anyone else, but because I think, I know that someone is going to demonize me for being a virgin. And when I do it in a defensive manner it can come off as sounding arrogant.
That's been my experience as a person who has abstained from sex so long. "Oh you abstained from sex, you're evil."
In fact, I was honestly surprised when some of the people who usually attack me on these forums actually gave some support to me. Cause I wasn't expecting Ashmoria or Dempublicents to do that. I was kind of expecting them to condemn me too. I didn't expect them to do what they did.

Yes, but there is sufficient overlap to conclude that something of great significance happened to these men. Deciding what it was that happened is a matter of individual choice. Somehow, I rather suspect that this was intentional on God's part, providing you believe in God.

See - perhaps it's because I'm a Godless heathen... but isn't it also possible that the whole 'new testament' thing is just 'Chinese Letters'? (I don't know if you call that over here, actually.... the game where you whisper a message along a line of people, and then laugh at the horribly garbled version that comes out at the far end...)

What I mean is... we allow for a set of Gospels... but there is no independent evidence to show that those Gospels WERE written by the claimed authors... or that those authors even existed.

What we COULD have, is an early text (that might or might not have been true... and that probably no longer exists), and then - almost half a century later... four 'Chinese Whispers' versions of the SAME story.

LOL! Now there's an analogy that never occured to me. :D

This is one of the many reasons why faith, of whatever sort, is a matter for personal thought and decision. It's also one of the primary reasons why I no longer participate in organized religion; there's way too much "group think" going on.

Exactly... when you start 'organising' things, they gain their own 'organisational' agendas... and I just can't make that fit with something that is supposed to be as personal as our relationship with eternity.

No - not even according to Paul.

Paul said if you could do without it, do so. (Option One)

If you can't do without it, marry. (Option Two)

He also discusses those who sin in the flesh... outside of marriage (Option Three).

The point is, though... you cited 'married' or 'profligate' as the alternatives... which is illogical, because one COULD be 'profligate' with one partner, and one could be celibate outside of marriage. You constructed a dichotomy based ona fallacy.

To explain a little more clearly - you can be unmarried and bump like bunnies, or you can be unmarried and occassionally fool around, or you can be unmarried and NOT fool around.

Conversely - you can be married and NOT fool around, married and occassionally fool around, or married and bump like bunnies.

Your two 'ends of the spectrum' are not the Black and White you claim.
I believe you misread the scripture here. It is quite clear the choice is between marriage and abstinence.
If you notice after the marriage part, he addresses people who chose to be single, telling them to abstain.

1 Corinthians 7:

1: Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command.

verse one: it is good for a man to remain a virgin. Point blank.
However, when you look at the original Hebrew, it turns out it was the Corinthians who said this, not Paul (according to the Mormons).
When Paul here mentions immorality there is only one type of immorality he could be speaking of. Sexual immorality. He states that in order to avoid falling to into sexual immorality men and women should get married.
While he says not to deprive each other, he says it is a concession to hardness men's hearts, not a command from either him or God.


7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.
8
6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
10
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband
11
--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12
To the rest 8 I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13
and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.
14
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.

7. According to historical artifacts, though Paul abstained from sex, he was actually married.
Turns out it was a requirement for being on the councils he was on before he became a christian. It is similar to being required to be married in order to become a priest in the orthodox tradition.
8. He is basically telling them it is best for people to remain single but that if they can't avoid the temptation of sexual sin, to get married.
9.in verse 9 he gives a command that comes directly from the mouth of God: "
a wife should not separate from her husband and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife
verse referring to marriages between christians and nonchristians.

A second "command" on the matter of sex and marriage comes in verse 17:
"Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches."

Perhaps, God did not assign everyone to be a virgin. Just as God did not assign everyone to be married.

In verses 18 and 19 Paul states matter of factly what truely matters:

18
Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was an uncircumcised person called? He should not be circumcised.
19
Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God's commandments
20
Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called

In verses 25 and 26 he says this applies to virgins and nonvirgins:

25
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, 11 but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
26
So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is

verses 32 show why it is preferrable to remain a virgin:
32
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

I believe you misread the scripture here. It is quite clear the choice is between marriage and abstinence.
If you notice after the marriage part, he addresses people who chose to be single, telling them to abstain.
.

I appreaciate you finding all the verses for me... but you must realise it's irrelevent, right?

Even all those verses you posted... does not reinforce the idea that one is either 'married' or 'profligate'.

You've effectively provided MY evidence to the contrary.

I appreaciate you finding all the verses for me... but you must realise it's irrelevent, right?

Even all those verses you posted... does not reinforce the idea that one is either 'married' or 'profligate'.

You've effectively provided MY evidence to the contrary.
Married or profligate? Where'd you get that?
You don't have to be married to be saved.
But as a christian, it is a sin to engage in sex outside of marriage.
If you are not married but a virgin or otherwise abstaining from sex, you are not in sin. Being unmarried does not make you sinner.
Having sex outside of marriage does.

Married or profligate? Where'd you get that?
You don't have to be married to be saved.
But as a christian, it is a sin to engage in sex outside of marriage.
If you are not married but a virgin or otherwise abstaining from sex, you are not in sin. Being unmarried does not make you sinner.
Having sex outside of marriage does.

It's been swell...

But, now the swelling's gone down.

You apparently can't even keep track of your own posts... so, I can't see much point in further debate...

As my old mum always used to say, "Never get into an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine".

Married or profligate? Where'd you get that?
You don't have to be married to be saved.
But as a christian, it is a sin to engage in sex outside of marriage.
If you are not married but a virgin or otherwise abstaining from sex, you are not in sin. Being unmarried does not make you sinner.
Having sex outside of marriage does.

You are a sinner. Period. The rest is extraneous. Meanwhile, according to Jesus, it's not the act that matters but simply the thought of the act. So engage is perhaps the wrong word here.

Response to Jacobia part one.



Jocabia wrote:
"You are not the humble Christian who admits and attones for their shortcomings, but the boastful hypocrite who blames Satan, me and being a prophet for why people react to you the way they do and why you think and act the way you do."

It is written in scripture that it is preferable for people to remain virgins as I have.
I simply pointed out that virginity is the best option. You are saying it's not the best option which is contrary to what scripture states.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of being a virgin. You act as though it is. The prophets of God are often attacked for their views and their words.
I believe you lack full understanding of the scripture as evidenced by your rejection of Paul's words as a legitimate part of scripture. All scripture is from God and as such in inerrant. I note someone said something about this earlier. You already know I'm somewhat of a fundamentalist.

Jocabia wrote: "You mentioned how you were better people". Can you qoute specifically where I said I was a better person because I was a virgin? No you can't. Being able to claim higher moral ground does not make you a better person. Because that "higher ground" is relative. A true christian would know that.

Jocabia wrote: "When you claim you are in a position to tell young people how to behave rather then simply pointing them to scripture and guiding them to a personal relationship with Jesus you start from a position of arrogance."
1. I was giving my opinion. I was not telling anyone that they had to be virgins.
2. As already noted elsewhere in this thread, the majority of people on this forum are non christian. For that reason, I used not scripture. I left out scripture out of respect for the fact that there are a lot of people here who have differing religious views, who do not accept scripture as authoritative.

Jocabia wrote: "What is more arrogant than claiming that you can better teach people than scripture can (as you claimed earlier in this discussion)?"

Where did I say that specifically? Do you have post number? Can you qoute that word for word? No you can't.
Scripture was not mentioned until now. And I have already given my reason for not presenting it in my original post. You talk like you expect everyone on these forums is required to follow the Bible.
Where is your humility?

Jacobia wrote: "That is not Jesus' definition of hypocrite. That's yours. Jesus defined the term as anyone who claimed to tell people about the dust in their eyes when a plank resides in their own. In other words, unless you are sinless you are not in a position to criticize the sins of others, PERIOD. You are no less a hypocrite if you are a murderer criticizing adultery than you are as an adulterer criticizing adultery."

It is also written in the Bible, do not suffer sinners in the church to continue in sin. Reproach them and if they do not change their ways, kick them out from among you. That is, excommunicate them.
You cannot willfully continue in sin and still be a christian. If we see someone who is a christian, sinning it is God's command that we reproach them. Seeing as this is non christian forum, there are few to reproach so reproach I have not done.
Noting that I because I am 32 year old virgin, I have a much better perspective on abstinence is not being boastful or arrogant.
If you don't practice abstinence, you're perspective on the matter is worse than mine. The people who I think are equals on the matter are the monks, nuns, and others who actually do abstain from sex.

Jacobia wrote: "Or you don't tell them. You point them to scripture and let the Lord guide them. You offer to help them when they ask for your help and to answer their questions but you don't make the prideful mistake of claiming that you are in a position to tell people how to live."
Again you proposing to force the Bible down people's throats.
I would hope that I would not need to do that. Even without resorting to scripture, it is clear I have a better perspective on abstinence. Even if I used the wrong words in the original post. Your perspective is not equal to my perspective. For it is widely accepted that experience trumps scholarship.

Jacobia wrote: "You are welcome to talk about it or mention it when it is germaine. You are not welcome to proclaim it from the rooftops."

And if I proclaim it from the rooftops, whereby making a total fool and ass of myself, what is it to you? Jesus says that you should not say one thing and do another. The pharisees told the people do one thing, while they themselves did another.

Jacobia wrote: "He means to be an example by doing not to be an example by telling everyone about what you did. He is very clear about this.

Matthew6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
He is not suggesting you lie or that you actively prevent people from knowing about it, but simply that you do not actually hold your good deeds up to be viewed by the world. Let your actions speak on their own, but DO NOT attempt to make them seen or you have received your reward in full, clearly according to God. And he clearly says that those that do otherwise are hypocrites. He does not use the term the way you do."

We are not talking about what Jesus means. We are talking about YOU mean.
Do you now claim to speak for Jesus? On what authority? Are you a Pastor? An evangelist? A prophet? Surely you do not claim such authority as a christian since all christians accept the authority of Paul which you reject.
Has Jesus spoken to you directy and said "Jacobia, I want you to speak for me." ?
He says to let your good works be seen.

Jacobia wrote: "Stopping acting like your good works are evidence of your light."

The Bible itself, contradicts you.
"By their fruit you will know them."
The fruit the scripture speaks of is our good works. The light it speaks of is our good works. Good works are the result of, not the cause of, our faith in Christ.
If you claim to be christian but have no good works to show, then you have not born fruit and you are a liar.

Jacobia wrote: "Good works don't make you Christian. Good works are simply something we can spread to Christians and non-Christians alike."
No they don't. Rather they are proof that you are a christian.
And no you cannot spread good works. You are confused. It is the light of Christ that we can spread. The gospel.

Jacobia wrote: "your light should be visible simply by who you are and how you live."
How you live, manifests your good works which you have been saying we should not let others see.

Jacobia wrote: "The point is to make Christianity about WHO you are and not WHAT you do."

No that is not the point here at all. The point is that Christianity is and has always been about who Jesus Christ is, not about who we are. It's about what Jesus did, not about what any of us have done.
Christianity is not about you or me. It's about Jesus.

Jacobia wrote: "You thrust your good works out there and wonder why no one sees your light."
No I don't thrust it out there. Unless you think saying "I am a virgin that why I have this view" is thrusting it out there. But neither do I go out of my way to avoid talking about it just because you feel uncomfortable with it.

Jacobia wrote: "No, it isn't. Look at an Christian-bashing thread and it's not your description of hypocrisy they protest, it's Christ's. They don't like that Christians speak from a holier-than-thou platform."
It is hypocrisy. It is Jesus definition of hypocrisy as presented not by me, but the gospels.
The pharisees often took a holier than thou platform. And Jesus criticized them, not just because they were proud, but because they hypocrites. He specifically referred to them, not as arrogant, but as hypocrites.

No they are failures because of the hypocrisy involved. It is highly unrealistic to tell young people to "do what we say and not what we do".

Okay. Then perhaps you can list for me all the successful programs for beating alcohol addictions where the sponsers are people who have never had a drink. I'll wait.

Young people, by nature, will do what they see other people doing.

Yes, I know all of my friends were trying to immitate Bob Dole when we were kids. He was our hero.

If your words say one thing, and your actions another, then the youth will follow the example of your actions, because your words will have no value. No meaning.

If you claim to be able to tell people what they SHOULD be doing according to Jesus, that is hypocrisy and THAT is a problem, I agree. However, that is not how you use the word. Forgive if I treat Jesus like a higher authority. I know he didn't claim superiority or anything, but I'm gonna have to see it there anyway.

You can say, "You kids should abstain". But unless you have actually abstained or are in the process of abstaining yourself, then your word have nothing to back them up.

No, unless you openly disclose to them what you did and how it affected you, you have nothing to back them up. I'm quite certain that I found the story of the heroin addict that visited my anti-drug as a compelling reason not to use heroin. Sometimes the bad example is the best example for a child. The actual effects of these actions have to not be romanticized as they often are. The problem with abstinence-only programs is they are unrealistic. They often lie to or mislead children about the dangers of sex and kids don't like being lied to, so they ignore the whole thing.

People won't engage unless they know there is something to engage. That is where the value of education comes in. Education tells them there is stuff worth knowing and engaging.
I know what our society wants kids to do. I believe firmly that what our kids do in regards to this matter is between them and God. Not them and society.
Even today, in the majority of nations, people still get married in their high school years. Who are you to say they are wrong for doing so?

I don't. I don't judge the actions of others unless they hurt people not involved. I'm not like you.

I think if they really love each other they should go for it regardless of how old they are. Provided they are capable of making their own rational decisions.

Not regardless of how old they are. With consideration for their age, they should be permitted to perform actions that they can willingly consent to and that hurts no one other than those that consent.

You give our world's youth less credit than they observe. Most of them do use contraception when they are given access to it. It's not a matter of us thinking we know better what's right for them than they do. We made the same mistakes we are condemning them for. I say we need to free them to make their own mistakes so they can grow and become better people.
If you have no regrets you are not human.

Abstinence-only education does not teach the proper use of contraception. Abstinence-only does not leave them free to make mistakes. It decides what they should do and skews their education to manipulate them into doing it. It is far more effective to give a more balanced education that encourages abstinence. Abstinence-only teaches *gasp* abstinence ONLY. The only word is pretty important there.

WTF? You seem to be talking as if sex was something bad. Abstinence from sex cannot be successfully promoted the same way you promote abstinence from alcohol. The idea of having AA meetings to get people to not have sex is absurd.

Alcohol isn't something bad either. Jesus engaged in a bit of imbibing if one is to believe the scripture. The problem is about knowing when and where it is appropriate to engage in such activities. Well balanced programs teach people from the position of those that have chosen to avoid those activities or engage in them in a way that is healthy and from the position of those that abused them and how each was affected. You would only hear from one side and call the other side losers.

They actual have those types of meetings for people who are sexually hurting themselves (much like alcoholics) and they do work. Meanwhile, you missed the point.

The problem with your example, is that you only the people who make mistakes. You don't allow for people who haven't made the mistakes.

No, I don't. I was pointing out that it's not a problem of having made those mistakes. It's the problem of lying to young people. People learn from good AND bad examples. You seem to think that it's a problem of politicians being bad examples. I think it's a problem that young people know they are lying. Abstinence-only education deceives them and keeps information from them. They recognize the manipulation.

You give only one side of the equation. For abstinence programs to work you need both sides. Not people who have been 75 sexual relationships and ended up with STD's or broken marriages and what not. That doesn't make them any more qualified than me. It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.

Pardon? You're the one trying to only show one side of the equation. I have never said you are a loser with no place to talk or that anyone was. You, however, just expressly said that you think one side of the equation is "a bunch of losers with no place to talk. I'm bolding that because I think people should see you being a hypocrite again. Whose fault is it this time? Did I back you in a corner, did Satan do it or is it because we don't understand you're a prophet? Please, explain to me how PRIDE wasn't your fault AGAIN.

Likewise, in addition to people who really are abstaining, such as myself, you would need to include who have had the opposite experience.
You need both sides. To have just one side and totally exclude the other is hypocrisy that will doom your efforts.

You just said one side is a bunch of losers with no place to talk. Are you even reading your own comments?

I excluded God from the post because many people on here are not christians. Speaking of which, God himself said that if you reject any part of scripture then you have rejected all of scripture. Yet, you reject the teachings of Paul, an Apostle of Christ.

I reject the teachings of any apostles who are not teaching the words of Christ. The Gospels are stories of Jesus and his actions. Matthew does not teach his own thoughts and feelings, but those of Jesus. Paul teaches his own. Paul is a man. He was fallible and admitted that his teachings were as well. Worship Paul if you like. I choose to worship Jesus. Jesus made his wishes for us clear. I do not need Paul to translate that for me.

Paul, like the original 12, also spoke with Christ. The only difference is that the original 12 got to hang out with Jesus when he was in human flesh form whereas Paul only got to talk to him when the resurrected Jesus knocked him down on the road to Damascus. The words of Paul, are just as scriptural as any other part of the Bible.
By rejecting Paul's words, you reject God's words for Jesus said "If any reject you, they reject me." (Jesus was speaking to his followers, not just the disciples).

I do not reject God's word. I reject Paul's words. I accept the words and lessons of Christ. Paul was a man who interpreted those words just as any follower of Christ does. He often said he did not speak God's word but simply spoke as an authority. He does not claim to be speaking for God. He says so clearly. Incidentally does your bible include the Gospel of Thomas? You don't reject any scripture, do you? That would be hypocritical? The gnostic Gospels? Can't reject any scripture or you reject God.

The Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus. I do not believe that Jesus been involved in its compilation that he would have left out gospels and included the letters of a man who openly admits he does not speak for God.

You might want to reread the gospels when Jesus speaks of the Pharisees. He notes that they say one thing and do another. "Outside their cup is clean. But on the inside their cup is filthy."

No, he also calls those hypocrites who claim to tell people they know how they should live while they still sin. That is why he says "let he who is without sin" and not "let he who is without this particular sin" and that is why he says to look at your own plank and stop trying to tell people about the dust in their eye. He uses two different words there because he is not talking about being guilty of that which your telling others not to do. He is talking about simply being guilty of sin and telling others what to do or not do. You missed the entire thing. Sad. Really.

I should have read back more. That is true. But you did not say that. What you're post implied, to me, was that you held that scripture taught that women meant to be the sexual servants of men and nothing more.
I don't know what kind of weird God it is you worship, but I worship a God who created men and women to be equal partners.[/QUOTE]
Ha. Quote me. I said no such thing nor even something similar. You read a lot of what is not there. I will not take responsibility for your reading shortcomings.

My bad, I thought you were talking about the Holy Spirit.

But his testimony is still just as valid as that of the original 12. Because he spoke to Christ. Not while he dwelled on earth, rather when he already ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, because he did talk to Jesus his testimony hold equal validity.

The other apostles don't give testimony. They tell Jesus' story and allow Jesus to give testimony. It's a completely different scenario. To treat it as you do is to completely miss the point. I guess that explains why you reject the words of Christ and instead worship Paul.

Response to Jacobia part one.



Jocabia wrote:
"You are not the humble Christian who admits and attones for their shortcomings, but the boastful hypocrite who blames Satan, me and being a prophet for why people react to you the way they do and why you think and act the way you do."

It is written in scripture that it is preferable for people to remain virgins as I have.
I simply pointed out that virginity is the best option. You are saying it's not the best option which is contrary to what scripture states.

I said that? Quote me. Liar. I said that you are not in a position to tell people how to live. That is different. Point people to scripture and let them decide but you use Christianity as a whip instead of a torch and I will not support your PRIDE.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of being a virgin. You act as though it is. The prophets of God are often attacked for their views and their words.
I believe you lack full understanding of the scripture as evidenced by your rejection of Paul's words as a legitimate part of scripture. All scripture is from God and as such in inerrant. I note someone said something about this earlier. You already know I'm somewhat of a fundamentalist.

I know that you are a fundamentalist who rejects the teachings of Jesus. That's unfortunate. Jesus said your actions are that of a hypocrite. You defend your pride by attacking me. That is unfortunate, to say the least. Meanwhile, if all scripture is from God and inerrant then does your Bible include ALL scripture or only the parts that weren't rejected by Nicea?

Jocabia wrote: "You mentioned how you were better people". Can you qoute specifically where I said I was a better person because I was a virgin? No you can't. Being able to claim higher moral ground does not make you a better person. Because that "higher ground" is relative. A true christian would know that.

Yes. In fact I can quote you. Thank you for asking. Now of course I summarized, but I'll quote you and let people judge for themselves.

Not people who have been 75 sexual relationships and ended up with STD's or broken marriages and what not. That doesn't make them any more qualified than me. It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.

Here you call people who don't do as you do "losers" and say they should not be allowed to tell their stories to teach children to learn from their mistakes.

It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.

Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil.

Here you clearly say you look down on the world. That's definitely claiming to be better or superior.

b]I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers.[/b]

Sorry, you said superior, not better. Silly me.

Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person.

Oh, and gifted. You are on the moral high ground looking down on the world, superior, gifted, a strong man not the like the majority who are weak-willed? Did I miss anything? Oh, I forgot to mention how you're so wonderful because you passed up literally hundreds of opportunities for sex.

Jocabia wrote: "When you claim you are in a position to tell young people how to behave rather then simply pointing them to scripture and guiding them to a personal relationship with Jesus you start from a position of arrogance."
1. I was giving my opinion. I was not telling anyone that they had to be virgins.

Yes. You only said they were losers if they weren't and claimed that you had superiority and the moral high ground. Meanwhile, you've openly said that you believe you should be the one teachng people to be virgins and not the hypocritical politicians.

2. As already noted elsewhere in this thread, the majority of people on this forum are non christian. For that reason, I used not scripture. I left out scripture out of respect for the fact that there are a lot of people here who have differing religious views, who do not accept scripture as authoritative.

WE were talking about scripture. GnI is not a Christian but he doesn't leave the scripture out because he know you and I are discussing it.

Jocabia wrote: "What is more arrogant than claiming that you can better teach people than scripture can (as you claimed earlier in this discussion)?"

Where did I say that specifically? Do you have post number? Can you qoute that word for word? No you can't.

Yes. I can. And I'm happy to do so.

Now what are you claiming it is that makes you qualified to talk to about the Bible?
I suppose you are going to say that just because you read it once, that makes you a complete expert on it.
Have you actually studied it though, with people who know more about it than you? You can't get everything from it from simply reading it. If you do, you often end up misreading passages.

I can post more if you like, but you clearly imply that you have the authority to talk about the Bible, but that I cannot talk about the Bible unless I let someone else you consider an authority tell me about it.

Scripture was not mentioned until now. And I have already given my reason for not presenting it in my original post. You talk like you expect everyone on these forums is required to follow the Bible.
Where is your humility?

No, I expect you to. If you are actually trying to save people lead them, don't whip them with your interpretation of the scripture. And what does my suggestion that you point people to scripture have to do with humility? Seriously, one has to wonder what you're on about. At one point, you claim we are debating my words, but then you suggest I not support my words with scripture. Pride. It's not just a group of lions.

Jacobia wrote: "That is not Jesus' definition of hypocrite. That's yours. Jesus defined the term as anyone who claimed to tell people about the dust in their eyes when a plank resides in their own. In other words, unless you are sinless you are not in a position to criticize the sins of others, PERIOD. You are no less a hypocrite if you are a murderer criticizing adultery than you are as an adulterer criticizing adultery."

It is also written in the Bible, do not suffer sinners in the church to continue in sin. Reproach them and if they do not change their ways, kick them out from among you. That is, excommunicate them.

By Paul. Jesus said no such thing. I think if there is a conflict between Paul and Jesus, hmmm... I think I can figure out which one I'm going to take. Jesus knew that all were sinners and he told us we are not in a position to judge unless we are sinless and none of us are.

You cannot willfully continue in sin and still be a christian. If we see someone who is a christian, sinning it is God's command that we reproach them. Seeing as this is non christian forum, there are few to reproach so reproach I have not done.

Yet, you do. Oh, but I forgot, it's not your fault. It's Satan's fault. Or my fault. Or that we just understand your gifts. It's not you sinning. It's everyone else. We are fallible. Our issue with sin is between Jesus and ourselves. Once your name is written in the book it cannot be unwritten.

Ha. Amusing. Is PRIDE a sin? Quit willfully sinning, sinner. You must not be a Christian. See how that works? Note: I'm not actually saying your not a Christian. Unlike you, I am not in a position to decide who is and who is not a Christian. I was led to beleive that was to be decided in a higher court.

Noting that I because I am 32 year old virgin, I have a much better perspective on abstinence is not being boastful or arrogant.

That's not what you said. No one chastised you for saying such a thing. I chastised you for not following the explicit instructions of Jesus to prevent acting like a hypocrite. Your beef is not with me. It's with the scripture.

If you don't practice abstinence, you're perspective on the matter is worse than mine. The people who I think are equals on the matter are the monks, nuns, and others who actually do abstain from sex.

Equals. Oh, look and here is another place where you claim you are better.

Jacobia wrote: "Or you don't tell them. You point them to scripture and let the Lord guide them. You offer to help them when they ask for your help and to answer their questions but you don't make the prideful mistake of claiming that you are in a position to tell people how to live."
Again you proposing to force the Bible down people's throats.

No, I am proposing that if one is going to claim to be acting in the interest of spreading Christianity, that one should do it. If one is not then one shouldn't. You claim to be act to spread Christianity and used it as an excuse for your PRIDE and ARROGANCE and I say you are wrong. If lives as a light then people will led to you and when they seek your guidance send them to scripture. That has nothing to do with force. You use Christianity as a whip, not I. Meanwhile continually claiming I am saying something opposite of what I explicitly say is lying. Quit bearing false witness.

Use Christianity as a torch, not a whip - that's the opposite of forcing. Leading people to the Bible is not the same as forcing them to read it.

I would hope that I would not need to do that. Even without resorting to scripture, it is clear I have a better perspective on abstinence. Even if I used the wrong words in the original post. Your perspective is not equal to my perspective. For it is widely accepted that experience trumps scholarship.

All perspectives are equal, hypocrite. You are not on the high ground no matter how much claim otherwise.

Experience? How can you teach young people about sex, then? You can't. I advocated experience in teaching both by people teaching abstinence and by people teaching the dangers of going down a destructive road sexually. You called the people with experience "losers who have no room to talk".

Jacobia wrote: "You are welcome to talk about it or mention it when it is germaine. You are not welcome to proclaim it from the rooftops."

And if I proclaim it from the rooftops, whereby making a total fool and ass of myself, what is it to you? Jesus says that you should not say one thing and do another. The pharisees told the people do one thing, while they themselves did another.

That would be useful if that had anything to do with what we're talking about. You can proclaim it all you like and it's nothing to me. Except, well, you were TALKING TO ME. So I told you what I thought. Here's a tip - next time you claim superiority over me, make sure I'm unconscious or dead, because otherwise I'm going to use you as an illustration of the teachings of Jesus. See, bad examples are useful. Told you so.

Jacobia wrote: "He means to be an example by doing not to be an example by telling everyone about what you did. He is very clear about this.

Matthew6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
He is not suggesting you lie or that you actively prevent people from knowing about it, but simply that you do not actually hold your good deeds up to be viewed by the world. Let your actions speak on their own, but DO NOT attempt to make them seen or you have received your reward in full, clearly according to God. And he clearly says that those that do otherwise are hypocrites. He does not use the term the way you do."

We are not talking about what Jesus means. We are talking about YOU mean.
Do you now claim to speak for Jesus? On what authority? Are you a Pastor? An evangelist? A prophet? Surely you do not claim such authority as a christian since all christians accept the authority of Paul which you reject.
Has Jesus spoken to you directy and said "Jacobia, I want you to speak for me." ?
He says to let your good works be seen.

I don't claim to speak for Jesus. That' why I posted the scripture instead of simply summarizing it like you did. Jesus said clearly that your actions are those of a hypocrite. I find it amusing that I posted the words of Jesus on the matter and you rejected them with your own words claiming what Jesus said and saying that my quote of the scripture is 'speaking for Jesus".

All Christians accept the authority of Paul? Seriously, what is wrong with you? I don't speak for Jesus. I let him speak for himself by posting the scripture and by pointing people who wish to know to the scripture, an action you have repeatedly chastised me for. I love that you think you are in a position to judge my Christianity, hypocrite. You mention pastors and evangelists, much like the pharisees claimed they had authority and no other. I claim no authority and I recognize no authority other than Jesus Christ, himself. I have a personal relationship with him and he alone leads me. I do not accept the words of men. You do. Good for you. But do not think it makes you superior to me. It doesn't. It simply makes you one who accepts an authority other than Jesus. No more. No less.

Jacobia wrote: "Stopping acting like your good works are evidence of your light."

The Bible itself, contradicts you.
"By their fruit you will know them."

He is talking about how they are, not just what they do. He also says that many he teaches miss the point. You seem to be good at that. He is suggesting that you do good works, not that you proclaim it to the world. Be a light, not a hypocrite.

The fruit the scripture speaks of is our good works. The light it speaks of is our good works. Good works are the result of, not the cause of, our faith in Christ.

No, it's not. The light it speaks of his our faith, it's how we act and who we are, not we do. We are none of us good, not one.

If you claim to be christian but have no good works to show, then you have not born fruit and you are a liar.

Having good works to show and walking around swing your fruits declaring how good you are not the same. Do good works. But do not be like the hypocrites. The hypocrites did good works before men. Be not like them.

Jacobia wrote: "Good works don't make you Christian. Good works are simply something we can spread to Christians and non-Christians alike."
No they don't. Rather they are proof that you are a christian.

Really? Strange, since I've seen so many non-Christians do good works. Strange since Jesus specifically said that good works don't prove anything in the scripture I quoted. If you are Christian, good works WILL come from you, but they don't prove you are a Christian.


And no you cannot spread good works. You are confused. It is the light of Christ that we can spread. The gospel.

Really? I can't spread good works. Hmmmm... so when I invite my sister to come with me down to the shelter, I guess I'm performing magic. I guess when I bring a homeless person my leftovers from a restaurant and he asks how he can repay and I suggest he simply devote a part of his day to grabbing up some trash and putting it in a recepticle, I am performing magic. I guess I just don't know what the word spreading means.

Jacobia wrote: "your light should be visible simply by who you are and how you live."
How you live, manifests your good works which you have been saying we should not let others see.

I didn't say it. Jesus did. Interesting how you reject his explicit words and then tell me I'm not Christian.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Whoops there I go posting those words you are so happy to reject.

And he didn't say you should deny your good works, but that you should simply not hold them up to the world. If you have the light, the world will see it. And there is a lot more to being a Christian than good works. For example, your PRIDE hides your light. Humility would help it glow and shine. That is an example of how you live that is not hinged on your works.



Jacobia wrote: "The point is to make Christianity about WHO you are and not WHAT you do."

No that is not the point here at all. The point is that Christianity is and has always been about who Jesus Christ is, not about who we are. It's about what Jesus did, not about what any of us have done.
Christianity is not about you or me. It's about Jesus.

I'm talking about our personal efforts to spread Christianity. I was reference the texts about fruit. I wasn't downplaying how Jesus Christ is, just referencing our actions. You took that out of contexxt and tried to make it say other than it does. Much like your abuse of the scripture.

Jacobia wrote: "You thrust your good works out there and wonder why no one sees your light."
No I don't thrust it out there. Unless you think saying "I am a virgin that why I have this view" is thrusting it out there. But neither do I go out of my way to avoid talking about it just because you feel uncomfortable with it.

Randomly proclaiming how you're wonderful because you're a virgin is absolutely thrusting it out there. You went out of your way to discuss it, not the other way around. I am not uncomfortable with your virginity. I'm quite happy for you and happy for those around you. I am not impressed by your pride however, nor your arrogance. You claim to be in a poistion to tell me that I am not a Christian unless I believe as you believe. You claim to be in a position to tell me that you are superior and others are inferior. You claim the authority of a prophet and deny all responsibility for your actions and thoughts. You should be an example in action, not claim to be one in words.

Jacobia wrote: "No, it isn't. Look at an Christian-bashing thread and it's not your description of hypocrisy they protest, it's Christ's. They don't like that Christians speak from a holier-than-thou platform."
It is hypocrisy. It is Jesus definition of hypocrisy as presented not by me, but the gospels.
The pharisees often took a holier than thou platform. And Jesus criticized them, not just because they were proud, but because they hypocrites. He specifically referred to them, not as arrogant, but as hypocrites.
Are you not claiming that ARROGANCE and PRIDE are not things that Jesus denounced? He absolutely denounced their arrogance. He talks about the arrogance of doing your works for man. His example of hypocrite is different than yours. You keep rejecting his. Let me know how that works out for you.

Response to Jacobia part 2.

Jacobia wrote: "Not for choosing that kind of life. For thrusting your will on others."

Who is here is thrusting their will on who? Certainly not I. I gave an opinion. You say I should not give my opinion. I am not forcing my will upon anyone. Nor do I seek to. Yet you seek that all persons be forced to agree with your misguided view of scripture. Leadership means taking unpopular stands too. If you were really in the marines you should already know this. Leaders don't always say things or do things that are popular. A lot of the times, leaders end up doing plenty of things are unpopular. That does not make them any less leaders. If you need approval for your words or actions, then you are not a leader.

Jacobia wrote: "Yes, yes, we're very impressed that you aren't willing to pay for sex. That doesn't make you exactly like, oh, about 90% of the population or anything."
And your point is? That I am not like everyone else? I think Jesus would disagree with you. I think I am just like the rest of population. No one is blameless before God. Just because I don't pay for sex does not mean I am without sin. Maybe you were confused when you wrote that.

Jacobia wrote: "Oh, hey, I love how we get this long speech about how you didn't intend to be arrogant and then we get to see you hollow out your cheeks and double over from hunger pains while you fast. Annoint yourself with oil and wash your face and smile while you fast."
You missed the whole point. I was showing that there are difficulties in abstaining as long as I have. It was meant to show people who would abstain as I have, that it is a difficult path. That they should choose wisely. Not because they think it will bring them prestige. But just as there is price, there are also benefits.
I have never complained about any of those things I mentioned. I mention them, not as a boast, but to reveal my own experience. You haven't been in my shoes. Do you know any other 32 year old virgins? I think not. Therefore, how would people know what it is like to abstain this long, unless someone who has done speaks of it? By speaking of it, I am shining forth my light, showing people where the pitfalls and other obstacles on the path are. That way they can make a wiser decision for themselves. But it is decision they still have to make for themselves. You can't decide it for them. I can't decide it for them. It is a decision that is between them and their God.

Jacobia, you have an odd interpretation of what Jesus meant. Are you sure you wouldn't rather become a hermit and go live in a cave somewhere?
lol

Jacobia wrote: "No, you just tell them they are wallowing in sin and evil"
Original post by me: "I do not fault people who are not virgins."
All of sudden pointing out sin is bad. Pointing out sin is a sign of arrogance? Dude, in the Bible God tells us to point out sin so that people may know what it is. Jesus said don't judge the person. He didn't say don't judge the behavior. You can love a person who gay and at the same time hate homosexual behavior.

Jacobia wrote: "Hmmmm... not sure what your point is here, but I would note one thing.

Matthew5:27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Yes I am well aware of that particular verse. However, because I repent of such sins, they are not counted against me. For behold, I lust but when the time comes to fulfill the lust, God comes in and reels me out of the situation. He says, "No, this is not the one for you."
Just because you have the thoughts, does not mean you have them deliberately. That figure you seemed to dismiss earlier, puts thoughts into our heads at times, in order to tempt us. In fact, that is his main way of tempting people. It becomes our fault when we dwell on such thoughts. But I have found that such thoughts and thus the temptations themselves, can be vanquished by immediately resorting to prayer.
I'm a strong believer in prayer. That it works in all situations.
Now I suppose you are going to claim this is another example of me being arrogant. Talking about prayer and how it works for me, when no body asked me specifically for it. Cause if you are...I'll just pray for you.

Jacobia: "Satan? You are responsible for your thoughts and feelings and take responsibility for them"
Your views on the matter conflict with scripture which warns that Satan will come and tempt us much as he tempted Jesus. We become responsible when we willfully choose to dwell on them and not vanquish them. As stated previously, thoughts and feelings are Satan's favorite weapon to use against us. It is how he keeps people enslaved.


Since you state you don't believe in temptation or in Satan, despite what the bible says otherwise, I'll simply skip your next two comments since I've addressed them above.

Jacobia: "Again, this is laughable. "I'm not boasting. It's not their fault they're not as great as me and as capable of being so wonderful." There is nothing humble about the way you speak."
My Original post: "Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person."
You call that boasting? Everyone who is a christian recognizes that some people are called by God to be one thing, other people another. I was called by God to be a 32 year old virgin. Other people had different callings. To say that because of that, I cast no judgment on people who do not choose to be virgins is boasting?
What you call boasting, I call understanding of differences.

Jacobia: "I don't intend to continue to repeat myself, but you missed the point by a mile."
Nay, I got the point you were making. It is you who missed my point I was making with that statement.

Jacobia wrote: "Ah, more boasting and excuses. It's not your fault, it's that you're a prophet, or it's satan, or it's that I backed you in a corner. Sad."
For you to say such a thing again shows you lack of understanding of the true teachings of the Christian faith. Instead condemning the church, you might actually want to get involved in one. After all most of the offices in the church in general (not just of a particular denomination) are offices that originated in the New Testament. Yet you despise them.
The God of the Bible is not the same one worshipped by democrats. But neither is he the one worshipped by republicans.
You are like Satan, who stands before the throne of God, announcing "He committed this sin, he is guilty he must go to hell."
But you should know that after you give your spill, Jesus steps up and says to God the Father, "The sins this man accuses this other man of, don't exist. If they did, his name would not be in my book of life."
As a man I, all of us, are full of sin. There is no getting away from that.
But through the blood of Jesus, I am completely without sin.
Can you make the same claim with as much certainty?

To all nonchristians: I hope I did not come off as to offensive to you. My comments were not directed at you but at Jacobia, who has made a claim to being a christian but who rejects portions of the Bible and the church itself.
.

All of sudden pointing out sin is bad. Pointing out sin is a sign of arrogance? Dude, in the Bible God tells us to point out sin so that people may know what it is. Jesus said don't judge the person. He didn't say don't judge the behavior. You can love a person who gay and at the same time hate homosexual behavior.

Perhaps you were only talking about their actions when you called them losers. I love how you can sin as you point out in your rant and be forgiven but others who sin even if they have repented are weak-willed, losers, and wallowing in sin. You're not even amusing anymore. You're just sad.

I'm bored with this. You reject the actual quotes of Jesus and claim that they are my words. You keep disingnuously claiming God said this or that, rather than quoting the scripture and crediting the author (mainly because you know the words of Jesus have more authority than the PERSON you are quoting). You boast of being superior and on the moral high ground while calling people who are different than you losers and weak-willed.

For the record, yes, I actually know a couple of virgins in their 30's. I know it's hard for you to believe that other people can actually do what you are just so wonderful for doing, but it happens, you know. They are Mormons and quite humble. They also abstain from alcohol and cigarettes.

For you to say such a thing again shows you lack of understanding of the true teachings of the Christian faith. Instead condemning the church, you might actually want to get involved in one. After all most of the offices in the church in general (not just of a particular denomination) are offices that originated in the New Testament. Yet you despise them.
The God of the Bible is not the same one worshipped by democrats. But neither is he the one worshipped by republicans.
You are like Satan, who stands before the throne of God, announcing "He committed this sin, he is guilty he must go to hell."
But you should know that after you give your spill, Jesus steps up and says to God the Father, "The sins this man accuses this other man of, don't exist. If they did, his name would not be in my book of life."
As a man I, all of us, are full of sin. There is no getting away from that.
But through the blood of Jesus, I am completely without sin.
Can you make the same claim with as much certainty?
I changed my mind. I won't let this lie.

Quote me or quit lying. Show me where I condemned anyone? I quoted you calling people losers, weak-willed, claimed they were "wallowing in sin", and claimed to be superior to them. Quote me doing so. Quote me condemning anyone for anything rather than simply chastising you for being PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT. I condemned your actions as they were directed at me. Show me where I generally condemned people or said forgiveness was not availabe.

The fact that you cannot see your hypocrisy is what is so insane. You claimed the moral high ground and suggested people not like you are wallowing in evil. You claimed I am not a Christian and that I have rejected God, not the word of God, but actually rejected God. Because I don't believe as you. Your PRIDE seems to know no bounds. I am saddened by your behavior. I argued these points because I thought you could be reached, but I am not as strong as some. I hope that one day someone or something helps you to open your eyes and see and to stop being blinded by pride.

I have never seen anything as prideful as claiming that I cannot be a Christian unless I believe as you believe or the sweeping judgements you've made of people not like you.

You don't judge the actions of men as they affect other men but you judge the spirits of men, taking the role that was appointed to Jesus and none other.

Can I claim that you are cleansed of sin with certainty? No. Nor can I with certainty claim otherwise. I would not be so arrogant as to claim I can. I wish all would excercise this restraint.

As for me, I am completely at home with my relationship with Jesus. I know that my name is in the book of life and I know that I lead with Christianity instead of brutalizing people with it sweepingly with it like a whip, as some would do. I follow his words without edit. I do not brush them off as lightly as some have done here.

I do not claim to be more of an authority than the teachings of Jesus itself which is why I point people to it and quote it. Two actions you admit to avoiding. I consider myself to be exactly equal to all others in the eyes of the Lord and that only Grace saves me. I never have the moral high ground. I am never spiritually superior. I do not blame Satan for my shortcomings, nor do I blame God. I do not blame others for my sins. I do not claim that my boastfulness is simply a misunderstanding by others. I take responsibility for my actions and truly ask forgiveness and I consider myself a humble servant.

However, my actions are mine and I hope they are pleasing to God. I would not presume to the arrogance to know whether or not someone is spiritually dark or evil. EVER. I am not jealous of others so I do not feel anger towards their sins or their choices that are different than mine.

Find comfort in the Lord and the opinion of others will no longer be an issue for you. You will find no need to be defensive about your choices. You will find no need to claim superiority or a higher ground. You will find no need to judge others spiritually and you will truly turn over to Jesus that which is his.

I'm going to ask this politely.

Can we cut down on the long posts?

Oh, come on, Jocabia, cut him some slack.

He obviously needs to get laid :p

Seconded

Okay. Then perhaps you can list for me all the successful programs for beating alcohol addictions where the sponsers are people who have never had a drink. I'll wait.



Yes, I know all of my friends were trying to immitate Bob Dole when we were kids. He was our hero.



If you claim to be able to tell people what they SHOULD be doing according to Jesus, that is hypocrisy and THAT is a problem, I agree. However, that is not how you use the word. Forgive if I treat Jesus like a higher authority. I know he didn't claim superiority or anything, but I'm gonna have to see it there anyway.



No, unless you openly disclose to them what you did and how it affected you, you have nothing to back them up. I'm quite certain that I found the story of the heroin addict that visited my anti-drug as a compelling reason not to use heroin. Sometimes the bad example is the best example for a child. The actual effects of these actions have to not be romanticized as they often are. The problem with abstinence-only programs is they are unrealistic. They often lie to or mislead children about the dangers of sex and kids don't like being lied to, so they ignore the whole thing.



I don't. I don't judge the actions of others unless they hurt people not involved. I'm not like you.



Not regardless of how old they are. With consideration for their age, they should be permitted to perform actions that they can willingly consent to and that hurts no one other than those that consent.



Abstinence-only education does not teach the proper use of contraception. Abstinence-only does not leave them free to make mistakes. It decides what they should do and skews their education to manipulate them into doing it. It is far more effective to give a more balanced education that encourages abstinence. Abstinence-only teaches *gasp* abstinence ONLY. The only word is pretty important there.



Alcohol isn't something bad either. Jesus engaged in a bit of imbibing if one is to believe the scripture. The problem is about knowing when and where it is appropriate to engage in such activities. Well balanced programs teach people from the position of those that have chosen to avoid those activities or engage in them in a way that is healthy and from the position of those that abused them and how each was affected. You would only hear from one side and call the other side losers.

They actual have those types of meetings for people who are sexually hurting themselves (much like alcoholics) and they do work. Meanwhile, you missed the point.



No, I don't. I was pointing out that it's not a problem of having made those mistakes. It's the problem of lying to young people. People learn from good AND bad examples. You seem to think that it's a problem of politicians being bad examples. I think it's a problem that young people know they are lying. Abstinence-only education deceives them and keeps information from them. They recognize the manipulation.



Pardon? You're the one trying to only show one side of the equation. I have never said you are a loser with no place to talk or that anyone was. You, however, just expressly said that you think one side of the equation is "a bunch of losers with no place to talk. I'm bolding that because I think people should see you being a hypocrite again. Whose fault is it this time? Did I back you in a corner, did Satan do it or is it because we don't understand you're a prophet? Please, explain to me how PRIDE wasn't your fault AGAIN.



You just said one side is a bunch of losers with no place to talk. Are you even reading your own comments?



I reject the teachings of any apostles who are not teaching the words of Christ. The Gospels are stories of Jesus and his actions. Matthew does not teach his own thoughts and feelings, but those of Jesus. Paul teaches his own. Paul is a man. He was fallible and admitted that his teachings were as well. Worship Paul if you like. I choose to worship Jesus. Jesus made his wishes for us clear. I do not need Paul to translate that for me.



I do not reject God's word. I reject Paul's words. I accept the words and lessons of Christ. Paul was a man who interpreted those words just as any follower of Christ does. He often said he did not speak God's word but simply spoke as an authority. He does not claim to be speaking for God. He says so clearly. Incidentally does your bible include the Gospel of Thomas? You don't reject any scripture, do you? That would be hypocritical? The gnostic Gospels? Can't reject any scripture or you reject God.

The Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus. I do not believe that Jesus been involved in its compilation that he would have left out gospels and included the letters of a man who openly admits he does not speak for God.



No, he also calls those hypocrites who claim to tell people they know how they should live while they still sin. That is why he says "let he who is without sin" and not "let he who is without this particular sin" and that is why he says to look at your own plank and stop trying to tell people about the dust in their eye. He uses two different words there because he is not talking about being guilty of that which your telling others not to do. He is talking about simply being guilty of sin and telling others what to do or not do. You missed the entire thing. Sad. Really.

I should have read back more. That is true. But you did not say that. What you're post implied, to me, was that you held that scripture taught that women meant to be the sexual servants of men and nothing more.
I don't know what kind of weird God it is you worship, but I worship a God who created men and women to be equal partners.
Ha. Quote me. I said no such thing nor even something similar. You read a lot of what is not there. I will not take responsibility for your reading shortcomings.[/QUOTE]
1. Again, you wrongfully equate sexual abstinence programs with AA programs. That is the problem. That is why abstinence programs don't work. You can't treat the issue as if it was just like alcoholism. They are by nature, very different. One works for one, will not work for the other.

2. Your point?

3. Problem is, I didn't mention Jesus. You did. And you continue to claim authority to speak on his behalf.
See, I never mentioned anything about what people should be doing according to Jesus in that post. You did in your post and you are doing it now.

4. You again make the same fallacy. This time you are saying abstinence programs should be like programs to kick drug habits. Sex is a good thing, not a bad habit to kick. Sometimes the problem is that people like you, prefer to focus on only the negative. The world would be a better place if we focused on the positive.
We should be focusing on the future, not the bad things that happened in the past. If we focus on the negative things of the past, those negative things will repeat themselves in the next generation.
Dangers of sex? What about the good things about sex? Why leave them out? You seek to focus too much on the negative. I too made the mistake you are making. I used to focus too much on the negative, and sometimes, I slip back, and do it again even though I don't mean to.

5. Jacobia wrote "I don't judge the actions of others unless they hurt people not involved. I'm not like you."

Really? Does Jesus know that?


6.
"Not regardless of how old they are. With consideration for their age, they should be permitted to perform actions that they can willingly consent to and that hurts no one other than those that consent."

Really? So you think age is an important factor in whether people should allowed to get married. You think that if it hurts some one else, they should not get married. So if a guy gets who was dating a girl gets his heartbroken cause she chose to marry another person who was also seeing her, then that means the girl can't marry the second guy?
You present a loaded statement and what I believe is unrealistic view of how marriage should be. I think that if you love the current person, you should be free to marry them, regardless of how hurt your ex or anyone else is over it.
It's up to you not them.

7. I agree that failure to cover contraceptives and protection against STD is a deadly flaw in abstinence programs. I also agree that it does not free them to make mistakes. By doing so it actually encourages them to make worse mistakes than they would otherwise.

8. Again, you are making the claim that people won't change unless you bang them on the head with only negativity. The people with those problems might not have gotten them if they were offered a better path instead of just dark tunnels to stare down.

9. The difference between lying and being a bad example is???????

10. LMAO. You enjoy taking things out of context. The contextual statement is that they are more likely to give bad advice. Do you really think that a guy who has been in 75 failed relationships knows more about how to make relationships work than a guy whose been married to his first wife for 30 to 40 years? If I was to decide to not be a virgin anymore, I would listen to the second guy and give his advice more weight than the first guy.
The first guy is obviously got everything wrong. Where as the second guy clearly got it all right.
You say I should listen to first guy. Why should I?
I don't see how you can say this is pride showing.
Let me explain it to you this, not everyone sees the way you and not everyone sees it the way I do.

11. Read the context instead taking the words out. If you read the whole statement, instead looking up individual phrases to dissect you might not have that problem.

12. It is nice to know that you reiterate that reject the commands of God as given to us through his apostle, Paul. By rejecting Paul, you reject scripture.

13. Not everywhere in his writings did he says he did not speak for God. For even 1 Corinthians 7, there are points where he makes statements that he says are indeed commands communicated to him by God.

14. Umm. He didn't say "Look at your plank". He said "Remove the plank from your own eye". That means we are to strive to not to sin. Not that we should accept sin. If we are telling people not to sin, but not doing anything about the sin our own lives, we are hypocrites. He never meant that you have to be totally sinless to point out sins to others.

15. You don't need to. Only I am responsible for that. But your view of yourself as better than other christians is evident.

The other apostles don't give testimony. They tell Jesus' story and allow Jesus to give testimony. It's a completely different scenario. To treat it as you do is to completely miss the point. I guess that explains why you reject the words of Christ and instead worship Paul.
The gospels are the testimonies of the people who wrote them. Paul's is no less valid than theirs.

The gospels are the testimonies of the people who wrote them. Paul's is no less valid than theirs.

Of course it is. Paul's testimony is that of someone who wasn't there, all the way through the earthly ministry.

It's like asking someone to describe the flow of the game, when all they saw was the last five minutes. (Or, in this case, talked to one of the players in the locker room).

1. Jocabia wrote "I said that? Quote me. Liar."

I refer you to post number 47.

2. You can't force scripture on people who don't accept it as authority for their lives.
I talked about my personal experience. There is nothing arrogant about that.
I again hope, I am not offending any non christians out there.

3. Woah. When did I start attacking you here. I might have done so mistakenly in the thread but I have not done so here. If you think I attacking you, wow, I had no clue that my wording came off that strongly. I apologize if I seem to be attacking you. That is not my intent. I just trying to show you the fallacy of your position. You accused me of arrogance and pride. But yet, are you not engaged in that very same sin? As I have said, we are all guilty of pride. We are equals.

4. I have a standard, Army issued, Bible.
Why do you reject Nicea?

5. Already dealt with in the other post.

6. Yes I said that. But I don't glow with pride. I feel intense sadness. I feel empathy for them. Because they are my equals before God. Yet they are trapped in sin. Is it really arrogance to feel empathy for people's suffering?

7. You're an angry little man ain't you? The fact is that not everyone can remain a virgin as long as I have. And because I have been talking to some females back home, when I return from Iraq, my virginity may very well come to an end. Even the scriptures note this fact. God has not called everyone to virginity or abstinence.


8. That's just laughable.

9. True, but I also respect GnI's choice on the matter.

10. LMAO. How do you read that to say I am better at teaching people how to live than scripture? I'm not attacking you. I'm just laughing at how you are reading stuff in my statements.

11. Paul has more authority than you or I to talk about the Bible. I would follow his teachings before I followed yours. He lived closer to the time period that Christ was alive. He spoke to the original Apostles, especially Peter.

12. Yet you do not accept scripture.
You said so yourself repeatedly.

13. In many cases, Paul spoke with the authority that Jesus had given him.
Reject Paul and you reject Jesus.

14. oh, but it can. If you back slide your name is removed until you repent and make it right with God again.

15. There are many false christians gone out into the world, leading many astray.

16. I have no beef with scripture. I live my life in harmony with it, to the best of my ability.

17. Yes, you should stop bearing false witness. Jesus did not say it is bad to pray in a public place. It's the intention that counts, not the act. You say the only thing that matters is the act. That is where you are wrong.

18. No room to talk about abstinence. They can talk about sex as much as they like. And no, I am in no position to talk about sex. But I am in a position to talk about abstinence.
Not all perspectives are equal.

19. Sounds like injured pride to me.

20. You take the words of Jesus out of context.
If you reject the authority of the church, and those appointed by Jesus to lead the church, you are rejecting the words of Jesus himself.

21. No. You have again misread the scripture. The light he speaks, is not who we are or what we do. It is the saving grace that we have through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the light that shines through us. We are nothing more than candlesticks. We are not the light itself.

22. A man who bears fruit in the Lord is not boastful. Nor is he quick to anger or argumentative as you are. But don't worry I am just as guilty of being argumentative as you.

23. You also don't accept all of scripture. If you did, you would find that it says otherwise.

24. You confuse doing good works with "spreading" good works. Everyone can do good works. But not everyone can spread the light of Christ.

25. Yet you have already rejected Jesus.

26. Someone who rejects whole sections of scripture outright, claims I am the one rejecting scripture. The pot calls the kettle black.

27. I am proud to still be a virgin at this age. At this age, it's an accomplishment for us men of the west to keep our virginity this long. It's not easy. You talk like you think it's an easy thing.

28. Jacobia wrote: "You claim to be in a poistion to tell me that I am not a Christian unless I believe as you believe"
yes, yes. I get it. I am the evil guilty one here. You most certainly are not guilty of this very thing you accuse me of.

29. No. I am claiming your interpretation of scripture is flawed.

The gospels are the testimonies of the people who wrote them. Paul's is no less valid than theirs.

Pauls speaks in his words to convey his interpretation of the words of Jesus. The Gospels are not interpretations, they are descriptions of the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

Note the difference:
Gospel - "Dad said, "You will have no dessert until we finish our vegetables."
Paul - "You have read that Dad sai you will have no dessert until we finish our vegetables but what he meant was..."

Seconded
yes I do. By Kim's roommate, Nicole. :) :) :)

[quote=Whittier]You are saying it's not the best option which is contrary to what scripture states.
I said that? Quote me, liar.
I refer you to post number 47.


This is not a problem of communication style. It's not even about Whittier. This is about a prevailing grouping of Christians who think some part of the Bible gives them the right to claim moral superiority. Whittier didn't accidentally claim superiority or imply it or something. Let me quote him.



He puts himself on a pedestal of superiority and the moral high ground in those specific terms and talks about how he looks down on the rest of the world and calls them EVIL. He passes judgement on them and deliberately refers to him as lesser than he is. It wasn't an accident or miscommunication. It's what he thinks. And it's appalling.
Post number 47 is above.

Okay. Now where in this post did I say what you claim. Again, quote me, liar.

Learn to use HTML. I'm tired of trying to figure out what you're talking about.

To all who read Whittier -
You will know the false prophet from what comes of his lips. He will not be proclaimed prophet but will declare himself so. Whittier does. He will claim superiority. He will tell you that asking you to read the Bible and decide for yourself is wrong and he will falsely summarize the Bible without leading you to the book. Notice the absence of any scriptural support for most of his claims about the word of God. Notice how when the JESUS CHRIST is quoted to him he amends the words of Jesus with the words of a man. Notice how he points you to men as authorities instead of guiding you to the book and to the writing of God on your heart.

Notice how he actively twists posts to make claims like I have attacked the idea of virginity, yet he cannot quote me ever saying that virginity is anything less than admirable. Notice how he suggests you respect man's authority over the direct messages of Jesus made to you. Notice how he has done all of these things and when caught in PRIDE or ARROGANCE, he blames you and me and Satan, everyone buy himself.

Do not be fooled by his words.

Do not listen to mine.

If you wish to examine the validity of my claims or his in regards to the teachings of Jesus Christ then read the Bible and examine the truth for yourself. Do no subject yourself spiritually to the will of any man and certainly do not let ANY MAN override what God tells you in your heart.

Of course it is. Paul's testimony is that of someone who wasn't there, all the way through the earthly ministry.

It's like asking someone to describe the flow of the game, when all they saw was the last five minutes. (Or, in this case, talked to one of the players in the locker room).

Except that in this case, Paul talked to the primary player himself. He didn't just get it from a third person. Jesus spoke to him directly.

In response to my saying that once saved you cannot be lost, behold the very words of Jesus.

114. oh, but it can. If you back slide your name is removed until you repent and make it right with God again.

John 10 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

Once one puts himself in the hands of Jesus no can snatch them away.

Except that in this case, Paul talked to the primary player himself. He didn't just get it from a third person. Jesus spoke to him directly.

That's what he said. Paul talked to the MVP and gave his opinions on what he learned. He wrote an editorial. The gospels recorded the actual game. Through the eyes of the authors we get to witness Jesus and his actions directly. Through the eyes of Paul we only get what Paul learned from talking to Jesus. It is even in the same ballpark, to extend the metaphor.

Learn to use HTML. I'm tired of trying to figure out what you're talking about.

To all who read Whittier -
You will know the false prophet from what comes of his lips. He will not be proclaimed prophet but will declare himself so. Whittier does. He will claim superiority. He will tell you that asking you to read the Bible and decide for yourself is wrong and he will falsely summarize the Bible without leading you to the book. Notice the absence of any scriptural support for most of his claims about the word of God. Notice how when the JESUS CHRIST is quoted to him he amends the words of Jesus with the words of a man. Notice how he points you to men as authorities instead of guiding you to the book and to the writing of God on your heart.

Notice how he actively twists posts to make claims like I have attacked the idea of virginity, yet he cannot quote me ever saying that virginity is anything less than admirable. Notice how he suggests you respect man's authority over the direct messages of Jesus made to you. Notice how he has done all of these things and when caught in PRIDE or ARROGANCE, he blames you and me and Satan, everyone buy himself.

Do not be fooled by his words.

Do not listen to mine.

If you wish to examine the validity of my claims or his in regards to the teachings of Jesus Christ then read the Bible and examine the truth for yourself. Do no subject yourself spiritually to the will of any man and certainly do not let ANY MAN override what God tells you in your heart.

The scripture speak much of false prophets.

How to discern a false prophet:

He Hath Spoken to Turn You Away From the LORD (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

He makes a prediction and it comes not to pass.

But, before a prophet is labelled a false prophet because of the lack of fulfillment of his prophecy, we would do well to carefully study Jeremiah 26

"Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17)

"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them" (Isaiah 8:19-20).


A true prophet:
"That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate" (1Timothy 6:18).

But beware:

The defining question should not be, "Did this prophet's words come to pass?" Because, if the answer is "yes", we are to not think it strange that even a false prophet can make the "sign or the wonder come to pass" (13:2)-- by the supernatural power of Satan.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24).

If a prophecy did not come true the person is either a false prophet or God changed his mind.

God is completely justified in holding back the fulfillment of a prophecy-- that He promised by the mouth of His prophets.

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not" (Jonah 3:10).


http://www.atruechurch.info/falseteachers.html

Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.


Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible.

Luke 6:26
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

2 Peter 2:1
[ False Teachers and Their Destruction ] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves

1 John 4:1
[ Test the Spirits ] Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That's what he said. Paul talked to the MVP and gave his opinions on what he learned. He wrote an editorial. The gospels recorded the actual game. Through the eyes of the authors we get to witness Jesus and his actions directly. Through the eyes of Paul we only get what Paul learned from talking to Jesus. It is even in the same ballpark, to extend the metaphor.
The 4 gospels are just that. They are also editorials. They are not direct recordings of the words and actions of Jesus. Remember that they were written decades after Jesus had died and rose up to heaven.

What you are doing is going through the Bible like a smorgasborg. Picking and choosing only the parts that feel good to you. The Bible says you must accept all scripture for all scripture is from God himself.

The 4 gospels are just that. They are also editorials. They are not direct recordings of the words and actions of Jesus. Remember that they were written decades after Jesus had died and rose up to heaven.

What you are doing is going through the Bible like a smorgasborg. Picking and choosing only the parts that feel good to you. The Bible says you must accept all scripture for all scripture is from God himself.

No, what I am doing is treating the words of Jesus like the words of the Savior and the words of many like the words of a man. I didn't say Paul was lying only that he is not infallible. I quoted you the words from the mouth of Jesus as confirmed by four eye witnesses and you temper the words of Jesus with the words of a man. Yes, it's me that's the problem here.

The Gospels are editorials? Perhaps you should figure out what an editorial is. They aren't commenting on the acts of Jesus, they are telling his story. That is vastly different. To claim otherwise is to be wildly deceptive.

You fool no one. Your pride and arrogance can be smelled from miles away. Your claims to be able to pass on the lessons of the Bible but your refusal to direct people to examine for themselves. Your dishonest claims about what people have said and your dishonest claims about what are the words of Paul and what are the words of the Savior. These are all apparent.

Again, to anyone reading this, I recommend you not take my word for it. Do not accept false prophets. If you wish to learn more about what the Bible says and what it means, READ THE BIBLE. Do not accept the authority of ANY MAN on the subject. Only a wolf would ask you to do otherwise. Notice the bad fruit he preaches calling people losers, weak-minded, while hold himself up as superior and strong and speaking from the high ground. His "good works" are only claims, but you can examine the PRIDE and ARROGANCE. The bad fruit is abundant and available for all to examine.

He quoted you Matthew 7, well, read the remainder of the passage.
Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

His fruit gives me heartburn. Let me show it again.

Claims of superiority -
It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.
Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil.
I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers.
If you don't practice abstinence, you're perspective on the matter is worse than mine.
It is very difficult and it is a painful proposition to do. To pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. I have passed up at least 200 opportunities in keeping with my convictions on the matter. The problem is I am often tormented with regret later on.
Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person.

False claims -
John 10 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
114. oh, but it can. If you back slide your name is removed until you repent and make it right with God again.
You've also seen him claim I made statements I did not make and when asked to quote me, he simply ignored the comment or lied further.

Insults-
It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.
It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.
You are like Satan, who stands before the throne of God, announcing "He committed this sin, he is guilty he must go to hell."
That last one is also a lie. I have never once condemned anyone spiritually and am actually arguing with him because he did so. He doesn't mind attempting to deceive.

Suggesting that the scripture is not the best way to examine the actual lessons of the Bible -
Jacobia wrote: "He means to be an example by doing not to be an example by telling everyone about what you did. He is very clear about this.

Matthew6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
He is not suggesting you lie or that you actively prevent people from knowing about it, but simply that you do not actually hold your good deeds up to be viewed by the world. Let your actions speak on their own, but DO NOT attempt to make them seen or you have received your reward in full, clearly according to God. And he clearly says that those that do otherwise are hypocrites. He does not use the term the way you do."

We are not talking about what Jesus means. We are talking about YOU mean.
See how he denounces the ACTUAL QUOTE of the scripture in a conversation about the Bible and Pride. I quoted the scripture that all might read it and he tells me that I am somehow misleading you when I give my opinion on the scripture that I actually quoted that explicitly says what I was using it for evidence of. It's hard for him to be deceptive when I post the scripture that evidences his deceptions.

He defends his arrogance by claiming that Jesus' real beef with the Pharisees was hypocrisy (and please note that in reality Jesus defines hypocrisy in the scriptures in a much different way than Whittier. I posted those scriptures here for you to read) and not their arrogance as an excuse for his own arrogance -
Jacobia wrote: "No, it isn't. Look at an Christian-bashing thread and it's not your description of hypocrisy they protest, it's Christ's. They don't like that Christians speak from a holier-than-thou platform.
It is hypocrisy. It is Jesus definition of hypocrisy as presented not by me, but the gospels. "
The pharisees often took a holier than thou platform. And Jesus criticized them, not just because they were proud, but because they hypocrites. He specifically referred to them, not as arrogant, but as hypocrites.
Jesus chided the pharisees not just for their arrogance but for their hypocrisy.

He does not take responsibility for his actions and instead blames you and me and Satan, rather being personally responsible for his shortcomings -
Jacobia: "Satan? You are responsible for your thoughts and feelings and take responsibility for them"
Your views on the matter conflict with scripture which warns that Satan will come and tempt us much as he tempted Jesus.

The actual scripture (which he doesn't like to actual bring to you, but instead just editorializes it for you, the mark of someone who is deceiving you)
Matthew 5:27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Again, do not take my word, but read the passage in context. Jesus says that we sin when we do these things, not that Satan is doing it.

yes, I agree, that I overstated my case. It was a response to being backed against a wall.
Blames me for backing him against the wall, instead of apologizing and admitting his responsiblity.

I daydream about sex with different women about 60% of the time. Many times, when I am alone with a girl, I feel magnetically attracted to her lips. These are called temptations both the feeling of attraction and the daydream. Women are my achilles heel. See, I am willing to do almost anything for women, cause I cannot have sex with them without marrying them first or breaking my vow of abstinence which I made, ironically, in a closet. Satan knows I am having a very hard time at this. Yet I push forward and he thus sends thoughts and feelings and scents to torment me.
This one is Satan's fault. Let's see who else we can find to fault with the shortcomings of Whittier.

As for pride, I am very suspceptible to it. All people who have the primary gift of prophecy are susceptible to pride.
http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/Ser.../eng-prop.html
Every gift test I take, prophecy comes out on top. It has been this way since I was a child. Prophets tend to come off as judgmental of others.
Now, it's his gift's fault. Oh, no wait, it's the "comes off" that way so it is just our perception, it's not, you know, actual pride.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the actual fruit of our self-proclaimed prophet. He told you to examine the fruit.

And before he suggests I am doing the same. I am no prophet. I am not in a position to judge others spiritually, but I will attempt to prevent them from forcing their will upon you or deceiving you. I cannot teach you of the Bible, and if you wish to examine my claims I recommend you actuall read the cited passages. If you have questions I will be glad to tell anyone about places to find more information or to explain my own experiences. Again, Christianity should be a torch with which to lead, not a whip with which to drive people where they do not wish to go.



Meanwhile, Whittier, how many types of fabric are you wearing? When's the last time you stoned someone? Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas with your Bible? The other gnostic Gospels? They are all scripture.

Yet, you have to note that they still follow Paul's admonition to either abstain from sex or get married. Marriage is not a distracting as being sexually profligate outside of marriage.
Excuse me, but I thought you said that sex intereferes with spiritual life. That is what I was arguing against. Your religion clearly does not think sex detracts from spiritual life if it allows its spiritual practitioners to have sex.

It's late here now and I need to get some sleep, but I'll look for your quote tomorrow if you don't remember it.

It is germaine. I agree that we should expand this to pride in general across faiths. The majority of posters on this forum are non christians and may not understand fully what we are talking about because we are confining the discussion to narrowly.
I was hoping someone else would suggest it. If I did, I don't think it would have been allowed.
Well, actually, the details of scripture are only germaine to Christians who disagree about them. As a non-Christian I really don't care which version of what happened to Saul on the way to Damascus you go with. I only care about the core principles. But you go for it. I'll just be skimming those parts. Sorry, but you'd skim my posts if I loaded them up with detailed technical explanations of the differences between spirits, souls, and gods, wouldn't you? I know I would. :)

Anything personal that becomes a source of pride for a Christian is sin. "Glory rather in the Lord." This was why Jesus railed so against the Scribes and Pharasees; they were very prideful in their position and "righteousness" by being obedient to the Law.
Excellent point, thanks. :)

See, Whittier, this is what I mean about core principles -- we're talking about pride here. This I can work with.

<snip>
Claims of superiority -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
If you don't practice abstinence, you're perspective on the matter is worse than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
It is very difficult and it is a painful proposition to do. To pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. I have passed up at least 200 opportunities in keeping with my convictions on the matter. The problem is I am often tormented with regret later on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person.
<snip>

I'm sorry, Whittier, but I have to agree with Jocabia on this. You are being prideful here.

GnI may be well versed enough in scripture to discuss it in detail despite being an unbeliever, but I tend to be less focused on other religions' texts and more focused on the way religions -- and people -- interact with each other. You and Jocabia can thumbwrestle over the Bible's content forever, but what really struck me in all of this are the remarks that Jocabia quotes above. These are the things that, when I first read them in your original posts, offended me -- not as a non-Christian, but just as a person.

How can you fail to see that the comments quoted above are negatively judgmental against others while being positively prejudiced in your own favor? In other words, how can you not see the put-down inherent in these remarks? It's not just inherent, it's blatant. And the put-down is defined by the degree to which the other people are different from you. How can you not see that this is holding yourself up as the measure and example of the right way to live? If that's not pride, please tell me what is.

Jobabia also insists that you must use your religion as "a torch, not a whip." Be that as it may, I must say that, if anyone might be hoping to get me to join the fold, they would not succeed with such remarks. The messenger can destroy the message. The insulting and presumptuous language of those remarks antagonizes me so much that I am soured on the entire proposition. This kind of pride does nothing but sow more suspicion and hostility between people.

I'm sorry, Whittier, but I have to agree with Jocabia on this. You are being prideful here.

GnI may be well versed enough in scripture to discuss it in detail despite being an unbeliever, but I tend to be less focused on other religions' texts and more focused on the way religions -- and people -- interact with each other. You and Jocabia can thumbwrestle over the Bible's content forever, but what really struck me in all of this are the remarks that Jocabia quotes above. These are the things that, when I first read them in your original posts, offended me -- not as a non-Christian, but just as a person.

How can you fail to see that the comments quoted above are negatively judgmental against others while being positively prejudiced in your own favor? In other words, how can you not see the put-down inherent in these remarks? It's not just inherent, it's blatant. And the put-down is defined by the degree to which the other people are different from you. How can you not see that this is holding yourself up as the measure and example of the right way to live? If that's not pride, please tell me what is.

Jobabia also insists that you must use your religion as "a torch, not a whip." Be that as it may, I must say that, if anyone might be hoping to get me to join the fold, they would not succeed with such remarks. The messenger can destroy the message. The insulting and presumptuous language of those remarks antagonizes me so much that I am soured on the entire proposition. This kind of pride does nothing but sow more suspicion and hostility between people.

That gets us back to the matter at hand which, incidentally, is not Whittier. The reason I make the torch not the whip comment is that I think that when you simply encourage people to come and find out about the things that make you happy or the things that have aided you in your life, you soften their hearts and make them open to new ideas. But when you put their lives on trial and you try to push them to a place they may or may not want to go, usually you simply harden their heart to the ideas that you'd like for them to explore.

I think this is true no matter what way you are trying to lead people or help them. There is something inherent in leading or helping people in that you have something to give them they don't already have and that in and of itself can SEEM a little bit prideful so it's very important that when one does these things they do it with all the humility they can muster.

That gets us back to the matter at hand which, incidentally, is not Whittier. The reason I make the torch not the whip comment is that I think that when you simply encourage people to come and find out about the things that make you happy or the things that have aided you in your life, you soften their hearts and make them open to new ideas. But when you put their lives on trial and you try to push them to a place they may or may not want to go, usually you simply harden their heart to the ideas that you'd like for them to explore.

I think this is true no matter what way you are trying to lead people or help them. There is something inherent in leading or helping people in that you have something to give them they don't already have and that in and of itself can SEEM a little bit prideful so it's very important that when one does these things they do it with all the humility they can muster.
When it comes to leadership, I say a person is a leader only if other people follow them and only as long as other people follow them. No matter how good your example might be and how much you may want to lead others along your path, your wanting to teach doesn't guarantee that you'll get students. Likewise, no matter how much you may want just to live your life without leading or teaching others, that doesn't guarantee that others won't see how you live and decide it's good enough to emulate. How else would we get role models who've been dead for centuries?

So I guess I'm saying there's a point at which it's not up to the person who wants to lead or set an example. It's up to those who may or may not choose to follow their lead or example. That's what determines who becomes a leader.

I guess the only thing a prideful attitude determines is who won't get to be a leader. ;)

When it comes to leadership, I say a person is a leader only if other people follow them and only as long as other people follow them. No matter how good your example might be and how much you may want to lead others along your path, your wanting to teach doesn't guarantee that you'll get students. Likewise, no matter how much you may want just to live your life without leading or teaching others, that doesn't guarantee that others won't see how you live and decide it's good enough to emulate. How else would we get role models who've been dead for centuries?

So I guess I'm saying there's a point at which it's not up to the person who wants to lead or set an example. It's up to those who may or may not choose to follow their lead or example. That's what determines who becomes a leader.

I guess the only thing a prideful attitude determines is who won't get to be a leader. ;)

Yes, that's my point. The torch is mainly a metaphor for simply letting people know you're there and willing to lead and to allow them to find you, more or less. But no matter how bright the light, we are not moths, we have a choice to come to it.

The whip is a metaphor for people being pressed or forced to follow your direction either through manipulation, coersion or actual force (like making things law, etc.).

I wish that last bit was true about who won't, but I think some of us are succeptible to manipulation in one form or another and sometimes their manipulations, their prideful ways are effective.

Excuse me, but I thought you said that sex intereferes with spiritual life. That is what I was arguing against. Your religion clearly does not think sex detracts from spiritual life if it allows its spiritual practitioners to have sex.

It's late here now and I need to get some sleep, but I'll look for your quote tomorrow if you don't remember it.
I see what you're saying.
If you read me word for word, then I come off sounding like all sex is evil and distractive. That would be contrary to the Bible's teaching.
However, it is only sex outside of marriage that is distracting.
I refer you to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 where Paul went into the depth on the matter of virginity and marriage.

Well, actually, the details of scripture are only germaine to Christians who disagree about them. As a non-Christian I really don't care which version of what happened to Saul on the way to Damascus you go with. I only care about the core principles. But you go for it. I'll just be skimming those parts. Sorry, but you'd skim my posts if I loaded them up with detailed technical explanations of the differences between spirits, souls, and gods, wouldn't you? I know I would. :)
Yeah. No problem.

I see what you're saying.
If you read me word for word, then I come off sounding like all sex is evil and distractive. That would be contrary to the Bible's teaching.
However, it is only sex outside of marriage that is distracting.
I refer you to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 where Paul went into the depth on the matter of virginity and marriage.

Why not use the other books who also talk about Marriage, sex, and virginity?

Why not use the other books who also talk about Marriage, sex, and virginity?
because this book in this chapter goes into it in more depth than any other book of the Bible.
It is the one chapter that all christians recognize as being THE authority on it in the Bible.

No, what I am doing is treating the words of Jesus like the words of the Savior and the words of many like the words of a man. I didn't say Paul was lying only that he is not infallible. I quoted you the words from the mouth of Jesus as confirmed by four eye witnesses and you temper the words of Jesus with the words of a man. Yes, it's me that's the problem here.

The Gospels are editorials? Perhaps you should figure out what an editorial is. They aren't commenting on the acts of Jesus, they are telling his story. That is vastly different. To claim otherwise is to be wildly deceptive.

You fool no one. Your pride and arrogance can be smelled from miles away. Your claims to be able to pass on the lessons of the Bible but your refusal to direct people to examine for themselves. Your dishonest claims about what people have said and your dishonest claims about what are the words of Paul and what are the words of the Savior. These are all apparent.

Again, to anyone reading this, I recommend you not take my word for it. Do not accept false prophets. If you wish to learn more about what the Bible says and what it means, READ THE BIBLE. Do not accept the authority of ANY MAN on the subject. Only a wolf would ask you to do otherwise. Notice the bad fruit he preaches calling people losers, weak-minded, while hold himself up as superior and strong and speaking from the high ground. His "good works" are only claims, but you can examine the PRIDE and ARROGANCE. The bad fruit is abundant and available for all to examine.

He quoted you Matthew 7, well, read the remainder of the passage.
Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

His fruit gives me heartburn. Let me show it again.

Claims of superiority -







False claims -
John 10 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

You've also seen him claim I made statements I did not make and when asked to quote me, he simply ignored the comment or lied further.

Insults-



That last one is also a lie. I have never once condemned anyone spiritually and am actually arguing with him because he did so. He doesn't mind attempting to deceive.

Suggesting that the scripture is not the best way to examine the actual lessons of the Bible -

See how he denounces the ACTUAL QUOTE of the scripture in a conversation about the Bible and Pride. I quoted the scripture that all might read it and he tells me that I am somehow misleading you when I give my opinion on the scripture that I actually quoted that explicitly says what I was using it for evidence of. It's hard for him to be deceptive when I post the scripture that evidences his deceptions.

He defends his arrogance by claiming that Jesus' real beef with the Pharisees was hypocrisy (and please note that in reality Jesus defines hypocrisy in the scriptures in a much different way than Whittier. I posted those scriptures here for you to read) and not their arrogance as an excuse for his own arrogance -



He does not take responsibility for his actions and instead blames you and me and Satan, rather being personally responsible for his shortcomings -


The actual scripture (which he doesn't like to actual bring to you, but instead just editorializes it for you, the mark of someone who is deceiving you)
Matthew 5:27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Again, do not take my word, but read the passage in context. Jesus says that we sin when we do these things, not that Satan is doing it.


Blames me for backing him against the wall, instead of apologizing and admitting his responsiblity.


This one is Satan's fault. Let's see who else we can find to fault with the shortcomings of Whittier.


Now, it's his gift's fault. Oh, no wait, it's the "comes off" that way so it is just our perception, it's not, you know, actual pride.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the actual fruit of our self-proclaimed prophet. He told you to examine the fruit.

And before he suggests I am doing the same. I am no prophet. I am not in a position to judge others spiritually, but I will attempt to prevent them from forcing their will upon you or deceiving you. I cannot teach you of the Bible, and if you wish to examine my claims I recommend you actuall read the cited passages. If you have questions I will be glad to tell anyone about places to find more information or to explain my own experiences. Again, Christianity should be a torch with which to lead, not a whip with which to drive people where they do not wish to go.



Meanwhile, Whittier, how many types of fabric are you wearing? When's the last time you stoned someone? Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas with your Bible? The other gnostic Gospels? They are all scripture.

False Prophets again:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2397

1. We are not to follow the ways of the general populace in our worship of our God. False prophets will seek to get God's people to turn toward the ways of paganism by claiming that they are christian methods.

Deuteronomy 12:29 “When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, 30 beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’ 31 “You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. 32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:29-32, NASB).

False prophets will seek to turn christians from worshipping God to worshipping their false gods. They will seek to entice christians to cease worshipping as God has commanded and to worship as the pagans do.


Deuteronomy 13:
The test of whether a person is a false prophet is whether or not he leads you to worship the only true God, in the manner that God himself has proscribed.


2 Peter 2 warns about false teachers.

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2
Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3
In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.


12 But these people, like irrational animals born by nature for capture and destruction, revile things that they do not understand, and in their destruction they will also be destroyed,
13
suffering wrong 8 as payment for wrongdoing. Thinking daytime revelry a delight, they are stains and defilements as they revel in their deceits while carousing with you.
14
Their eyes are full of adultery and insatiable for sin. They seduce unstable people, and their hearts are trained in greed. Accursed children!
15
Abandoning the straight road, they have gone astray, following the road of Balaam, the son of Bosor, 9 who loved payment for wrongdoing,
16
but he received a rebuke for his own crime: a mute beast spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
17
These people are waterless springs and mists driven by a gale; for them the gloom of darkness has been reserved.
18
For, talking empty bombast, they seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped 10 from people who live in error.
19
They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him.
20
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
21
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down 11 to them.
22
12 What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, "The dog returns to its own vomit," and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire."

http://www.bible.ca/H-NT-false-prophets.htm

false prophets lead people to rebellion against authority

Acts 13:6-12

And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.


The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume

False prophets tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

Jacobia spoke of Matthew 7 but he himself did not present the whole thing:

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

False prophets/false teachers will say to you that if anyone says that such and such act is sinful, that such person is being prideful and arrogant. As Jacobia has done.
False prophets will not endure scripture, they will not accept sound doctrine. They will try to persuade that you that the scripture is a buffet, take what you like and reject what you don't. But the Lord has said that you must take the whole. For if you reject one part, you reject all.
2 Timothy 4 (NIV version):
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

The job of a true prophet, a true teacher of God's word, is not to tell you only what you want to hear. But what you need to hear, and, if you need, to rebuke your lifestyle.

What Jacobia says of never pointing out sin to people, is simply false doctrine. It is not a new false doctrine for many who came before him taught the same false doctrine and they likewise, were rebuked by God's chosen servants.

Jacobia rejects all that Paul has taught. Paul spoke about this in 1 Corinthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord

Jacobia has outrightly rejected the message that Paul has taught in the name of Lord.

Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

False Prophets proclaim peace and calm whereby giving people false assurances:
Micah 3:11 " Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us."

False prophets today say that, "Behold, we are all God's Children. No harm will come to us, and every thing we wish to do is ok to do."

The majority of people will prefer to follow the false prophets:
Isaiah 30
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?

http://www.letusreason.org/Wf6.htm

"They will purposely try not to be noticed and bring division in the church by distorting and departing from the word. They will lay down truth alongside the falsehood (paraeis akousein) and secretly bring in destructive heresies. The truth they lay the Scripture next to their own false interpretations. This is a malicious intent to deceive, arising from their being deceived first, propagating the same lie they believe"

A false prophet will say it is wrong to say something if it brings people's attention to you, at the same time they will twist the scripture and seek to get people to follow the same deception they themselves follow.

because this book in this chapter goes into it in more depth than any other book of the Bible.
It is the one chapter that all christians recognize as being THE authority on it in the Bible.

I don't and I'm a Christian so that is a false statement to make.

I don't and I'm a Christian so that is a false statement to make.
are you a pastor, a deacon, a church relationship counselor? Are you a Bible Study teacher?
They rely on this chapter for the meat of their teachings and advises on relationships. Especially marriage.

Except that in this case, Paul talked to the primary player himself. He didn't just get it from a third person. Jesus spoke to him directly.

Two things:

One: Even if Paul is only relating what Jesus told him, hwe is still repeating something heard... he was not a witness to the ministry.

Two: There are two accounts in Acts, of Paul's meeting on the road. They do not agree. If there can be conflict in Paul's testimony, how can you rely on it?

are you a pastor, a deacon, a church relationship counselor? Are you a Bible Study teacher?

This has nothing to do with it. You made a blanket statement saying that ALL CHRISTIANS believe that one book and one chapter to be the Authority on it.

I proved to you that I do not and that I am a christian. You said nothing about the people you mentioned above. Therefor, you have been debunked.

Excellent point, thanks. :)

See, Whittier, this is what I mean about core principles -- we're talking about pride here. This I can work with.
You're most welcome. It's nice that someone noticed my lil post in this seething morass of doctrinal disputation. :D

What you are doing is going through the Bible like a smorgasborg. Picking and choosing only the parts that feel good to you. The Bible says you must accept all scripture for all scripture is from God himself.

This is one of my favourite Christian arguments... that you cannot make a 'value' choice on which scriptures to accept and reject from the Bible.

And yet, though Jesus himself seems to quote from the Book of Enoch... it isn't considered canonical.

Most Christians I know hold the Koran to be worthless... yet it is 'scripture'... and, allegedly, is inspired by the same spirit as the other two testaments.

Indeed - those who use the 'all scripture' view often forget that some of the Old Testament texts forbid the addition of new texts... so, either God keeps changing his mind, or we are imposing our own interpretations on which scriptures are 'valid'.

The lesson of Jesus would be to accept ONLY those scriptures that your OWN discernment tells you are for you.

However, it is only sex outside of marriage that is distracting...

See, this is how I know you're a virgin...

are you a pastor, a deacon, a church relationship counselor? Are you a Bible Study teacher?
They rely on this chapter for the meat of their teachings and advises on relationships. Especially marriage.

Amusing. Note, my friends, how he claims that unless a Christian is ordained by the Church that their opinion is not valid. I am less than amused with your attempts to claim that we have to be validated by the Church in order to have a relationship with God. I reject your poison fruit.

Two things:

One: Even if Paul is only relating what Jesus told him, hwe is still repeating something heard... he was not a witness to the ministry.

Two: There are two accounts in Acts, of Paul's meeting on the road. They do not agree. If there can be conflict in Paul's testimony, how can you rely on it?

What I find more amazing is that he would openly lie and suggest the letters by Paul are exactly the same as the recordings of the words of Jesus. One must wonder how one can view a man as the Savior and the Son of God AND to view the words He spoke as equal to the words of a fallible man. There is only one who was perfect and infallible and Jesus be his name, well, of course, unless you're a false prophet bearing poison fruit.

Amusing. Note, my friends, how he claims that unless a Christian is ordained by the Church that their opinion is not valid. I am less than amused with your attempts to claim that we have to be validated by the Church in order to have a relationship with God. I reject your poison fruit.

I second that rejection.

False prophets will seek to turn christians from worshipping God to worshipping their false gods. They will seek to entice christians to cease worshipping as God has commanded and to worship as the pagans do.

I would note, that Worship as the Pagans do would including celebrating the Pagan holidays like the Winter Solstice and birth of a Pagan Savior (Christ was not born on December 25th) and the Spring Equinox. Hmmmm... now let me ask you who brought those holidays into the Christian relgion and made them ordained Christian holidays, the person I ask you to listen to, Christ, or the people he asks you to listen to, the Church authorities?

Thank you for evidencing my point. Next.

I see what you're saying.
If you read me word for word, then I come off sounding like all sex is evil and distractive. That would be contrary to the Bible's teaching.
However, it is only sex outside of marriage that is distracting.
I refer you to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 where Paul went into the depth on the matter of virginity and marriage.
Distracting to you.

To assume that (1) it is distracting to everyone and (2) that any such distraction is a bad thing for everyone is to assume pridefully that your personal experience is the experience of everyone.

You are not the measure of us.

I second that rejection.

Jesus rejected that such authority was required and took away the position of the Church as the path to God. Jesus Christ IS the only church I recognize and he is the one and only path to God. To claim that I will get better answers from a person designated by the Church than I will by asking Jesus is blasphemy.

Distracting to you.

To assume that (1) it is distracting to everyone and (2) that any such distraction is a bad thing for everyone is to assume pridefully that your personal experience is the experience of everyone.

You are not the measure of us.

Let me guess, the next argument he'll put up is the scripture that said Christians would be attacked for their beliefs. The amusing part about that is that the scripture says they will be attacked for their beliefs not there unChristian and PRIDEFUL actions.

Let me guess, the next argument he'll put up is the scripture that said Christians would be attacked for their beliefs. The amusing part about that is that the scripture says they will be attacked for their beliefs not there unChristian and PRIDEFUL actions.
But he's a Christian, right? So he couldn't possibly do anything unchristian, right? Therefore, everything he does is the definition of Christian experience. Right?

[sarcasm, of course. I feel I have to say so before he claims I'm agreeing with him.]

Jesus rejected that such authority was required and took away the position of the Church as the path to God. Jesus Christ IS the only church I recognize and he is the one and only path to God. To claim that I will get better answers from a person designated by the Church than I will by asking Jesus is blasphemy.

I do agree with this even though I do attend Church. Pastors can offer us guidence but it is up to us to find the answers.

No they are failures because of the hypocrisy involved. It is highly unrealistic to tell young people to "do what we say and not what we do". Young people, by nature, will do what they see other people doing. If your words say one thing, and your actions another, then the youth will follow the example of your actions, because your words will have no value. No meaning.

Why must someone who did not abstain, but now does, necessarily be hypocritical. If someone who used to be a drug addict, or used to steal cars, or used to have lots of promiscuous unsafe sex has decided that said behavior was immoral or destructive, they are in a unique position to tell others about it because they have actually been there - they have experienced the problems such behavior can bring.

The problem with your example, is that you only the people who make mistakes. You don't allow for people who haven't made the mistakes. You give only one side of the equation. For abstinence programs to work you need both sides.

If you need both sides, then you obviously are not in a position that makes you uniquely able to push abstinence, as you suggested before.

Not people who have been 75 sexual relationships and ended up with STD's or broken marriages and what not. That doesn't make them any more qualified than me. It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.

You know, I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being arrogant about your choices. And then you make comments like the bolded above.

Speaking of which, God himself said that if you reject any part of scripture then you have rejected all of scripture.

Actually, *scripture* says that. You may or may not believe that every word in scripture is actually the word of God.

Morality is load of crap anyway, a deceptive tool for self interest at best and an arrogant closed minded appraoch in life at worst.

What I find more amazing is that he would openly lie and suggest the letters by Paul are exactly the same as the recordings of the words of Jesus. One must wonder how one can view a man as the Savior and the Son of God AND to view the words He spoke as equal to the words of a fallible man. There is only one who was perfect and infallible and Jesus be his name, well, of course, unless you're a false prophet bearing poison fruit.

I know exactly what you mean (whether I be heathen or no)...

IF we assume all scripture is true - there are certain texts that detail a history, listing the actions, and the words, of the man we call the Christ.

IF we assume all scripture is true - the texts of Paul MAY be directly inspired texts... but they are not listing historical events and words... they are just repeating what Paul heard (from whatever source).

So - even if (or, in fact, ESPECIALLY if...) you accept scripture as all equally valid... Paul MUST still be judged in a different category to the four Gospels.

Paul is akin to the Pharisees... Matthew tells us what happened, but Paul tries to tell us what it MEANS.

Distracting to you.

To assume that (1) it is distracting to everyone and (2) that any such distraction is a bad thing for everyone is to assume pridefully that your personal experience is the experience of everyone.

You are not the measure of us.

It doesn't make any sense, anyway...

I have had sexual relations in, and out of, wedlock.

Those relations have been 'distracting' because of the relationships... because of the people involved... NOT because I was/was not married.

It's not like you get married, and then suddenly decide sex is boring.

(Well, not if you do it right...)

I believe you lack full understanding of the scripture as evidenced by your rejection of Paul's words as a legitimate part of scripture. All scripture is from God and as such in inerrant. I note someone said something about this earlier. You already know I'm somewhat of a fundamentalist.
A true christian would know that.
We are not talking about what Jesus means. We are talking about YOU mean.
Do you now claim to speak for Jesus? On what authority? Are you a Pastor? An evangelist? A prophet? Surely you do not claim such authority as a christian since all christians accept the authority of Paul which you reject.

*sigh* Ok, I give up. I no longer have any doubt that you actually are as prideful and arrogant as you seem. Otherwise you would have toned things down by now. At this point, you are claiming to be the absolute arbiter on what does and does not constitute Christianity, as if you are Christ, himself.

Christianity is not about you or me. It's about Jesus.

This is about the only worthwhile part of that entire post. Problem is, the rest of what you have to say contradicts it.

1. Again, you wrongfully equate sexual abstinence programs with AA programs. That is the problem. That is why abstinence programs don't work. You can't treat the issue as if it was just like alcoholism. They are by nature, very different. One works for one, will not work for the other.

The fact remains that most people are not convinced by someone who has never done something saying, "You shouldn't do this." Why should they? That person doesn't know if it is good or not - they haven't done it! You need to see things from more than one angle to make a good decision on it.

Really? So you think age is an important factor in whether people should allowed to get married.

Age correlates to level of maturity which correlates to the ability to make informed decisions.

10. LMAO. You enjoy taking things out of context. The contextual statement is that they are more likely to give bad advice. Do you really think that a guy who has been in 75 failed relationships knows more about how to make relationships work than a guy whose been married to his first wife for 30 to 40 years?

No, although he has probably learned quite a bit. But he can give you a really good idea of what *not* to do. And knowing what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do. And what if someone had 10 failed relationships and then was married for 30 to 40 years and is still happy. He can tell you what was different the last time around, whereas the guy who is still with his first wife might just have gotten lucky.

The more perspectives you have, the better off you will be.

*sigh* Ok, I give up. I no longer have any doubt that you actually are as prideful and arrogant as you seem. Otherwise you would have toned things down by now. At this point, you are claiming to be the absolute arbiter on what does and does not constitute Christianity, as if you are Christ, himself.

This is about the only worthwhile part of that entire post. Problem is, the rest of what you have to say contradicts it.

I especially liked the "A true christian would know that" one... that's pride speaking, if anything is...

False prophets/false teachers will say to you that if anyone says that such and such act is sinful, that such person is being prideful and arrogant. As Jacobia has done.

No, he hasn't. I've wrestled with Jocabia before, but he has yet to anything even remotely similar to this. Saying, for isntance, "Stealing diamonds from the jewelry store is sinful," would not be prideful or arrogant. On the other hand, putting it as you have, "I am better than all those diamond thiefs because I have not stolen diamonds. They are losers with no room to talk about sinning," is prideful and arrogant.

See the difference?

Jacobia rejects all that Paul has taught.

I'm sorry. Where did he say that? He has been clear that he rejects Paul's teachings only in those areas that they contradict the teachings of Christ.

I'm sorry. Where did he say that? He has been clear that he rejects Paul's teachings only in those areas that they contradict the teachings of Christ.

Jocabia has said, as I have, that Paul was a 'commentator', not a 'witness' to Jesus' earthly ministry.

That means that he believes Paul's authority is 'different' to that of the Gospel writers... it doesn't mean that he 'rejects' it completely.

Socialist Whittier constructs a strawman.

Jocabia has said, as I have, that Paul was a 'commentator', not a 'witness' to Jesus' earthly ministry.

That means that he believes Paul's authority is 'different' to that of the Gospel writers... it doesn't mean that he 'rejects' it completely.

Socialist Whittier constructs a strawman.

Well, since everyone is guessing what Jocabia thinks on the matter is that Paul was a very educated Christian. He knew the scriptures well and said what he thought of the matters. I believe he was honest and doing his best to describe the truth as he saw it. I also believe he was a MAN with no legitimate position from which to amend the words of the Savior he, himself, worshipped. I doubt he intended to do so and I doubt that he had any inkling that his words we be so bastardized by so many. It is for this reason that when I am trying to express what I think about the text, I point to the words of Jesus rather than editorializing.

I do agree with this even though I do attend Church. Pastors can offer us guidence but it is up to us to find the answers.

Yes. I am not anit-Church. I am against the notion that a relationship with the Christ is not a personal relationship. There is no go-between that is in a position to interfere with that relationship, not even what so many describe as Jesus' church. Many spiritual leaders would reject the notion that they are an authority on God's plan for any person and they would reject the idea that they and they alone are in a position to interpret the text for you.

Yes. I am not anit-Church. I am against the notion that a relationship with the Christ is not a personal relationship. There is no go-between that is in a position to interfere with that relationship, not even what so many describe as Jesus' church. Many spiritual leaders would reject the notion that they are an authority on God's plan for any person and they would reject the idea that they and they alone are in a position to interpret the text for you.

I agree with you 100%

I agree with you 100%

Except perhaps my spelling of "anti", right?

Except perhaps my spelling of "anti", right?

Didn't see the mispelling right away :D

Jocabia has said, as I have, that Paul was a 'commentator', not a 'witness' to Jesus' earthly ministry.

That means that he believes Paul's authority is 'different' to that of the Gospel writers... it doesn't mean that he 'rejects' it completely.

Socialist Whittier constructs a strawman.

I think important to note that even if Paul was walking around with Jesus his texts are fundamentally different. As I said before there is a signifant difference between:
And then Dad said, "Go clean your room." And
And it's clear to me that the father wanted you to put all of your socks in the top drawer, all of your shirts in the bottom drawer...

There is a difference between recounting events, including quoting the words taught by one of the players, and giving your opinion on those teachings.

The Gospels are meant to tell a story and Paul is talking about what that story should mean to us. Their purposes, their authority and their positions are completely different. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

This has nothing to do with it. You made a blanket statement saying that ALL CHRISTIANS believe that one book and one chapter to be the Authority on it.

I proved to you that I do not and that I am a christian. You said nothing about the people you mentioned above. Therefor, you have been debunked.
Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority. And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage. You will not find abstinence mentioned elsewhere. Marriage itself, is barely mentioned in the rest of the Bible, with those mentions being mostly "so and so married so and so".
If you want to know how a husband and wife should treat each other according to Christian doctrine, you have to go to 1 Corinthians 7.

This is one of my favourite Christian arguments... that you cannot make a 'value' choice on which scriptures to accept and reject from the Bible.

And yet, though Jesus himself seems to quote from the Book of Enoch... it isn't considered canonical.

Most Christians I know hold the Koran to be worthless... yet it is 'scripture'... and, allegedly, is inspired by the same spirit as the other two testaments.

Indeed - those who use the 'all scripture' view often forget that some of the Old Testament texts forbid the addition of new texts... so, either God keeps changing his mind, or we are imposing our own interpretations on which scriptures are 'valid'.

The lesson of Jesus would be to accept ONLY those scriptures that your OWN discernment tells you are for you.

Most christians do not hold the Koran to be scripture. We hold it to be heresy. Further, despite the claims, the two religions are not inspired by the same God. Islam is one of those religions that evolved from paganism. In the beginning, Islam was actually a polytheistic religion in which many pagan rites and rituals were and continue to be practiced.
The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.

It is not up to your own discernment to decide which books are valid and which are not. The books that in the present Bible were included after much fervent prayer.
The politics came into the church only after the Pope became a political figure.

See, this is how I know you're a virgin...
How?

Amusing. Note, my friends, how he claims that unless a Christian is ordained by the Church that their opinion is not valid. I am less than amused with your attempts to claim that we have to be validated by the Church in order to have a relationship with God. I reject your poison fruit.
You really are amusing.
Having a relationship with God is one thing. What I was talking about in that qoute, was having authority to teach things of the Bible.
A person who has been a life long christian and has spent more time diving into the Bible than either you or me, will have more authority on what the Bible teaches than you or me. That means a Pastor, an evangelist, a deacon, and anyone else who has been involved with their church's ministry.
You don't need church validation to have a relationship with God, you do need it if you are going to try to teach scripture. This is to ensure that the Bible is not twisted for personal ends or personal vendettas, to ensure that people who lack full understanding, do not lead the congregation astray.

What I find more amazing is that he would openly lie and suggest the letters by Paul are exactly the same as the recordings of the words of Jesus. One must wonder how one can view a man as the Savior and the Son of God AND to view the words He spoke as equal to the words of a fallible man. There is only one who was perfect and infallible and Jesus be his name, well, of course, unless you're a false prophet bearing poison fruit.
To GnI: You take it on faith.

To Jocabia: They are not equal. I never said Paul's words were equal to Jesus words. I said Paul's words were equal to the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
As Jesus spoke to the latter 4, he also spoke to Paul. Because Jesus spoke to Paul, it does not matter if he was there for the earthly ministry because the stuff he teaches came not from his own mind, but rather from the Lord Jesus himself, directly.
If you reject any of the servants that Jesus chose, whether be those from his earthly ministry or those he chose afterward, like Paul, you are rejecting Jesus.
Say you are in the army. The Platoon Leader puts a private E1 in charge of the platoon. Now of course, you have E5's E6's, specialist, PFC's, PV2 in the platoon. Now the NCO's and the specialists can't be like all, "we're not going to listen to this guy cause he's just a private." And the privates can't be "we don't have to listen to him cause he's just a private just like us." They all still have to listen to him because he was put in authority by someone who outranked them all, the LT or platoon leader. If any of them disobey the private, then it is treated the same as if they disobeyed the platoon leader himself.
So it is with God's servants. If you reject the authority of Paul just because he was human just like you and me, then you reject the very person who gave him his authority, which is Jesus.

I would note, that Worship as the Pagans do would including celebrating the Pagan holidays like the Winter Solstice and birth of a Pagan Savior (Christ was not born on December 25th) and the Spring Equinox. Hmmmm... now let me ask you who brought those holidays into the Christian relgion and made them ordained Christian holidays, the person I ask you to listen to, Christ, or the people he asks you to listen to, the Church authorities?

Thank you for evidencing my point. Next.
The church in Europe, as history will tell you, was highly corrupted.

Distracting to you.

To assume that (1) it is distracting to everyone and (2) that any such distraction is a bad thing for everyone is to assume pridefully that your personal experience is the experience of everyone.

You are not the measure of us.
No I am not the measure, I merely point to the measure which you reject.

If you really believe that, then you are not a true follower of Christ.

Jesus rejected that such authority was required and took away the position of the Church as the path to God. Jesus Christ IS the only church I recognize and he is the one and only path to God. To claim that I will get better answers from a person designated by the Church than I will by asking Jesus is blasphemy.
"You are Peter, the rock. Upon this rock I will build my church".
To the church, Jesus gave sole authority to proclaim the word of God and teach his commandments to the people of the world.
Unless you are part of that church, you have no authority.

Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority.

And you think I don't? Do not dictate to me what I do and do not believe. I believe in the Word of God. I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior in the 5th Grade with my mother's help.

And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage.

What is a true Christian? From where I'm standing (or sitting in this case :D), your not a true Christian because you are being very Prideful. What does the Bible say about pride?

You will not find abstinence mentioned elsewhere. Marriage itself, is barely mentioned in the rest of the Bible, with those mentions being mostly "so and so married so and so".

All throughout the bible Whittier, especially in the OLD TESTIMENT, are rules in regards to the roles of the Husband and those of the Wife as well as on sex. I thought you knew this. I guess your not a true christian. Do not question my Faith.

If you want to know how a husband and wife should treat each other according to Christian doctrine, you have to go to 1 Corinthians 7.

If I wasn't so tired right now, I'd bury this last statement.

The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.

Now here is where you are 100% dead wrong.

Why must someone who did not abstain, but now does, necessarily be hypocritical. If someone who used to be a drug addict, or used to steal cars, or used to have lots of promiscuous unsafe sex has decided that said behavior was immoral or destructive, they are in a unique position to tell others about it because they have actually been there - they have experienced the problems such behavior can bring.



If you need both sides, then you obviously are not in a position that makes you uniquely able to push abstinence, as you suggested before.



You know, I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being arrogant about your choices. And then you make comments like the bolded above.



Actually, *scripture* says that. You may or may not believe that every word in scripture is actually the word of God.
good point. but look at the context, not the words themselves.

It doesn't make any sense, anyway...

I have had sexual relations in, and out of, wedlock.

Those relations have been 'distracting' because of the relationships... because of the people involved... NOT because I was/was not married.

It's not like you get married, and then suddenly decide sex is boring.

(Well, not if you do it right...)
The Bible is clear, sex outside of marriage is always a sin.

The fact remains that most people are not convinced by someone who has never done something saying, "You shouldn't do this." Why should they? That person doesn't know if it is good or not - they haven't done it! You need to see things from more than one angle to make a good decision on it.



Age correlates to level of maturity which correlates to the ability to make informed decisions.



No, although he has probably learned quite a bit. But he can give you a really good idea of what *not* to do. And knowing what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do. And what if someone had 10 failed relationships and then was married for 30 to 40 years and is still happy. He can tell you what was different the last time around, whereas the guy who is still with his first wife might just have gotten lucky.

The more perspectives you have, the better off you will be.
I agree with most of this post but I don't agree with the age part. I always hear people make that claim. The problem is it's not true. Being older does not make you maturer than a younger person. There are many 22 year old women who show more maturity than your typical 30 old woman. Maturity depends on the person's personality, not their age. If they have bad personality, then it doesn't matter how old they are, they will always be immature.

Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority. And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage. You will not find abstinence mentioned elsewhere. Marriage itself, is barely mentioned in the rest of the Bible, with those mentions being mostly "so and so married so and so".
If you want to know how a husband and wife should treat each other according to Christian doctrine, you have to go to 1 Corinthians 7.

And you wonder why people find you proud?

You honestly think you can dictate a set of rules that tells what qualifies someone as a "true" Christian?

More than that - you think you can make a set of rules that ADDS to what Jesus taught, to compose those 'requirements'?

And you wonder why people find you proud?

You honestly think you can dictate a set of rules that tells what qualifies someone as a "true" Christian?

More than that - you think you can make a set of rules that ADDS to what Jesus taught, to compose those 'requirements'?

Thank you Grave_n_idle. His post really made me upset. Thanks!

*hands Gni a cookie*

I especially liked the "A true christian would know that" one... that's pride speaking, if anything is...
"Not everyone who calls me Lord (or claims to be a christian) is my disciple (or an actual christian). But only those who do my commandments." Jesus

Paranthesis mine.

"Not everyone who calls me Lord (or claims to be a christian) is my disciple (or an actual christian). But only those who do my commandments." Jesus

Paranthesis mine.

Are you calling me a non-Christian?

Well, since everyone is guessing what Jocabia thinks on the matter is that Paul was a very educated Christian. He knew the scriptures well and said what he thought of the matters. I believe he was honest and doing his best to describe the truth as he saw it. I also believe he was a MAN with no legitimate position from which to amend the words of the Savior he, himself, worshipped. I doubt he intended to do so and I doubt that he had any inkling that his words we be so bastardized by so many. It is for this reason that when I am trying to express what I think about the text, I point to the words of Jesus rather than editorializing.
he wasn't amending the words of the savior. God told him to teach this, and that is what he did. His epistles are not simple editorial opinions. They hold weight for true christians.

Are you calling me a non-Christian?
I haven't said anything about you yet. I'm still on post 72 trying to catch up. In fact, I haven't read you recent posts yet.

Yes. I am not anit-Church. I am against the notion that a relationship with the Christ is not a personal relationship. There is no go-between that is in a position to interfere with that relationship, not even what so many describe as Jesus' church. Many spiritual leaders would reject the notion that they are an authority on God's plan for any person and they would reject the idea that they and they alone are in a position to interpret the text for you.
It's not about "interpreting the text for you".
You are supposed to do that yourself with the proper background. What you believe is up to you. But when you seek to spread it is something else.
You have taken the scripture and twisted it to your ends.

Most christians do not hold the Koran to be scripture. We hold it to be heresy. Further, despite the claims, the two religions are not inspired by the same God. Islam is one of those religions that evolved from paganism. In the beginning, Islam was actually a polytheistic religion in which many pagan rites and rituals were and continue to be practiced.
The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.

It is not up to your own discernment to decide which books are valid and which are not. The books that in the present Bible were included after much fervent prayer.
The politics came into the church only after the Pope became a political figure.

Seriously... you honestly believe this stuff you spout, or are you a troll?

I don't remember debating with you much before, so it's entirely possible this is some elaborate 'devil's advocacy'...

But, assuming you honestly DO mean it...

I have to assume you get much of your information from Chick tracts.

You question the god of Islam, and talk about it's polytheistic origins... yet you ignore the fact that Islam has always revered the Torah as a holy book, and claims it's lineage goes as far back as Ishmael.

Your own 'religion' claims it's heritage stretches back to Isaac - but is STILL called heresy by the religion OF Isaac.

Basically - if Islam can be easily dismissed as heresy, you have to accept EXACTLY the same is true for Christianity. It should actually be pointed out, Islam is often CLOSER to the Hebrew faith, than Christianity is. If ONE of the 'three Judaic religions' doesn't fit... it IS Christianity.

I wonder if you are aware that certain aspects of the Christian religion didn't even become 'doctrine', until after similar elements were found in Mithraism? (The book of Revelation, for example).

I wonder if you are aware that the story of a 'son of god', with his apostles, and sacrificed to 'save mankind', etc... are ALL elements of the story of the first Buddha, who was in the same area Jesus would later 'walk' BEFORE the Book of Daniel was written?

I wonder if you realise that Jesus is not the ONLY 'virgin born' figure in religions, nor close to the first... and is more than a millenium shy of being the first 'resurrected' son of a god?

If you want to talk about the 'pagan' origins you claim for Islam - maybe you should think about the plank in your own eye.

How?

The simple argument that sex within marriage would cease being 'distracting' shows that you have no idea of what you are talking about... that simple.

No I am not the measure, I merely point to the measure which you reject.

If you really believe that, then you are not a true follower of Christ.

Again with the 'pride'.... again you feel you can determine which features make one a 'true' Christian.

"You are Peter, the rock. Upon this rock I will build my church".
To the church, Jesus gave sole authority to proclaim the word of God and teach his commandments to the people of the world.
Unless you are part of that church, you have no authority.

If you accept Peter's 'ordination' to be specific permission to preach the will of Jesus - then you must be a Catholic, or you are an apostate... because the 'church' of Peter, is our Catholic church.

The church in Europe, as history will tell you, was highly corrupted.

The church (all churches) has ALWAYS been corrupt... because we are corrupt creatures.

You are in error, though... the acceptance of pagan festivals is nothing to do with 'corruption'. You might want to look up the word 'syncretism'.

The Bible is clear, sex outside of marriage is always a sin.

According to Genesis one, marriage is not important... indeed, the FIRST thing God ever tells man to do, is to reproduce.

Thank you Grave_n_idle. His post really made me upset. Thanks!

*hands Gni a cookie*

I admit, I only do it for the cookies. :)

"Not everyone who calls me Lord (or claims to be a christian) is my disciple (or an actual christian). But only those who do my commandments." Jesus

Paranthesis mine.

And yet, you consider YOURSELF to be withing those parentheses, don't you... and yet, you are not displaying a very Christlike nature...

Remember, one of the reasons you are supposed to be living a pure, Christian life, is to INSPIRE the heathens, that they may see Jesus walking in you, and come to know the Lord.

I'm just not seeing anything in your attitude to make me love YOUR version of Christ.

Are you calling me a non-Christian?

It appears he is calling ANYONE who doesn't follow his particular set of constructed rules, anti-Christ.

he wasn't amending the words of the savior. God told him to teach this, and that is what he did. His epistles are not simple editorial opinions. They hold weight for true christians.

I'd argue that, if you find the 'interpretations' of Paul, above the records of the witnesses TO Jesus' ministry, you have twisted priorities.

Seriously, which is more important, in the scripture?

The recorded words of Jesus himself?

Or Paul's testimony of what Christianity is 'supposed' to be?

And you think I don't? Do not dictate to me what I do and do not believe. I believe in the Word of God. I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior in the 5th Grade with my mother's help.



What is a true Christian? From where I'm standing (or sitting in this case :D), your not a true Christian because you are being very Prideful. What does the Bible say about pride?



All throughout the bible Whittier, especially in the OLD TESTIMENT, are rules in regards to the roles of the Husband and those of the Wife as well as on sex. I thought you knew this. I guess your not a true christian. Do not question my Faith.



If I wasn't so tired right now, I'd bury this last statement.
Do you believe in the whole word of God?

You wrote in post 187, " I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior in the 5th Grade with my mother's help."
You accepted in 5th grade, before you were able to make an informed rational decision. Now explain what you mean by "with my mother's help".
Tell me, have you been baptized recently? Or was this the only time you can recall?
What I say may come off as offensive and prideful. But sometimes, the medicine we need is very bitter and uncomfortable to swallow. There are certain ways of telling if a person is really a christian and follower of Christ.
This is not your fault. Nor did I ever say it was.
I'm not making a judgement on you. I'm trying to find out where you are coming from. Cause your case sounds familiar.


In post 188 you make the claim that Jesus and Allah are one and the same. To qoute you, "Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.

Now here is where you are 100% dead wrong."

How can you say you are a christian when you say that God the Father is the same god as what the Muslims worship?

GnI, you wrote in post 192, "Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority. And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage. You will not find abstinence mentioned elsewhere. Marriage itself, is barely mentioned in the rest of the Bible, with those mentions being mostly "so and so married so and so".
If you want to know how a husband and wife should treat each other according to Christian doctrine, you have to go to 1 Corinthians 7.

And you wonder why people find you proud?

You honestly think you can dictate a set of rules that tells what qualifies someone as a "true" Christian?

More than that - you think you can make a set of rules that ADDS to what Jesus taught, to compose those 'requirements'?"
I don't make the rules. They are established in the Bible itself. It is God, through the Bible, who set these rules, not me.
If you have a problem with the rules that God set, then take it up with God. Just remember, it's his universe, so he can put in place whatever rules he wants to put in place. You can ignore them if you want, just don't expect to be rewarded for ignoring them.

Corneliu you wrote in post 195 "Are you calling me a non-Christian?"
You really want to know what I think? Because you were raised as one, you likely believe strongly that you already are one. But the questions I asked previously would clarify to you if you are one or not.
1. Do you accept the whole Bible as the inerrant word of God?
2. Do you believe in Jesus, that he died and rose again in 3 days then ascended to heaven to atone for your sins.
3. Are you doer of God's word or a hearer only?

4. Have you been obeying the Lord's commandments? The ten commandments in addition to the 11th and the 12th?
5. Have you been baptized recently?
Has your pastor or anyone in your church gone over the Bible with you to help you understand it?

Seriously... you honestly believe this stuff you spout, or are you a troll?

I don't remember debating with you much before, so it's entirely possible this is some elaborate 'devil's advocacy'...

But, assuming you honestly DO mean it...

I have to assume you get much of your information from Chick tracts.

You question the god of Islam, and talk about it's polytheistic origins... yet you ignore the fact that Islam has always revered the Torah as a holy book, and claims it's lineage goes as far back as Ishmael.

Your own 'religion' claims it's heritage stretches back to Isaac - but is STILL called heresy by the religion OF Isaac.

Basically - if Islam can be easily dismissed as heresy, you have to accept EXACTLY the same is true for Christianity. It should actually be pointed out, Islam is often CLOSER to the Hebrew faith, than Christianity is. If ONE of the 'three Judaic religions' doesn't fit... it IS Christianity.

I wonder if you are aware that certain aspects of the Christian religion didn't even become 'doctrine', until after similar elements were found in Mithraism? (The book of Revelation, for example).

I wonder if you are aware that the story of a 'son of god', with his apostles, and sacrificed to 'save mankind', etc... are ALL elements of the story of the first Buddha, who was in the same area Jesus would later 'walk' BEFORE the Book of Daniel was written?

I wonder if you realise that Jesus is not the ONLY 'virgin born' figure in religions, nor close to the first... and is more than a millenium shy of being the first 'resurrected' son of a god?

If you want to talk about the 'pagan' origins you claim for Islam - maybe you should think about the plank in your own eye.
And this sums up the whole of false teachings.
Unlike Mohammeed and Buddha, the body of Jesus cannot be found. Unlike Buddha and Mohammed, only Jesus is the word born into the flesh.
Buddha is not the light. Mohammed is not the light. There is only one light and that is Jesus. There is only one truth and only one way to the Father, that is Jesus.
The other religions are based on fabrications of men's minds. That Jesus lived, walked among us, suffered for our sins, was murdered, rose in 3 days, ascended into heaven, and now sits at God's right hand, in judgment of all mankind is fact.
Other religions have many such claims about their founders. Jesus needs no one to make such claims on his behalf, he actually did those things.

The simple argument that sex within marriage would cease being 'distracting' shows that you have no idea of what you are talking about... that simple.
Man's logic is not God's logic. You are confusing the two and attempting to remake God into your own image.

The church (all churches) has ALWAYS been corrupt... because we are corrupt creatures.

You are in error, though... the acceptance of pagan festivals is nothing to do with 'corruption'. You might want to look up the word 'syncretism'.
the acceptance of pagan festivals was a corruption of the one true faith.
The eastern orthodox were more faithful than the Catholics.

According to Genesis one, marriage is not important... indeed, the FIRST thing God ever tells man to do, is to reproduce.
That was before the fall. After the fall, marriage became necessary because men took sex and corrupted it to evil ends.

It appears he is calling ANYONE who doesn't follow his particular set of constructed rules, anti-Christ.
I didn't construct them. God did.
They're not my rules, they're his.

I'd argue that, if you find the 'interpretations' of Paul, above the records of the witnesses TO Jesus' ministry, you have twisted priorities.

Seriously, which is more important, in the scripture?

The recorded words of Jesus himself?

Or Paul's testimony of what Christianity is 'supposed' to be?
I do not hold them to be above. I hold them to be equal. For all scripture has equal weight. That's not just from me. It's from the Bible.

I'll let you all have the last word.
Jocabia came in to criticize me for sounding arrogant. Which I accepted.
He should have left it there. But further discussion showed that his is a perverted version of christianity. He takes and chooses from the scripture what he thinks makes him feel good.
A christian does not pick and choose which part of God's word he wants to obey.
Because of his false claims, this thread quickly became a discussion of true christianity versus false christianity.

It is not enough to say "I read the Bible, I believe in Jesus."
Belief is not enough. Being a benchwarmer in church on Sundays is not enough.
It is good that you believe, but no this that even Satan believes in Jesus.
Not everyone who calls Jesus Lord Lord will get into heaven. But only those who do the will of the Father.

And this sums up the whole of false teachings.


Hyperbole doesn't suit you.


Unlike Mohammeed and Buddha, the body of Jesus cannot be found.


Really? You know where we can find the body of the first Buddha?

Unlike Buddha and Mohammed, only Jesus is the word born into the flesh.


How do you know Buddha wasn't? And Mohammed was a prophet, no claim to Messiah.


Buddha is not the light. Mohammed is not the light. There is only one light and that is Jesus.


A nice opinion - but you must realise that is all it is.

There is only one truth and only one way to the Father, that is Jesus.


Again - a matter of opinion.


The other religions are based on fabrications of men's minds.


Curious that you think this must be true for ALL other religions except your own.

That Jesus lived, walked among us, suffered for our sins, was murdered, rose in 3 days, ascended into heaven, and now sits at God's right hand, in judgment of all mankind is fact.


Fact, you say?

Okay - show me your independent, contemporary evidence.

I'd like to point out, by the way, that your little timetable includes a detail that most of the Christians I know would consider makes you a heretic...


Other religions have many such claims about their founders. Jesus needs no one to make such claims on his behalf, he actually did those things.

How do you justify that? How is it that you accord special exemption to the book YOU like, but try to argue all other books must be false?

Man's logic is not God's logic. You are confusing the two and attempting to remake God into your own image.

Poppycock, I care nothing for your 'god', let alone have any desire to remake it.

I am married, and have had sex inside and outside of marriage.

The opoint you made about sex within marriage not being 'distracting' is quite simply not true. I'm not talking logic, or stating opinions... I'm telling you that sex is a distraction no matter WHO you do it with or WHEN.

That was before the fall. After the fall, marriage became necessary because men took sex and corrupted it to evil ends.

Which 'fall'? The fall of mankind?

You aren't as well versed in your scripture as you claim, if you think the first 'marriage' takes place AFTER the 'fall'.

I didn't construct them. God did.
They're not my rules, they're his.

Really, let's look back at what you said:

"To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority. And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage"

Where does scripture say we 'must accept the inerrancy of God holy word"?

Especially, considering that we have a book which does not contain ALL of the books that were considered holy in the time of Christ?


Where does the scripture say "you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority"?

That is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of most of Jesus' ministry.


And, what is your scriptural backing for the statement "all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage"?

You seem to be arguing TRADITION as being MORE important than scripture.


You seem unaware that it is a sin to bear false witness.

I do not hold them to be above. I hold them to be equal. For all scripture has equal weight. That's not just from me. It's from the Bible.

I notice you avoided the question. I rather thought you would.

And, where in scripture does it say "all scripture has equal weight"? I believe you are making up your OWN interpretations of the words of scripture.

It's bad enough taking a verse out of context, or perverting the words as written... but, you've moved beyond that. You are claiming material to be in the text which just plain... isn't.

I'll let you all have the last word.
Jocabia came in to criticize me for sounding arrogant. Which I accepted.
He should have left it there. But further discussion showed that his is a perverted version of christianity. He takes and chooses from the scripture what he thinks makes him feel good.
A christian does not pick and choose which part of God's word he wants to obey.
Because of his false claims, this thread quickly became a discussion of true christianity versus false christianity.

It is not enough to say "I read the Bible, I believe in Jesus."
Belief is not enough. Being a benchwarmer in church on Sundays is not enough.
It is good that you believe, but no this that even Satan believes in Jesus.
Not everyone who calls Jesus Lord Lord will get into heaven. But only those who do the will of the Father.

From what I've seen, Jocabia doesn't 'take and choose from the scripture what he thinks makes him feel good'. On the contrary, what he takes from the scripture is what his discernment (you are aware of discernment, yes? The inspiration BY the Holy Spirit) tells him is right for him. He experiences the 'personal relationship' with God that Jesus preached in his ministry. He experiences the 'acceptance by faith, rather than by received interpretation' that Jesus taught in his ministry.

You may follow a modern-day Pharisee. You may prefer an apostate version of Jesus words. You may treat Paul like an 'equal' to Jesus' example...

But, if you ask me... Jocabia is acting the more 'Christlike' here. Jocabia is doing what Jesus preached, rather than what the other inspired writers taught... and that seems to me, to be more what a 'true' Christian MIGHT do.

I notice you open this post with "I'll let you all have the last word".

That might be the problem... there seems to a 'Word' you haven't heard, yet.

There is a fundemental arrogance and pride in any position that says "God loves me more than you...I am going to heaven because I'm good, you will not." It is the same holier-than-thou attitude you get in all walks of life, from the suck up at the office to the teachers pet at school. It is an attempt to assert dominance, and show superiority over their peers.

Why bother arguing with this chap? He's just going to find many people he's not expecting to find in heaven. Plus, you should rest assured that if God truly is the, well, facist God he claims, then you probably wouldn't want anything to do with Him anyway.

There is a fundemental arrogance and pride in any position that says "God loves me more than you...I am going to heaven because I'm good, you will not." It is the same holier-than-thou attitude you get in all walks of life, from the suck up at the office to the teachers pet at school. It is an attempt to assert dominance, and show superiority over their peers.

Why bother arguing with this chap? He's just going to find many people he's not expecting to find in heaven. Plus, you should rest assured that if God truly is the, well, facist God he claims, then you probably wouldn't want anything to do with Him anyway.

The reason I argue with this chap?

Not for MY beliefs... I'm an Atheist.

But for others who choose a different 'path to truth' than I.

Those who choose to follow the God of Jacob and Isaiah do so through belief. Those who follow the Crucified Nazarene do so through faith... but they 'meet' Christ through the walk of the spirit in the walk of the flesh.

I do not believe Socialist Whittier preaches a version of Christianity that is true to the scripture. I do not believe he is walking in the 'the spirit'.

Thus, I think people are going to see Christianity as hypocrisy, and they are not going to come to love Christ through the example of this witness.

I'm no Christian, myself. I'm skeptical. Agnostic. A non-believer. But, I believe it is important for us ALL to 'find our truth'... and I believe Socialist Whittier is blazing a false trail to 'truth'.

The reason I argue with this chap?

Not for MY beliefs... I'm an Atheist.

But for others who choose a different 'path to truth' than I.

Those who choose to follow the God of Jacob and Isaiah do so through belief. Those who follow the Crucified Nazarene do so through faith... but they 'meet' Christ through the walk of the spirit in the walk of the flesh.

I do not believe Socialist Whittier preaches a version of Christianity that is true to the scripture. I do not believe he is walking in the 'the spirit'.

Thus, I think people are going to see Christianity as hypocrisy, and they are not going to come to love Christ through the example of this witness.

I'm no Christian, myself. I'm skeptical. Agnostic. A non-believer. But, I believe it is important for us ALL to 'find our truth'... and I believe Socialist Whittier is blazing a false trail to 'truth'.
Hurrah for sanity. :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10654146&postcount=187

I would love to hear your response as soon as possible.

I admit, I only do it for the cookies. :)

Don't we all?

*slips ya another cookie*

Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian,

More arrogance. Are you Jesus Christ? If not, then you have no business telling me what a "true Christian" is. You can tell me what you think is necessary, what you believe is necessary, but you are not the determinant of one who follows Christ.

you must accept the inerrency of God holy word,

God's words are certainly innerent. I'm just not sure about the people who tried to capture them.

you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments,

This all sounds fairly standard.

and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority.

Wait, so now we have to have faith in human beings and assume that they are correct? I thought all human beings were fallible.....

And all true christians

There you go with that "true Christians" stuff again. Seriously, unless you are going to claim that you are Christ himself.......

Most christians do not hold the Koran to be scripture.

Sure they do. They just don't hold it to be accurate scripture, just like they don't often hold the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary to be accurate. Just like many Christians reject the Apocrypha.

It is not up to your own discernment to decide which books are valid and which are not.

No, it is up to God - and only God can determine for sure what is and is not valid. And we can only attempt to know that by asking God.

The books that in the present Bible were included after much fervent prayer.

So we must have faith in the prayer of others? Can we not pray for ourselves? Do we not have a personal relationship with God?

The politics came into the church only after the Pope became a political figure.

Seriously, try studying a *little* bit of the history of the church. The church was political long before there even was an official pope.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10654146&postcount=187

I would love to hear your response as soon as possible.

I believe Socialist Whittier has decided that this trial was too hard, and has decided to vacate the discussion... so, you might just be left waiting.

Oh - thanks for the cookies. :)

Do you believe in the whole word of God?

Now that is a stupid question to ask a Child of Faith don't you think?

You wrote in post 187, " I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior in the 5th Grade with my mother's help."
You accepted in 5th grade, before you were able to make an informed rational decision.

Wanna bet?

Now explain what you mean by "with my mother's help".

I thought that was self-explainatory. My mother helped me become a christian by assisting me in prayer.

Tell me, have you been baptized recently? Or was this the only time you can recall?

I was baptized into the Christian faith when I was a baby.

What I say may come off as offensive and prideful. But sometimes, the medicine we need is very bitter and uncomfortable to swallow. There are certain ways of telling if a person is really a christian and follower of Christ.
This is not your fault. Nor did I ever say it was.
I'm not making a judgement on you. I'm trying to find out where you are coming from. Cause your case sounds familiar.

Oh? I'm coming from the fact that you are questioning everyone in this thread who is a Christian as not being true Christian because we do not believe as you believe. That is being not only prideful but bigoted too. The Bible tells us it doesn't matter how we worship just as long as we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. "When 2 or more are gathered together in the Spirit of God, I shall walk among you." Or something to that effact.

In post 188 you make the claim that Jesus and Allah are one and the same. To qoute you, "Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.

Now here is where you are 100% dead wrong."

How can you say you are a christian when you say that God the Father is the same god as what the Muslims worship?

Simple fact is that IT IS THE SAME GOD!!! We worship the same God that the Jews and Muslims worship. This is a known fact. A true Christian would know this. Even the Muslims recognize this in the Koran when it decrees that all Jews and Christians are our Brothers and ought to be protected. Now why would they believe this if we all didn't worship the same God?

Corneliu you wrote in post 195 "Are you calling me a non-Christian?"
You really want to know what I think? Because you were raised as one, you likely believe strongly that you already are one. But the questions I asked previously would clarify to you if you are one or not.

Even though in my heart I believe I am a true Christian?

1. Do you accept the whole Bible as the inerrant word of God?

This should be an obvious answer to you. However, I see that it is not.

2. Do you believe in Jesus, that he died and rose again in 3 days then ascended to heaven to atone for your sins.

See answer to #1

3. Are you doer of God's word or a hearer only?

Now you might want to clarify this statement.

4. Have you been obeying the Lord's commandments? The ten commandments in addition to the 11th and the 12th?

11th and 12th? Last time I checked the Bible, there were only 10 Commandments.

5. Have you been baptized recently?

I joined the Methodist Church here last year.

Has your pastor or anyone in your church gone over the Bible with you to help you understand it?

Why do I have to have a pastor help me understand the Bible? You can ask many different pastors at many different churches and you'll get many interpretations of the same text.

good point. but look at the context, not the words themselves.

Even in context, the words are obviously prideful and arrogant, not to mention insulting and judgemental of others.

I agree with most of this post but I don't agree with the age part. I always hear people make that claim. The problem is it's not true. Being older does not make you maturer than a younger person. There are many 22 year old women who show more maturity than your typical 30 old woman. Maturity depends on the person's personality, not their age. If they have bad personality, then it doesn't matter how old they are, they will always be immature.

I didn't say that age causes maturity. I said they are correlated. Your average 22 year old is generally more mature than your average 12 year old. Most people are more mature at 22 than they were at 12. That doesn't mean that there aren't 12 year olds who are more mature than some 22 year olds. It just means that, on an average, age and maturity go hand in hand.

Which 'fall'? The fall of mankind?

You aren't as well versed in your scripture as you claim, if you think the first 'marriage' takes place AFTER the 'fall'.

First "marriage" took place BEFORE the fall. Even Genesis spells this out.

But further discussion showed that his is a perverted version of christianity.

How do you know that his "version" isn't correct and thaty you aren't following a perverted version? You obviously have more faith in human beings than in God himself. Why?

he wasn't amending the words of the savior. God told him to teach this, and that is what he did. His epistles are not simple editorial opinions. They hold weight for true christians.

You know if you're going to make an argument you avoid logical fallacies. I'm fairly certain you don't determine what is and what is not a true Christian. Paul admits that at least some of what is in the Bible was just his opinion. Do you deny this, false prophet?

Calling yourself a christian does not make you. To be a true christian, you must accept the inerrency of God holy word, you must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead and performed those miracles, you must accept that he died for you sins, you must follow his commandments, and you have to accept that which is taught by mature christians in authority. And all true christians accept that this book in this chapter is the in depth authority on the subject of abstinence and marriage. You will not find abstinence mentioned elsewhere. Marriage itself, is barely mentioned in the rest of the Bible, with those mentions being mostly "so and so married so and so".
If you want to know how a husband and wife should treat each other according to Christian doctrine, you have to go to 1 Corinthians 7.

And what gives you the authority to decide what a true Christian is, Prideful One?

I notice that you say that if one wants to learn about how married people should treat each other go to Paul, just skip right over what Jesus said about marriage, huh?

Everyone, I give you a man who claims to be a True Christians and then tells you to ignore the words of Jesus on marriage and go to only 'real' authority on marriage, Paul. Hmmmmm.... not hard to interpret that one.

To be a true Christian, my friends, you must accept the Savior as your personal Savior. After that, ask Him what you must do. Don't listen to men who propose to speak for God with all the Pride and Arrogance of this one.

Man's logic is not God's logic. You are confusing the two and attempting to remake God into your own image.

I totally agree that Man's logic is not God's logic and thus Man cannot and should not propose to speak for God and certainly should not speak over God.

I believe Socialist Whittier has decided that this trial was too hard, and has decided to vacate the discussion... so, you might just be left waiting.

Oh - thanks for the cookies. :)

I'm floored by the whole thing. Why is it the self-proclaimed 'true Christians' always get steadily more PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT when we point out that they are being PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT (he admitted to doing it at first) all the while claiming that they should be in a position to correct others. Why does being corrected upset them so much if they think it's the Christian thing to do? Because they do mean themselves being corrected. They mean everyone else.

And the Church elders thing goes directly against the ministry of the Christ, yet that is apparently the definition of a True Christian. How nonsensical.

I'm floored by the whole thing. Why is it the self-proclaimed 'true Christians' always get steadily more PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT when we point out that they are being PRIDEFUL and ARROGANT (he admitted to doing it at first) all the while claiming that they should be in a position to correct others. Why does being corrected upset them so much if they think it's the Christian thing to do? Because they do mean themselves being corrected. They mean everyone else.

And the Church elders thing goes directly against the ministry of the Christ, yet that is apparently the definition of a True Christian. How nonsensical.

I never claimed to understand it. Indeed... it's just a symptom of what I fear so much in 'organised' religion.... the idea that religion is NOT personal, that there is a 'right' way to do it, and that the believer's beliefs are beyond reproach.

Anecdote - I remember when I was Christian, I was very interested in the concepts of angels, and spent time researching them.

I discovered scriptural references, and 'expert' texts that clearly delineated 9 'levels' of angels; Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels and Angels.

I very much liked this structure... 3 tiers of angels, a 'heavenly' tier, a 'transitional' tier, and an 'earthly' tier, corresponding to where each rank of angels 'ministered'... and a gradual progression from the most human-like angels, to those nearest 'the Throne'.

The more I read the scripture, however.... the more obvious it seemed that the two types 'Archangel' and 'Angel'... can be interchanged with 'Seraphim' and Cherubim... and that the references to Jesus set above 'thrones, dominions, principalities', etc... referred to purely mundane powers... the rulers of earth, NOT levels of angels.

At some point, I could no longer accept the 9 rank model... but I really wanted to. I had to accept that my beliefs were NOT beyond reproach... and that what I had known.... indeed, had been 'taught' by learned men... might not be true.

It is not easy to surrender what we have long 'known' to be true... nor, that which we WANT to be true... but we must, if we want ANY pretence that what we seek is 'truth'.

I see that Whittier has lost his whits and decided to flee. Apparently he can't take the heat.

I never claimed to understand it. Indeed... it's just a symptom of what I fear so much in 'organised' religion.... the idea that religion is NOT personal, that there is a 'right' way to do it, and that the believer's beliefs are beyond reproach.

Anecdote - I remember when I was Christian, I was very interested in the concepts of angels, and spent time researching them.

I discovered scriptural references, and 'expert' texts that clearly delineated 9 'levels' of angels; Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels and Angels.

I very much liked this structure... 3 tiers of angels, a 'heavenly' tier, a 'transitional' tier, and an 'earthly' tier, corresponding to where each rank of angels 'ministered'... and a gradual progression from the most human-like angels, to those nearest 'the Throne'.

The more I read the scripture, however.... the more obvious it seemed that the two types 'Archangel' and 'Angel'... can be interchanged with 'Seraphim' and Cherubim... and that the references to Jesus set above 'thrones, dominions, principalities', etc... referred to purely mundane powers... the rulers of earth, NOT levels of angels.

At some point, I could no longer accept the 9 rank model... but I really wanted to. I had to accept that my beliefs were NOT beyond reproach... and that what I had known.... indeed, had been 'taught' by learned men... might not be true.

It is not easy to surrender what we have long 'known' to be true... nor, that which we WANT to be true... but we must, if we want ANY pretence that what we seek is 'truth'.

Yes, and we're all guilty of this, I fear. The problem is whne people use what they 'know' to declare other people bad people, lesser men and women, like Bobby is doing.

It's funny. I was thinking he sounds like Jehovah's Witness except I've never seen one that is so Prideful and Arrogant and so ignorant of the actual text of the Bible.

The amusing part is that he says to look at the fruit of one's teachings and then continues to get more and more arrogant. I would say the poison in this fruit is adequately exposed. My work is done here. I doubt that he will successfully deceive anyone with his 'teachings'.

EDIT: The Council of Nicea part made me laugh, however. After much prayer, it was compiled. It was an entire political event and there are few who actually claim it was an entirely inspired process. It's interesting how we MUST accept all scripture UNLESS we happen to be politically appointed to decide which scripture to follow and which to burn people at the stake for following, I mean, which not to follow.

Yes, and we're all guilty of this, I fear. The problem is whne people use what they 'know' to declare other people bad people, lesser men and women, like Bobby is doing.

It's funny. I was thinking he sounds like Jehovah's Witness except I've never seen one that is so Prideful and Arrogant and so ignorant of the actual text of the Bible.

The amusing part is that he says to look at the fruit of one's teachings and then continues to get more and more arrogant. I would say the poison in this fruit is adequately exposed. My work is done here. I doubt that he will successfully deceive anyone with his 'teachings'.

EDIT: The Council of Nicea part made me laugh, however. After much prayer, it was compiled. It was an entire political event and there are few who actually claim it was an entirely inspired process. It's interesting how we MUST accept all scripture UNLESS we happen to be politically appointed to decide which scripture to follow and which to burn people at the stake for following, I mean, which not to follow.

I work with a Witness... I might relay Whittier's argument to him, and see what he makes of it all...

I work with a Witness... I might relay Whittier's argument to him, and see what he makes of it all...

I'm sure he'll have more class than Whittier has :D

I'm sure he'll have more class than Whittier has :D

He's actually pretty sound. He sometimes gets offended when he and I discuss scripture, and I throw him an idea that is against his convictions (like speculating that the Bible might have been written by Satan to DECEIVE)... but I've never seen anything LIKE the pride and arrogance I've seen from certain posters here, recently.

He's actually pretty sound. He sometimes gets offended when he and I discuss scripture, and I throw him an idea that is against his convictions (like speculating that the Bible might have been written by Satan to DECEIVE)... but I've never seen anything LIKE the pride and arrogance I've seen from certain posters here, recently.

Sounds level headed enough to me :)

Sounds level headed enough to me :)

It's a 'path to truth' like any other. There will always be those that follow the paths, there will alway be those that forge their own paths... and there will always be those who CLAIM to follow a path, but who are actually stumbling around in the undergrowth near their chosen path.

My Witness workmate certainly makes more sense than some of the local Baptists. (Like one local guy who believes the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Ghost).... ???

You're most welcome. It's nice that someone noticed my lil post in this seething morass of doctrinal disputation. :D
I notice every little thing. ;)

No I am not the measure, I merely point to the measure which you reject.

If you really believe that, then you are not a true follower of Christ.
You forget that I made it clear -- pages and pages ago -- that I'm not a Christian. I'm a pagan, animist-type. That's why I asked that this discussion be expanded from a scripture debate to a debate about pridefulness in general, so I could participate.

See, as a person who does not follow Christ and, therefore, is under no obligation to follow his rules, I (A) take offense at being told that I fall short by the standard of a religion that means nothing to me, and (B) take offense at being told so by some guy who other Christians are telling me is full of crap. This leads me, as an outsider, to wonder who the hell you think you are to make judgmental comments about even other Christians, let alone the general public.

Do you see now how your prideful "I'm the one who is right" attitude sows hostility among those who hear you? If you were hoping to persuade outsiders to join your faith and live the way you do, you have failed.

I'll let you all have the last word.
Jocabia came in to criticize me for sounding arrogant. Which I accepted.
He should have left it there. But further discussion showed that his is a perverted version of christianity. He takes and chooses from the scripture what he thinks makes him feel good.
A christian does not pick and choose which part of God's word he wants to obey.
Because of his false claims, this thread quickly became a discussion of true christianity versus false christianity.

It is not enough to say "I read the Bible, I believe in Jesus."
Belief is not enough. Being a benchwarmer in church on Sundays is not enough.
It is good that you believe, but no this that even Satan believes in Jesus.
Not everyone who calls Jesus Lord Lord will get into heaven. But only those who do the will of the Father.
He cut and run? Damn that coward! As I was reading the latest posts, I got all het up, thinking, "Yes! There's the soft underbelly -- get him!", and now he's gone. Grrrrr...(frustrated intellectual bloodlust)

All those yummy posts in which he condemns Islam as a false religion on the grounds that it isn't Christianity; tries to dictate what makes a "true Christian"; claims that he's paying attention to the whole scripture after spending days rejecting all scriptural references to marriage except that thing from Corinthians; claims that his rejection of other religions is proof of the validity of the religion he didn't reject -- i.e., Christianity is best because it has the Whittier stamp of approval -- oh, brother! :D

Clearly, we had him pushed up to the edge of his own argument so bad, his only option was to jump.

There is a fundemental arrogance and pride in any position that says "God loves me more than you...I am going to heaven because I'm good, you will not." It is the same holier-than-thou attitude you get in all walks of life, from the suck up at the office to the teachers pet at school. It is an attempt to assert dominance, and show superiority over their peers.

Why bother arguing with this chap? He's just going to find many people he's not expecting to find in heaven. Plus, you should rest assured that if God truly is the, well, facist God he claims, then you probably wouldn't want anything to do with Him anyway.
I agree with you completely on this point. Any attitude -- whether in a religious or secular context -- that tries to paint a person as superior to others on the basis of membership in a particular group (a religion, a social class, a political party, a private club, etc.) is an expression of pridefulness -- an ego-trip expressed through domination over others.

And that is why we argue with these self-absorbed losers. Because their egos are not satisfied with simply being told that they are the bestest kids in the world. They must demonstrate their superiority by dominating and bullying others -- telling us how to live, insulting us in public, denying us freedom and full access to the rights and privileges of society.

People like Whittier can be as egotistical and as obnoxious as they like, as long as it's just them talking. But we see it over and over that such people try to reorder society to give themselves the power to actually push around the people they think they are better than. It's important to expose their ego-trips as part of stopping that from happening.

In other words, it's important to put them back in their place.

"You are Peter, the rock. Upon this rock I will build my church".
To the church, Jesus gave sole authority to proclaim the word of God and teach his commandments to the people of the world.
Unless you are part of that church, you have no authority.

I have no authority. Only one here is claiming authority. And you denounced the Church of Peter, friend. You can't even keep your own made-up agenda straight.

I have no authority. Only one here is claiming authority. And you denounced the Church of Peter, friend. You can't even keep your own made-up agenda straight.

Wasn't it Peter that denied he knew Jesus 3 times before the roostered crowed or something like that?