NationStates Jolt Archive

No? "Render unto Caesar" he says. And "Render unto God". He makes a clear distinction between the worldly and the spiritual... but he does preach to both spheres.

The beatitudes, especially, read like an idealised chapter from a communist manifesto.
I would guess it depends on your motivations.

He preached community, communal living, sharing of resources. He made those of his men that were fit to certain tasks perform them, and took from each as they were able to give... rewarding according to need.

Textbook communist.

Where did he support communist living? He can be said to support communal living and the later church increased this message. Where did he support sharing of resources, except to say that those who give above and beyond are specially recognized by God?

What you seem to be intentionally obfuscating is the idea of communal taxation in the later church with the soviet communism and Leninism’s of the twentieth century . What Jesus said was to "give it to the poor." He didn't say, take yours and everybody elses and then share it all with the poor, he said, if they ask for it, give it to them and more, not, take all of the riches from everybody else and equally divide it amongst yourselves…

And likewise, in non-communist countries, the welfare system gives according to need, it isn’t communism simply because of that. Communal living is not the same as soviet communism either and your attempt to link them by their similar outward appearances is silly, but I'm sure you are having fun with it, despite its incorrectness, at the cost of others that don’t understand the differences. I’ve noticed you like to do that with your scripture interpretations as well. Are you intentionally getting these definitions and verses as crooked as you possibly can? Like it’s a double meaning word game for you?

It's right there in teh scripture. Pay more attention to what the book SAYS, and less to what people TELL you it says.

Seriously - go read the verse. Look ONLY at what is in scripture, and ignore the teachings of other men as to what they BELIEV it means. Focus only on the words, and tell me what it means.

If one allows that the name is unimportant, then one can be saved by Vishnu... since you could argue that you believe Vishnu and Jesus are the same entity.

Okay, I understand, now. The name is representativ of Jesus. So there is one name, the name of Jesus, which saves us. Now, does He need to be called Jesus? No. You can call Him Vishnu if you want. But the only change should be the name. You change anything else, and it's no longer Jesus.

Why did there have to be a sacrifice? God had been managing perfectly well without, beforehand. Whether you call it a catch or no, the addition of an EXTRA detail that is 'required' for salvation IS a catch.

Sin must be paid for. And Jesus sacrifice paid for sin. Because God knew that the debt would be paid in the future (He was the one who was going to pay it), He was able to save people in the past. If there had been no sacrifice, He would not have been able to save anyone, from any time.

Yes he can. He does it all the time, throughout the scripture. He even changes his 'nature', at the petition of man. I'm not sure why you think God would be constrained by restrictions YOU can understand... it doesn't sound very 'godlike' to me.

I only know the restrictions because God tells them to us. Show me one time when He changed His nature.

How can evil be used for good when people use evil to begat evil? You know, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth as stated in The Code of Hammurabi? Or they get thoughts of revenge after they see someone inflicting harm unto them?

Justice is not evil. And if the justice says eye for eye, then it is not evil. Providing of course, it's God's justice.

Justice is not evil. And if the justice says eye for eye, then it is not evil. Providing of course, it's God's justice.
Justice cannot be justice unless it is fair given the nature of the crime. Justice can be evil if it is with ill-intent.

Justice cannot be justice unless it is fair given the nature of the crime. Justice can be evil if it is with ill-intent.

Then it is not justice. It is perversion.

I love to hear stories like that. I mean it shows the He still works today. Many people say God is dead or doesn't exist, but come on, this stuff only furthers my beliefs.

Yeah, but would you go and do work with the CPT - its a simple enough question...

Justice is not evil. And if the justice says eye for eye, then it is not evil. Providing of course, it's God's justice.
Originally Posted by Kryozerkia
Justice cannot be justice unless it is fair given the nature of the crime. Justice can be evil if it is with ill-intent.
Originally Posted by Edwardis
Then it is not justice. It is perversion.

So, if God said, "Kill all the Jews," that would be justice, but if a man said it and called it justice, that would be a perversion?

But what if the man says God told him to do it? How will you know he is lying? What if he manages to put together some combination of Biblical verses that supports his claim that God wants him to do this? People do that with holy books all the time.

Who determines whether, just for example, genocide is directed by God or man, in order to tell whether it is justice or evil?

I say it is better to assume that it is evil and not commit genocide, no matter what.

Voluntary or not, it is still communism. The perfect communist community WOULD be voluntary - one of the flaws in many of the models that have been tried. The one thing that really hurts communism as a model, is selfishness - the idea of "why SHOULD I give some of this to you?"

Th ministry of Jesus was all about, why you should.

yes, but......I don't really think that Jesus was trying to bring about a new economic system, or a new government system....or anything else worldly.



Ooh, I'm very much with GnI here.
Why you should is the message of Jesus, and that's why Soviet style Communism fails, because it doesn't work if it is coerced. It has to be internalised.

I think that Jesus was trying to bring about a new economic system, a new government, new attitudes, new relationships, in fact an whole new "kingdom" is at hand if we have ears to hear what Jesus was saying.

I would guess it depends on your motivations.

How so? I'm not understanding what depends on the motivation here...?

It isn't communism if you do it because Jesus said so? Is that what you mean?

Only at God's express command to a prophet. And I haven't heard any Bible-based prophets calling for genocide.

I'm confused... what do you think Joshua was doing? Looking for a lost ball?

So, if God said, "Kill all the Jews," that would be justice, but if a man said it and called it justice, that would be a perversion?

But what if the man says God told him to do it? How will you know he is lying? What if he manages to put together some combination of Biblical verses that supports his claim that God wants him to do this? People do that with holy books all the time.

Who determines whether, just for example, genocide is directed by God or man, in order to tell whether it is justice or evil?

I say it is better to assume that it is evil and not commit genocide, no matter what.

If God said "Kill all the Jews," it would be justice. But God doesn't say that.

If we can find no evidence to support the man's claim in Scripture, we are not to follow him. The only genocide I support is the times in the Bible where God said to do it. Beyond that I support no genocide.

If you believe that God is telling you to commit genocide, you have the responsibility to do it. And the rest of us have the responsibility to try to stop you if we think God didn't tell you to.

I'm confused... what do you think Joshua was doing? Looking for a lost ball?

:confused: Joshua was directly told by God what to do.

:confused: Joshua was directly told by God what to do.

God told Joshua to take the land, not kill every man, woman, and child:

1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
1:4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
1:5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
1:6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.
1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.
1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
1:9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

Or maybe He does call for genocide and I missed it.

Where did he support communist living? He can be said to support communal living and the later church increased this message. Where did he support sharing of resources, except to say that those who give above and beyond are specially recognized by God?

What you seem to be intentionally obfuscating is the idea of communal taxation in the later church with the soviet communism and Leninism’s of the twentieth century . What Jesus said was to "give it to the poor." He didn't say, take yours and everybody elses and then share it all with the poor, he said, if they ask for it, give it to them and more, not, take all of the riches from everybody else and equally divide it amongst yourselves…

And likewise, in non-communist countries, the welfare system gives according to need, it isn’t communism simply because of that. Communal living is not the same as soviet communism either and your attempt to link them by their similar outward appearances is silly, but I'm sure you are having fun with it, despite its incorrectness, at the cost of others that don’t understand the differences.

I don't recall ever mentioning the word 'soviet' or 'Lenin', in any capacity.

How can I be linking them, when I have entirely failed to mention half the things you say I linked? DO you not see - it is your own interpretation of what I mean, that is flawed? You have entirely leaped to a collection of conclusions I never stated, and hold them up as the 'flaw in my argument'.

I also mentioned nothing about taxation or tithing. I'm more thinking of what Jesus is supposed to have SAID during his ministry. Again - you suggest I am 'intentionally obfuscating' the issue... with issues you have JUST introduced... I never mentioned them. Who is deliberately obfuscating, now?

I can't think of a single case where Jesus advocated exploiting anyone else, making gain while other's lose, or accruing material possessions to oneself.

Indeed, from what I can see, he preached exactly the opposite... a generosity, a sharing with the world... even going so far as to advocate divesting oneself of wealth and possessions.

I think, perhaps, you are unable to step outside of the modern consumer culture. Let us look at an example: One man has a hundred cows, and another man needs a cow. What do you think Jesus would say?

Who really 'owns' those cows, anyway?

Given that everything is a gift of a benevolent creator... is the selfish accrual of those gifts more in line with the scripture... or the sharing of those gifts with those in need?


I’ve noticed you like to do that with your scripture interpretations as well. Are you intentionally getting these definitions and verses as crooked as you possibly can? Like it’s a double meaning word game for you?

My opinion is that you rely on Traditions for your interpretation of scripture. Maybe you don't call it that, but you constantly represent the scripture as an 'everyone knows that' issue. Where is the discernment? Where is the inspiration by the spirit?

I have no confidence in biblical interpretation because someone said it was so. If you don't like how I read the scripture... well, I don't like how you read it. indeed, I would argue you DON'T read it... you just accept someone else's 'reading' of it.

Okay, I understand, now. The name is representativ of Jesus. So there is one name, the name of Jesus, which saves us. Now, does He need to be called Jesus? No. You can call Him Vishnu if you want. But the only change should be the name. You change anything else, and it's no longer Jesus.


Why? You get the name wrong... how can you state with any authority what might or might not be an 'aspect' of Messiah?


Sin must be paid for.


I disagree. This is your fundamental axiom, and I think it is flawed.


And Jesus sacrifice paid for sin.


If you have paid any attention to the Hebrew scripture, you'll have noticed you can't pre-emptively expiate your guilt. Jesus on the cross makes no logical sense as a payment for guilt yet to be accrued.


Because God knew that the debt would be paid in the future (He was the one who was going to pay it), He was able to save people in the past. If there had been no sacrifice, He would not have been able to save anyone, from any time.


This is wishful thinking. There is no mention of this mechanism in the Hebrew scripture. Indeed, we have to assume that everyone before Jesus - with a few choice exceptions - was damned... if we accept the 'Jesus-is-needed-for-salvation' angle.

And yet, we clearly see the most immodest sinners living the most appaling lives, and being embraced as favourites by God - like David. Or being 'saved' without sacrifice, as in the cases of Enoch and Elijah.


I only know the restrictions because God tells them to us. Show me one time when He changed His nature.

Genesis 18 leaps instantly to mind.

:confused: Joshua was directly told by God what to do.

Wasn't that what you asked for?

God told Joshua to take the land, not kill every man, woman, and child:



Or maybe He does call for genocide and I missed it.

If you read further and into Judges, you will find times where God said to kill all the men, sometimes the male children, and more rarely the married women.

Most of the time it was "Kill the army." But there were other times when He said to get rid of them.

Not a happy time, but that's what God said to do, so we must do it. Or rather they must have, because God has not revealed that command to anyone today.

Why? You get the name wrong... how can you state with any authority what might or might not be an 'aspect' of Messiah?

I can state with certainty because of what is found in Scripture.

I disagree. This is your fundamental axiom, and I think it is flawed.

Not the fundamental, one of the fundamentals. And it's what Scripture says.

If you have paid any attention to the Hebrew scripture, you'll have noticed you can't pre-emptively expiate your guilt. Jesus on the cross makes no logical sense as a payment for guilt yet to be accrued.

Particurally, not generally.

This is wishful thinking. There is no mention of this mechanism in the Hebrew scripture. Indeed, we have to assume that everyone before Jesus - with a few choice exceptions - was damned... if we accept the 'Jesus-is-needed-for-salvation' angle.

Well there's the faith hall of fame in Hebrews and it talks about them being saved by grace through their faith in God as He had revealed himself up to that time.

And yet, we clearly see the most immodest sinners living the most appaling lives, and being embraced as favourites by God - like David. Or being 'saved' without sacrifice, as in the cases of Enoch and Elijah.

They were saved with sacrifice, Jesus' sacrifice which had not yet happened.

And I'm running to dinner. See you in an hour or so.

If you read further and into Judges, you will find times where God said to kill all the men, sometimes the male children, and more rarely the married women.

Most of the time it was "Kill the army." But there were other times when He said to get rid of them.

Not a happy time, but that's what God said to do, so we must do it. Or rather they must have, because God has not revealed that command to anyone today.


Joshua is dead by the beginning of Judges. Please point me to the chapter and verse where God states that Joshua should commit genocide.

God told Joshua to take the land, not kill every man, woman, and child:

Or maybe He does call for genocide and I missed it.

Yes, you missed it.

"And the city shall be accursed, [even] it, and all that [are] therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that [are] with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent."

"And they utterly destroyed all that [was] in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua most certainly brings a war of genocide... indeed, even the beasts are not to be spared.

But - is it God's will?

"And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land: And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it.

Is it a one off, or a pattern of divinely inspired genocide?

"And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that [were] therein; he let none remain."

"Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein; he let none remain in it."

And the same in Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Hebron, Debir... Indeed, as we continue reading: Joshua 10:41 "And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." Joshua 12 lists no less than 31 kings of citystates so treated.

Joshua is dead by the beginning of Judges. Please point me to the chapter and verse where God states that Joshua should commit genocide.

I've addressed this in my post.

I can state with certainty because of what is found in Scripture.


Really? What did Jesus look like?


Not the fundamental, one of the fundamentals. And it's what Scripture says.


The Greek scripture... maybe. The Hebrew scripture, that actually has dozens of pages of specific instruction on ritual and atonement? Not so much.


Particurally, not generally.


I see no precedent for this 'general' ritual, except maybe the scapegoat. Is Jesus the lamb or the scapegoat? The story is already confused enough with him being the lamb and the priest... without him being a goat, too.

And, of course, the scapegoat was retroactive only, also.



Well there's the faith hall of fame in Hebrews and it talks about them being saved by grace through their faith in God as He had revealed himself up to that time.


So - one can be saved by grace, without knowing the name... or even the existence of Jesus.

Either God changes, or he doesn't.


They were saved with sacrifice, Jesus' sacrifice which had not yet happened.


The Hebrew scripture seems fairly explicit that sacrifice follow sin. There is no pre-emptive forgiveness. Did god lie to the Hebrews?

You are justified by faith, not the work of confession. Your sins are absolved by Christ's sacrifice, not a priest's words. Repentence is the commitment to make Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior. Then there is particular repentence when you hit your little brother and pray for forgiveness and try not to do it again.

Funny. I have been to Lutheran/Reformed services where the whole congregation does have a confession -- no one tells what they did to the pastor, but there is a general ritual everyone participates in.

I've addressed this in my post.

I am sorry, as I was not clear. I am as awar as you that the Book of Joshua is a recording of genocide. I was challenging Edwardis' contention that it was divinely mandated.

I have yet to read a verse where God states, explicitly or implicitly, that Joshua is to kill them all.

If no such verse exists, then Joshua's genocide was a human interpretation of God's word, not divinely mandated.

Funny. I have been to Lutheran/Reformed services where the whole congregation does have a confession -- no one tells what they did to the pastor, but there is a general ritual everyone participates in.

They sometimes do these for Anglican services as well, usually when people from outside the parish are visiting.

If God said "Kill all the Jews," it would be justice. But God doesn't say that.
It would be pretty capricious of him if he did. It was just a rhetorical example.

If we can find no evidence to support the man's claim in Scripture, we are not to follow him. The only genocide I support is the times in the Bible where God said to do it. Beyond that I support no genocide.

If you believe that God is telling you to commit genocide, you have the responsibility to do it. And the rest of us have the responsibility to try to stop you if we think God didn't tell you to.
But you did not address my point about what if he manages to select out verses from the Bible that, taken together, can be used to support a claim that God wants X people to all be killed?

It seems as if you are assuming that it is absolutely impossible for a human being, or even many human beings, to deliberately misuse the Bible to further their own agendas. But if it were impossible to have different readings of the Bible, then surely there would not be so many different Christian churches, each with their own interpretation of what the Bible says God wants them to do.

If your only way to check whether any given demogogue is telling the truth or not is whether his claims are backed up by the Bible, and if he misuses the Bible to cobble together support for his claims -- I'm talking about a deliberate attempt to mislead you -- then this leaves you with no recourse but to commit the crime of genocide, but you will have done so to further this man's agenda, not God's. And where will that leave you, then?

How can you avoid such deceptions? If your ethics only require that an action be approved by the Bible for it to be just to do it, then all kinds of murders, sex crimes, family disruptions, wars, and other violent abuses of human beings may also be okay, because a clever reader can use such an expansive document to back up nearly anything. If you think it is possible for God to approve genocide, or elective war, or beating your wife, etc, then what can you be sure God will not permit you to do? Where will you, personally, draw the line and say, "No, that's not okay", regardless of what the demogogue in the pulpit or on the podium says?

okay, I'll bite. What religion/denomination/current theological theory do you follow?

I follow only what I know.

I can't claim a denomination/current-theological-theory.

I *AM* a christian, but that's a VERY general statement. I claim to be a christian only because I like the image that "christianity" evokes in me.

Sorry if that's not enough for you, but it is the truth of who I am.

If you want further information as to what I think, you'll have to pose questions to me about it, or make statements that I can respond to.

If you have paid any attention to the Hebrew scripture, you'll have noticed you can't pre-emptively expiate your guilt. Jesus on the cross makes no logical sense as a payment for guilt yet to be accrued.

This is wishful thinking. There is no mention of this mechanism in the Hebrew scripture. Indeed, we have to assume that everyone before Jesus - with a few choice exceptions - was damned... if we accept the 'Jesus-is-needed-for-salvation' angle.

And yet, we clearly see the most immodest sinners living the most appaling lives, and being embraced as favourites by God - like David. Or being 'saved' without sacrifice, as in the cases of Enoch and Elijah.



So - one can be saved by grace, without knowing the name... or even the existence of Jesus.

Either God changes, or he doesn't.

The Hebrew scripture seems fairly explicit that sacrifice follow sin. There is no pre-emptive forgiveness. Did god lie to the Hebrews?

I'm not sure your assumptions are valid.
In the first covenant, you are of course correct, we see no mention of this mechanism and sacrifice naturally follows sin.
But the second covenant is different, so how can we judge it solely on the first covenant? If it was all contained in the first covenant, then there would be no need for the second.

I believe that one can be saved by grace without knowing the name or even the existence of Jesus. The sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of mankind was required for grace to operate, but grace I do not believe is limited by our knowledge.

The nature of God does not need to change for God to change how He relates to us.

I am sorry, as I was not clear. I am as awar as you that the Book of Joshua is a recording of genocide. I was challenging Edwardis' contention that it was divinely mandated.

I have yet to read a verse where God states, explicitly or implicitly, that Joshua is to kill them all.

If no such verse exists, then Joshua's genocide was a human interpretation of God's word, not divinely mandated.

And, as I said - this has already been addressed:

In Jericho - Joshua's men do the following: "And they utterly destroyed all that [was] in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).


Obviously, Joshua was taking it pretty serious... killing men and women, adults and children.

The question is, does God ever condemn or condone this action? He condones it - indeed, he tells Joshua to make it the pattern for the next town:

"And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land: And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king." (Joshua 8:1-2)

It's right there. God says 'good work on the genocide, do it again for me'.

Crap, this is still going?

Crap, this is still going?

*arms folded, brow arched*

Ohhh, yeah - it's still going.

I'm not sure your assumptions are valid.
In the first covenant, you are of course correct, we see no mention of this mechanism and sacrifice naturally follows sin.
But the second covenant is different, so how can we judge it solely on the first covenant? If it was all contained in the first covenant, then there would be no need for the second.


That's it... right there. There IS no 'need' for a second covenant. Indeed, the very idea of a 'second covenant' is irreconcilable with the Hebrew scripture.


I believe that one can be saved by grace without knowing the name or even the existence of Jesus. The sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of mankind was required for grace to operate, but grace I do not believe is limited by our knowledge.


Certainly. Neither Elijah or Enoch is ever described as having any knowledge of Jesus. The problem with the theory is - God could 'save by grace' even WITHOUT a 'vicarious substitution'. The idea of sacrifice is an appeasement, an offering to prevent punishment, or to buy your way into good graces. The Hebrew scripture spends some time on describing the correct way to perform the rituals... but nowhere does it say God can ONLY forgive that which is bloodwashed.

Sure, he 'can't stand sin'... but he is also infinitely forgiving - so, just forgive all by grace, then save by grace.


The nature of God does not need to change for God to change how He relates to us.

Really? Where in the Adam and Eve story is God considering seeking human approval for his plans? Where does he change his divine ordained schemes for human whim?

Crap, this is still going?

You've got Grave and Snow Eaters in a debate about religion.

It will never die.

Crap, this is still going?
Oh yeah! After all, I had to insert my pointless jackassory into this.

Crap, this is still going?

It's been bubbling around for twenty centuries.... you think it was going to boil itself dry in two more days?

It's been bubbling around for twenty centuries.... you think it was going to boil itself dry in two more days?
Hmn... well... the water IS running a little low. It might dry out in a few hundred years if we continue to cook it on medium-low...

You've got Grave and Snow Eaters in a debate about religion.

It will never die.

I'm not sure... I think we take that as a compliment, right? :)

I'm not sure... I think we take that as a compliment, right? :)

Of course. Most debates about religion get insulting and die out quickly.

Debates that involve you and another poster like Snow Eaters or Jocabia tend to stick around longer because you actually try to sort out your viewpoints. It makes for great reading.

That's it... right there. There IS no 'need' for a second covenant. Indeed, the very idea of a 'second covenant' is irreconcilable with the Hebrew scripture.


But that's just an opinion.
Apparently it's not an opinion that the christian God agrees with.
If mankind wasn't getting the message via the first covenant, it was "benched" and the second covenant comes into play..
Hmmm, I hate my own analogy, but oh well.


Certainly. Neither Elijah or Enoch is ever described as having any knowledge of Jesus. The problem with the theory is - God could 'save by grace' even WITHOUT a 'vicarious substitution'. The idea of sacrifice is an appeasement, an offering to prevent punishment, or to buy your way into good graces. The Hebrew scripture spends some time on describing the correct way to perform the rituals... but nowhere does it say God can ONLY forgive that which is bloodwashed.

Sure, he 'can't stand sin'... but he is also infinitely forgiving - so, just forgive all by grace, then save by grace.


I don't have any argument with that, but the sacrificial substitution is how God did it. Christ's sacrifice fulfills the image that began with Abel and followed through to Passover and on to the cross.


Really? Where in the Adam and Eve story is God considering seeking human approval for his plans? Where does he change his divine ordained schemes for human whim?

We must have slipped past each other's meaning. I don't kow why you're asking this, because I would say that He typically doesn't do this.
But then the Lot story does come to mind.

Wasn't that what you asked for?

What did I ask for where?

Well, this thread turned into quite the little soap opera was I was away, didn't it? I read through all the pages since I last posted, and there were, like, 25 posts of Edwardis's that I was all fired up to respond to, but I've decided not to, but to pick it up at the present point instead.

EXCEPT for this one post from Insignificantia, which I really must answer:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
<snip?
If "your" god is not "omnipotent", then it is not god. And as such you are a fool and follower of silly goofy thoughts.

As a follower of silly goofy thoughts, your indignation at the opinions of others is amusing at best.

This insult is completely uncalled for. I guess Edwardis is not the only arrogant ass in this thread. Without knowing my beliefs at all, you presume to talk to me this way?

If your "gods" are not god, then your gods are not gods.

To substitute "gods" for god is the act of a silly goofy fool, in my opinion.

Of course, that is simply my opinion, and thus there's no need (though perhaps a WANT) to be insulted, unless your into playing the victim.

Are you?


I'm a "fool" and a follower of "silly goofy" thoughts? First of all, there should have been a comma between "silly" and "goofy" since they are both adjectives.

Ooops,.. sorry for the punctuational sin! :)


If you are going to talk down to people, you should at least try to seem smart.

I don't talk down to people, but I do try to seem as smart as possible.

If you felt "talked down to" it's most likely because you see anyone with an opinion that disagrees with yours to be "parent-like", and, as with most juveniles, to be "rebelled against".

Do you actually know of anyone who doesn't try to seem as smart as possible when communicating with other people?


Second of all, at least I don't follow a god who accepts service from the likes of Hitler, nor one who likes to torture his creations by damning them before they are born and then kidding them that they can save themselves somehow.

You don't follow a god, the SINGULAR god, at all.


I also don't follow a belief system that makes me so sure of my own rightness and superiority that I would talk to someone the way you just talked to me. The hell with your rudeness.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I've said to mean that I'm either perfectly right or superior to you. That was CERTAINLY not my intention.

I just think you're a silly goofy fool.

That doesn't mean you can't think of ME as a silly goofy fool.

..And your line should have been, "TO hell with your rudeness." :)


For the record: I am an animist -- that's a kind of polytheist, for those who don't know. The gods (lower case for a reason) of polytheism are not all-powerful.

That's true. And they're also not "Gods". Only god is a god.


They are personifications/manifestations of the spiritual essence of specific bits of the universe -- weather, time, birth and death, war, love, food, etc.

Also quite true! See,.. we agree on SO much..!

But these "gods" of yours are creations of god, and as such are what god uses to (with all other things in the world) teach us.


Some polytheist religions also believe in an all-powerful supreme deity. Some don't. I personally, do not care about it. If you like, I will stipulate to the existence of such a being.

You obviously have no conception of what god is for, and as such have no conception of why or whether he should exist or not.

I have no need for your stipulation as to the existence of god.

And, by the way, when you say that this deity (of mine) is an "all powerful supreme being", you don't describe god as I know him.

What you SEEM to be describing is a big papa guy in the sky who can do whatever he likes at his whim to "play" with the people and material of the world.

That is NOT god. :)


I do not worship it. In fact, I do not worship the more specific gods either. I venerate divine spirit in all beings, and I maintain relationships with the spirits and gods who I deal with in my life -- my ancestors, the spirits in the world around me, and the deities who guide me, my "tutelary gods."

And that is a lovely thing. I'm sure it's very instructive, if you're "venerating" and "tutelisin" them correctly.

And that's what they're for! They are creations of god that are there for you to learn from.

Good work..!


I have no need for an omnipotent god. I don't need to have everything done for me or explained to me.

That's not what god does. :)

God does NOTHING for you.

God explains nothing to you.

That is what the world (his creation) is for.


I don't need to be constantly checking with the boss of all creation to make sure I'm doing it right.

God is not interested in hearing from you.

God is not even interested in you hearing from him, because if you don't, even for your entire life, you'll still be forgiven your sins, because that's the one thing that god DOES do.

Forgive.

If you do "do things wrong", god's creation (the world) ha the job of letting you know about it,.. and in your case you may be "informed" of your errors by your "spirits".


If I'm not right, that fact will become evident soon enough.

And if you decide that the mere fact that I am a polytheist allows you to call me "fool" and "silly" and "goofy," then you, sir, are a bigot.

You're not a fool because you're a polytheist,.. your a fool ONLY if you call any one of them, or equate them with, god.

The point of monotheism is that there is a unifying principle from which all the "things" (creations) of the world come, and in which exists the only (singular) place where there is no factionalism.

Having a "place" where there is no infighting (factional warfare) brings great comfort, and the "nerve" to do in the face of "death".


(( A relief from "existential angst" is the basic reason for religion in general, and monotheism handles that anxiety in the most efficient way possible. ))

Joshua is dead by the beginning of Judges. Please point me to the chapter and verse where God states that Joshua should commit genocide.

I can't find one. Which just goes to show the danger of speaking before seeking.

EDIT: But I see others have found them for me. Still, I should not have been so quick to insist on their existence without knowing where they were, first.

I'm not sure... I think we take that as a compliment, right? :)

LOL, I guess.
I'm just a bit surprised to have someone recognising my name in thread on NS.

Really? What did Jesus look like?

The physical does not matter in knowing who the Messiah is. Only the spiritual matters.

The Greek scripture... maybe. The Hebrew scripture, that actually has dozens of pages of specific instruction on ritual and atonement? Not so much.

:confused: What are we debating here? I'm confused...

I see no precedent for this 'general' ritual, except maybe the scapegoat. Is Jesus the lamb or the scapegoat? The story is already confused enough with him being the lamb and the priest... without him being a goat, too.

Different metaphors for different roles that He filled.

And, of course, the scapegoat was retroactive only, also.

Yes.


So - one can be saved by grace, without knowing the name... or even the existence of Jesus.

Not now. You must believe in God as He has revealed Himself. He only revealed Himself through nature and direct revealation to Noah, later through the Law to Moses, and now through the Gospel to us. Each is responsilbe for more: they are required to have faith in more and God's grace will give them that faith.

Either God changes, or he doesn't.

He does not, though the way in which He deals with Man may change according to His pleasure.

The Hebrew scripture seems fairly explicit that sacrifice follow sin. There is no pre-emptive forgiveness. Did god lie to the Hebrews?

No, He did not lie; it would be against His nature to do so. The sacrifices of the Hebrews were for their particualr sins. They could not say "I sacrificed, so now I am free to sin as I please." Sacrifice was not an excuse to sin. The point being that you shouldn't be palnning on sinning.

Funny. I have been to Lutheran/Reformed services where the whole congregation does have a confession -- no one tells what they did to the pastor, but there is a general ritual everyone participates in.

We are to confess our sins. But that is not what saves us. We are not saved by works. They are the natural result of being saved. And confession is a work.

But you did not address my point about what if he manages to select out verses from the Bible that, taken together, can be used to support a claim that God wants X people to all be killed?

It seems as if you are assuming that it is absolutely impossible for a human being, or even many human beings, to deliberately misuse the Bible to further their own agendas. But if it were impossible to have different readings of the Bible, then surely there would not be so many different Christian churches, each with their own interpretation of what the Bible says God wants them to do.

If your only way to check whether any given demogogue is telling the truth or not is whether his claims are backed up by the Bible, and if he misuses the Bible to cobble together support for his claims -- I'm talking about a deliberate attempt to mislead you -- then this leaves you with no recourse but to commit the crime of genocide, but you will have done so to further this man's agenda, not God's. And where will that leave you, then?

How can you avoid such deceptions? If your ethics only require that an action be approved by the Bible for it to be just to do it, then all kinds of murders, sex crimes, family disruptions, wars, and other violent abuses of human beings may also be okay, because a clever reader can use such an expansive document to back up nearly anything. If you think it is possible for God to approve genocide, or elective war, or beating your wife, etc, then what can you be sure God will not permit you to do? Where will you, personally, draw the line and say, "No, that's not okay", regardless of what the demogogue in the pulpit or on the podium says?

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. If even one Scripture verse disagrees, you need to start all over again. Anyone can, as you point out, twist it to mean anything. That's why Scripture is to be the context. Scripture cannot disagree with itself and it is only by disregarding sections that things like the above can happen. And do happen, sadly.

Simply feed the Christians to the Lions!

I have a friend in the Army, who thinks Hiitler should have hired the Jews to kill all the Christians (after establishing some pseudo religion for the Ayrian nation) and then kill the Jews.

Also I'ld like to point out one important error by the Church: "...this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia." This idea seems to fit in all categories of religion, since the idea of the soul is well sumed up in that Monty Python line. In other words; why the hell are we still discussing the opiate of the people as anything beyond that?

Relgion is a tool which inhibits free will and binds humans to believe that they know nothing and must suffer from some higher power always; perhaps that is why it has been a good tool for nations..

Not my religion. :)

God does not inhibit free will, as nothing can inhibit free will, anymore than anything can inhibit gravity. Various forces can negate the affects of gravity, to continue the analogy, but the force of gravity is never "not there" between two bodies.

You confuse "religion" (your term) with religion (listening to god via the "things" of the world).

What you describe as "religion" is simply "convincing talk" and "coercive force".

That is NOT real religion.


Can we please talk about more logical and useful things, like whether or not one should annex a nation?


Also, adam and eve were never taught the ideas of right and wrong, (messages from the Earth)

That is obviously not true, as they learned a lesson for an action they took, which is the definition of "being taught".

They learned both right and wrong simultaneously by being punished (by the world by being made "uncomfortable") for their act.

But that's just an opinion.
Apparently it's not an opinion that the christian God agrees with.


Which is the irreconcilable part... because the Hebrew god is totally down with it.


If mankind wasn't getting the message via the first covenant, it was "benched" and the second covenant comes into play..
Hmmm, I hate my own analogy, but oh well.


I am not seeing any evidence that 'mankind wasn't getting it'... from what I've been presented, people were capable of being saved by grace if they were 'good', and had to make a sacrifice if they were 'bad'.

The second covenant adds extra controls to the 'saved by grace' bit, but takes care of the 'sacrifice if you are bad' thing... which, now that I think about it, sounds like the perfect way for an heretic sect to distance itself from the spiritual 'powers' of their day...



I don't have any argument with that, but the sacrificial substitution is how God did it. Christ's sacrifice fulfills the image that began with Abel and followed through to Passover and on to the cross.


Abel being the most beloved thing that Cain had, a sacrifice considered so worthy that Cain was rewarded with immortality?


We must have slipped past each other's meaning. I don't kow why you're asking this, because I would say that He typically doesn't do this.
But then the Lot story does come to mind.

Indeed... or, more specifically to my mind, the Abraham part of that little tale.

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. If even one Scripture verse disagrees, you need to start all over again. Anyone can, as you point out, twist it to mean anything. That's why Scripture is to be the context. Scripture cannot disagree with itself and it is only by disregarding sections that things like the above can happen. And do happen, sadly.

Indeed. The only way to avoid being misled when relying 100% on a single documentary source for moral/ethical guidance is just as you describe. Any time anyone comes to you with a plan that seems in any way controversial and quotes four or five verses from the Bible to validate it, others must compare his selected verses in his context to the entire document in its context before accepting or rejecting his proposal. That is really the only way to make sure that the person is not selectively cherrypicking support for his agenda.

I cannot imagine that this would not paralyze decision-making with gridlock caused by the delay involved in such examination (which might not actually be a bad thing). But I spent about 12 years working for corporate lawyers, who certainly know how to manipulate documents to support their arguments and get their way, and I have to say that I believe that such total reliance on the words in a document to guide all your decisions still leaves you vulnerable to charlatans and false leaders.

I do not understand why there cannot be certain moral precepts that are agreed upon a priori. For instance, I am told that both the Old and New Testaments contain several prohibitions against violence, killing, and revenge. Why would a few historical references to massacres trump what I would think would be a primary principle? On the one hand you have God saying "Do not kill," and Jesus saying "Blessed are the peacemakers," and so forth. On the other you have reportage saying these ancient military leaders massacred people in these cities at these times, and you have them praising their god as they do it, but do we have a response from the deity?

The physical does not matter in knowing who the Messiah is. Only the spiritual matters.


Which is interesting - because the Hebrew scripture describes Messiah as being a long awaited, but NON-divine earthly prince. A description the Christian perception of Jesus utterly fails to fulfill.


Different metaphors for different roles that He filled.


Metaphors? In the bible?


Not now. You must believe in God as He has revealed Himself. He only revealed Himself through nature and direct revealation to Noah, later through the Law to Moses, and now through the Gospel to us. Each is responsilbe for more: they are required to have faith in more and God's grace will give them that faith.


I'll wait for the next revelation, then.


He does not, though the way in which He deals with Man may change according to His pleasure.


So - sometimes he's an angry god, and sometimes a chirpy one? Sounds strangely human to me.


No, He did not lie; it would be against His nature to do so. The sacrifices of the Hebrews were for their particualr sins. They could not say "I sacrificed, so now I am free to sin as I please." Sacrifice was not an excuse to sin. The point being that you shouldn't be palnning on sinning.

And, Christians can't sacrifice and be 'free to sin as they please', either. Levitical law was so convoluted you were expected to fall foul of it, pretty much all the time... and the sacrifices were your way of saying 'sorry'. It wsn't any more about 'planning on sinning' than the Christian model is considered to be.

Indeed. The only way to avoid being misled when relying 100% on a single documentary source for moral/ethical guidance is just as you describe. Any time anyone comes to you with a plan that seems in any way controversial and quotes four or five verses from the Bible to validate it, others must compare his selected verses in his context to the entire document in its context before accepting or rejecting his proposal. That is really the only way to make sure that the person is not selectively cherrypicking support for his agenda.

I cannot imagine that this would not paralyze decision-making with gridlock caused by the delay involved in such examination (which might not actually be a bad thing). But I spent about 12 years working for corporate lawyers, who certainly know how to manipulate documents to support their arguments and get their way, and I have to say that I believe that such total reliance on the words in a document to guide all your decisions still leaves you vulnerable to charlatans and false leaders.

I do not understand why there cannot be certain moral precepts that are agreed upon a priori. For instance, I am told that both the Old and New Testaments contain several prohibitions against violence, killing, and revenge. Why would a few historical references to massacres trump what I would think would be a primary principle? On the one hand you have God saying "Do not kill," and Jesus saying "Blessed are the peacemakers," and so forth. On the other you have reportage saying these ancient military leaders massacred people in these cities at these times, and you have them praising their god as they do it, but do we have a response from the deity?

You have God's blessing on it, yes. The verses have been quoted several times, though slightly out of context.

Which is interesting - because the Hebrew scripture describes Messiah as being a long awaited, but NON-divine earthly prince. A description the Christian perception of Jesus utterly fails to fulfill.

Umm, I don't see that in the Scriptures.


Metaphors? In the bible?

Yes, it's called symbolism. It is either applied to Scripture to much or not enough.

I'll wait for the next revelation, then.

Why? You are accountable for what has been revealed until now. And God says there will be no further revelation until Jesus' return and then it will be too late.

So - sometimes he's an angry god, and sometimes a chirpy one? Sounds strangely human to me.

Well, we are created in His image. And I didn't mean that His mood changed. I meant that He can decide to change how He deals with Man if He wants to. Or if He wants to deal at all. He's under no obligation to.

And, Christians can't sacrifice and be 'free to sin as they please', either. Levitical law was so convoluted you were expected to fall foul of it, pretty much all the time... and the sacrifices were your way of saying 'sorry'. It wsn't any more about 'planning on sinning' than the Christian model is considered to be.

I never said Christians could. They don't sacrifice lambs, though. And I never said that the sacrificial system was based on planning to sin. I was saying that the sacrificial system was based on the need to repent of individual sins. So by sacrficing before hand, you would be planning to sin. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the sacrifice.

If your "gods" are not god, then your gods are not gods...

To substitute "gods" for god is the act of a silly goofy fool, in my opinion...

You don't follow a god, the SINGULAR god, at all...

That's true. And they're also not "Gods". Only god is a god...

But these "gods" of yours are creations of god, and as such are what god uses to (with all other things in the world) teach us...

You obviously have no conception of what god is for, and as such have no conception of why or whether he should exist or not...

I have no need for your stipulation as to the existence of god...

That is NOT god. :)...

That's not what god does. :)...

God does NOTHING for you...

God explains nothing to you...

God is not interested in hearing from you...

God is not even interested in you hearing from him...


Maybe you just don't understand god?

Umm, I don't see that in the Scriptures.


No. You don't.


Yes, it's called symbolism. It is either applied to Scripture to much or not enough.


And, only you and your buddies get to decide how much is right? Puh-lease...


Why? You are accountable for what has been revealed until now. And God says there will be no further revelation until Jesus' return and then it will be too late.


God also said that the Hebrew laws would remain unchanged...

Either God is wrong, or Christians are. I know where I'd put my money.


I never said Christians could. They don't sacrifice lambs, though. And I never said that the sacrificial system was based on planning to sin. I was saying that the sacrificial system was based on the need to repent of individual sins. So by sacrficing before hand, you would be planning to sin. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the sacrifice.

It isn't a matetr of WHY you don't sacrifice before hand... it's a matter of that not being a Hebrew scripture mechanism at all. And, your own argument is shot in the foot by the fact that Christians DO sacrifice lambs... well, one lamb... and it was VERY much in advance.

Maybe you just don't understand god?
Or maybe you're trying too hard to understand God.

He can't be understood by the ignorant and those who understand God forget the true form of God. God is a force to them that remains from an earlier time when we were still closer to earth and God was little spirits in nature, but because a single form when we evolved into a more compleis species...

No. You don't.

Might that be because it's not there?

And, only you and your buddies get to decide how much is right? Puh-lease...

No, God decides. Can hills have hands that clap? No. So it must be symbolic. And this is confirmed by the fact that it is found in the Psalms. The Psalms are poetry, and guess what? Peotry uses symbolism! As do a lot of stories. We are to read the Bible literally, as the literature it was intended to be: history as history, poetry as poetry, theology as theology, etc.


God also said that the Hebrew laws would remain unchanged...

They were. They were never changed. Some were repealed, but they were never amended.


It isn't a matetr of WHY you don't sacrifice before hand... it's a matter of that not being a Hebrew scripture mechanism at all. And, your own argument is shot in the foot by the fact that Christians DO sacrifice lambs... well, one lamb... and it was VERY much in advance.

Particular versus general. Christ's sacrifice was general. The sacrifices of the Hebrews were particular.

Particularly since isn't lying a sin? Or at least, something that Jesus Wouldn't Do?

Whatever. This incident sickens me, as does Zilam's fanwanking about how feel-goody it made him feel to know that he's One with the Religious Hive Mind.

I mean, maybe if religious people didn't feel the need to lie just to "unify" their followers, there'd be less things like terrorist bombings, or ethnic cleansing, or whathaveyou. But no.

And this is what I talk about. Tsk tsk tsk. It's sad.

Which is the irreconcilable part... because the Hebrew god is totally down with it.


I'm not seeing the irreconcilable part. The "Hebrew god" is a subset of the "Chrisitan god" from a christian perspective.

My personal perspective is that God let us try it without structure, let us free form it from Adam to Abraham.
Some good things happened, but few and far between.
Then God tried to put structure on it and work through the Hebrews and the Law of Moses. Some more good things happened, but we (a liberal use of we) fell in love with the structure and added more structure and lived for the structure instead of where the structure was supposed to take us.
Then God became personally involved using Jesus to instruct, sacrifice, lead by example and get us to put the result as more valuable than the structure.
Some more good things happened, but we have a hard time getting our eyes where God is wanting us to focus, on being loving, peaceful, joyous, self-controlled, temperate, etc people.

If we don't get it soon, I'm almost wondering what God will do next, maybe it will be time to blow the whistle and get everyone out of the pool?


I am not seeing any evidence that 'mankind wasn't getting it'... from what I've been presented, people were capable of being saved by grace if they were 'good', and had to make a sacrifice if they were 'bad'.


Really? You think that people in general were "getting it".
Jesus sure didn't seem to think the religious leadership of his day were getting it.
The Good Samaritan parable would be a pretty good example I think.


The second covenant adds extra controls to the 'saved by grace' bit, but takes care of the 'sacrifice if you are bad' thing... which, now that I think about it, sounds like the perfect way for an heretic sect to distance itself from the spiritual 'powers' of their day...


Are you saying that as a positive or a negative? I can't tell.


Abel being the most beloved thing that Cain had, a sacrifice considered so worthy that Cain was rewarded with immortality?


Err, no.
Abel got the "sacrifice" thing right whereas Cain just had an "offering".
The Cain thing is a different issue than what I was bringing up.


Indeed... or, more specifically to my mind, the Abraham part of that little tale.

Did you reverse your thought then on God changing His plans for man?

If your "gods" are not god, then your gods are not gods.

To substitute "gods" for god is the act of a silly goofy fool, in my opinion.

Of course, that is simply my opinion, and thus there's no need (though perhaps a WANT) to be insulted, unless your into playing the victim.

Are you?
Speaking of victims...

I am so glad you responded to this and that you did it in this way, because after I pointed out your extreme rudeness in my earlier post, the beautiful irony of the situation struck me and I was hoping for a chance to point it out.

This thread was begun with Zilam talking about getting involved with a pastor who spun a victimization fantasy in which US law is used to try to silence Christian worship. During the discussion, several Christians complained about being attacked, insulted and ridiculed for their beliefs by people who are just automatically hostile to any mention or appearance of their religion.

And the minute you see me make reference to a non-Christian set of beliefs, you, with no hesitation at all, jump right in with personal attacks, insults and ridicule of me because of my beliefs and a dismissal of my opinions and questions with the implication that you think that a person with such beliefs is too stupid to comment on such things.

The perfect irony is almost overshadowed by the gold-plated hypocrisy.

I am within my rights to be insulted by your opinion that my religion is silly and goofy, and that I am a fool to believe anything other than what you believe, just as you would be within your rights to be insulted by someone who expressed an opinion that all Christians are crazy, as some people on this forum have done. Your remark was insulting, and I do not believe it was meant to be anything but an insult, and a particularly personal and unprovoked one at that.

I am not surprised by your choice not to apologize for it, however.

Ooops,.. sorry for the punctuational sin! :)



I don't talk down to people, but I do try to seem as smart as possible.

If you felt "talked down to" it's most likely because you see anyone with an opinion that disagrees with yours to be "parent-like", and, as with most juveniles, to be "rebelled against".
And not content with calling me stupid, now you're calling me childish. I would like you to point out anything I did to you to provoke such vicious bitchiness.

Do you actually know of anyone who doesn't try to seem as smart as possible when communicating with other people?
Well, not having actually met you...

You don't follow a god, the SINGULAR god, at all.
TRUE COLORS ALERT:

You are simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of any religion other than your own, it seems.

There really is nothing to say to such bigotry.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I've said to mean that I'm either perfectly right or superior to you. That was CERTAINLY not my intention.
You must have an evil alter ego that takes over your hands while typing, in that case, and says things you don't mean.

Except, of course, that you DO mean to be insulting:

I just think you're a silly goofy fool.

That doesn't mean you can't think of ME as a silly goofy fool.
That is not how I think of you.

..And your line should have been, "TO hell with your rudeness." :)
You are apparently unfamiliar with certain regional idioms. In the Northeast US, we often say "the hell" with this or that. "To hell with" is almost never heard here.

That's true. And they're also not "Gods". Only god is a god.
You are apparently also unfamiliar with standard, non-idiomatic English. Perhaps it's not your first language.

"God" with an upper case G is the name/title of your god, the one Christians, Jews and Muslims worship.

"God" with a lower case G is a simple noun. It is a synonym for "deity" and is not a specific being's name.

Regardless of how convinced you are that your god is the only god, you do not get to redefine the English language to suit your personal beliefs. Gods other than "God" are gods. Period.

Or perhaps, when you discuss the culture of, say, the Greeks or Romans, you have to recite the entire pantheons just to avoid saying the phrase "the gods of the Greeks and Romans." :rolleyes:

Also quite true! See,.. we agree on SO much..!
You are not cute.

But these "gods" of yours are creations of god, and as such are what god uses to (with all other things in the world) teach us.
Many polytheists believe that. It does not negate the fact that "god" (simple noun) is the appropriate word for such beings in English.

This belief is also, as I stated, irrelevant to me, as I do not concern myself with any supreme deity.

You obviously have no conception of what god is for, and as such have no conception of why or whether he should exist or not.
I'm sorry, but piss off. You don't know what I know. You sure don't get to tell me what I know or think. And you also don't get to dictate to me what a god is for.

I have no need for your stipulation as to the existence of god.

And, by the way, when you say that this deity (of mine) is an "all powerful supreme being", you don't describe god as I know him.
I don't care.

What you SEEM to be describing is a big papa guy in the sky who can do whatever he likes at his whim to "play" with the people and material of the world.

That is NOT god. :)
I still don't care.

And that is a lovely thing. I'm sure it's very instructive, if you're "venerating" and "tutelisin" them correctly.

And that's what they're for! They are creations of god that are there for you to learn from.

Good work..!
Kindly take a short break from pissing off, and take a minute to shove your condescending tone up your bigoted ass. :)

See? I can smile while being a bitch, too.

That's not what god does. :)

God does NOTHING for you.

God explains nothing to you.

That is what the world (his creation) is for.
Well, I'm on the right track then, ignoring him and paying attention to what's around me.

God is not interested in hearing from you.
Good.

God is not even interested in you hearing from him, because if you don't, even for your entire life, you'll still be forgiven your sins, because that's the one thing that god DOES do.

Forgive.
Still not caring. You know why? Because it's not my religion, not my god, not my beliefs... :rolleyes:

If you do "do things wrong", god's creation (the world) ha the job of letting you know about it,.. and in your case you may be "informed" of your errors by your "spirits".
You can decide for yourself that everything I experience is just an indirect form of the same thing you experience. You don't get to dictate that to me. My experiences are my experiences, not yours, and you know nothing about them. Everything you have said to explain the truth about my beliefs to me has been nothing but pure fantasy which you have spun wholely out of your own imagination. Cut it out.

You're not a fool because you're a polytheist,.. your a fool ONLY if you call any one of them, or equate them with, god.
Again, please refer to a standard English dictionary for the proper use of the word "god" with a lower case "G." Such basic ignorance saps the meaning out of everything you say.

The point of monotheism is that there is a unifying principle from which all the "things" (creations) of the world come, and in which exists the only (singular) place where there is no factionalism.

Having a "place" where there is no infighting (factional warfare) brings great comfort, and the "nerve" to do in the face of "death".


(( A relief from "existential angst" is the basic reason for religion in general, and monotheism handles that anxiety in the most efficient way possible. ))

SOOO not caring. Guess why. Oh, that's right -- it's not my religion, not my life, not my experience, etc.

In my world, there is no such anxiety. There is no need for "nerve" in the face of "death" because "death" is not a scary thing. And considering that I do not suffer from any "existential angst," I'm guessing my religion resolves any such feelings efficiently enough for me. There probably is no problem with "factionalism" in my life, either, but I won't state so definitively because I don't know what you mean by "factionalism." I'm just guessing it's not an issue because you've been wrong about everything else regarding me, so you're probably wrong about that, too, whatever it is.

So, to sum up what you have taught us today: You are a person who denies not only the validity but also the very existence of other people's beliefs. You arrogantly presume to dictate to them what they believe and what those beliefs mean to them. You make up stories about them rather than ask them questions about themselves. And you do not hesitate to insult them almost continuously while you do all this.

Thank you for that lesson. It is information we all need to have.

And the minute you see me make reference to a non-Christian set of beliefs, you, with no hesitation at all, jump right in with personal attacks, insults and ridicule of me because of my beliefs and a dismissal of my opinions and questions with the implication that you think that a person with such beliefs is too stupid to comment on such things.

If I may, the ideas being promoted by Insignificantia are not anywhere near traditional Chritianity.

You have God's blessing on it, yes. The verses have been quoted several times, though slightly out of context.

Well, then, how do you reconcile the directions against violence with a divine blessing on genocidal war?

Well, then, how do you reconcile the directions against violence with a divine blessing on genocidal war?

There are directions against violence. But there are directions for violence. Most of the directions for violence are given to the civil government to protect or to punish. Some are given to the people, but very few. Things like self-defense.

The directions against violence are all given directly to the people and all speak to malicious intent such as revenge.

If I may, the ideas being promoted by Insignificantia are not anywhere near traditional Chritianity.

And coming from you, that means something! :D


Thanks, by the way, for pointing that out. I knew it. I don't know if Insignificantia knows it.

And coming from you, that means something! :D

Well, I may not be part of popular Christianity, but I'm very traditional.

Thanks, by the way, for pointing that out. I knew it. I don't know if Insignificantia knows it.

I think he knows it and is just being difficult about it. But gotta love his persistence.

I don't recall ever mentioning the word 'soviet' or 'Lenin', in any capacity.

How can I be linking them, when I have entirely failed to mention half the things you say I linked? DO you not see - it is your own interpretation of what I mean, that is flawed? You have entirely leaped to a collection of conclusions I never stated, and hold them up as the 'flaw in my argument'.

I also mentioned nothing about taxation or tithing. I'm more thinking of what Jesus is supposed to have SAID during his ministry. Again - you suggest I am 'intentionally obfuscating' the issue... with issues you have JUST introduced... I never mentioned them. Who is deliberately obfuscating, now?

Yes you did, perhaps you didn't mean to imply linking them, but you most certainly did when you used words to convey what I identified before. I'll show you, here:
Jesus was a communist.
He preached community, communal living, sharing of resources. He made those of his men that were fit to certain tasks perform them, and took from each as they were able to give... rewarding according to need.

Textbook communist.
...
The beatitudes, especially, read like an idealised chapter from a communist manifesto.

This clearly shows that it was not me who invent the definition, you linked the idea of Christ's words with twentieth century soviet communism and Leninism’s, if you did not mean communist, you could have stopped after using words like communal sharing and communal living, but you chose to use a political party name, you’re then stuck with it’s definition....

I think if you did not intend to link the two in the minds of the reader of your posts, you should have picked your words more carefully. But instead of admitting that you might have made a mistake, if you did not intend to mean the actual communist manifesto when you called it a communist manifesto, you should have simply said so instead of trying to pretend that you never said it, when you did. I was NOT the one that created the idea of linking them. It’s incredulous that you would accuse me of such.

I can't think of a single case where Jesus advocated exploiting anyone else, making gain while other's lose, or accruing material possessions to oneself.

Indeed, from what I can see, he preached exactly the opposite... a generosity, a sharing with the world... even going so far as to advocate divesting oneself of wealth and possessions.

Neither can I think of an instance where that happened. Perhaps this is WHY I called your BS on it, on your accusation in the first place, your accusation that Christ advocated Communism. The Communist Manifesto dictates that we TAKE the money from the rich, by force if necessary, and redistribute it to the poor. Killing the rich and powerful if they resist, for the good of society. Christ did NOT advocate that we take anything from anyone, he said give our own stuff away, and encouraged us to tell others to do the same. Nothing at all like the communist manifesto you said he sounded like.



I think, perhaps, you are unable to step outside of the modern consumer culture. Let us look at an example: One man has a hundred cows, and another man needs a cow. What do you think Jesus would say?

Who really 'owns' those cows, anyway?

I do not think that Jesus would tell the third person, who happened to be walking past this story of yours as it happened, to go and steal the rich man's cow to give it to the poor man. Not unless the rich man was a thief who first stole the cow from the poor man to begin with.

But whatever Jesus would say, I doubt very much that it would be for us to, "go take 99 of the rich man's cows by force of arms and give them to ninety nine families that don't have any cows and then tell the once rich man to NOT protest or else we will consider him an enemy of the state," such as the communist manifesto would have had us do, and as YOU said Jesus would subscribe to. Jesus would certainly have not told us to do that.

Given that everything is a gift of a benevolent creator... is the selfish accrual of those gifts more in line with the scripture... or the sharing of those gifts with those in need?

I agree. It would be better for us if we did not accrue wealth at all, if we follow what Jesus preached during his time with the apostles. We would share our wealth as we accrue it, saving nothing. But we wouldn’t raid our neighbor’s barn to feed the poor either, and neither would we withhold the jar of expensive oil from being ‘wasted’ on Jesus head when the opportunity presents itself (we can keep riches for the occasions as they occur, provided we don’t place value on them ourselves. Jesus did not protest the oil hair treatment he received and even more than that, he rebuked those that protested the oil being poured on his head as they said the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor, but he told them they would always have the poor, that he would be with them only a short time. Jesus attended parties [weddings etc.,] that cost money to host, he did NOT protest it as a waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Jesus said to trust in God for our needs, he didn't say we should deny our needs, money is the root of evil but it is not itself the evil).


My opinion is that you rely on Traditions for your interpretation of scripture. Maybe you don't call it that, but you constantly represent the scripture as an 'everyone knows that' issue. Where is the discernment? Where is the inspiration by the spirit?

The spirit is with us all, and I do NOT believe that the spirit was silent during past generations nor assume that the people that came before us were incapable of hearing the spirit with God's inspiration, like you seem to assume, suggesting that your new and unique interpretations are somehow discernment of a spirit you deny to even exist. How can you claim inspiration by the spirit when you think the Christian spirit is a false message?

I have no confidence in biblical interpretation because someone said it was so. If you don't like how I read the scripture... well, I don't like how you read it. indeed, I would argue you DON'T read it... you just accept someone else's 'reading' of it.

If I just accept someone else’s reading of it, you simply invent your own version of it as you go along...

The spirit does speak to us and has not been silent for the last two thousand years, your interpretations are unique, your sums at the end of your equations are different than all of the other answers for a reason. The reason your sums are different is because they are incorrect calculations.

We are to test the spirits, those that proclaim Jesus came in the flesh from God for our redemption, these spirits are the spirits from God. Those spirits that claim Jesus did NOT come in the flesh are spirits that are not from God. Your words are a spirit that says Jesus is not from God…

1 John 4
2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

1 John 5
1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

Good Gravy. Some of us have to work. How do you expect us to read 10 pages every time we sign on?

Good Gravy. Some of us have to work. How do you expect us to read 10 pages every time we sign on?
Keep up from work and respond when you get home...

This clearly shows that it was not me who invent the definition, you linked the idea of Christ's words with twentieth century soviet communism and Leninism’s,

No, he linked Jesus's words to a 19th Century political theory. He said nothing about soviet communism or Leninism.

if you did not mean communist, you could have stopped after using words like communal sharing and communal living, but you chose to use a political party name, you’re then stuck with it’s definition....

"Communist" by itself is not a political party (though there have been political parties with "communist" in the name), it is a theory.

Incidently, what political party are you thinking of?

I think if you did not intend to link the two in the minds of the reader of your posts, you should have picked your words more carefully.

He picked his words fine. It isn't his fault you automatically think USSR when you see communist written down to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Neither can I think of an instance where that happened. Perhaps this is WHY I called your BS on it, on your accusation in the first place, your accusation that Christ advocated Communism. The Communist Manifesto dictates that we TAKE the money from the rich, by force if necessary, and redistribute it to the poor. Killing the rich and powerful if they resist, for the good of society.

It does no such thing.

Or maybe you're trying too hard to understand God.

He can't be understood by the ignorant and those who understand God forget the true form of God. God is a force to them that remains from an earlier time when we were still closer to earth and God was little spirits in nature, but because a single form when we evolved into a more compleis species...

Maybe I try too hard, or the other poster?

I'm not trying to define what god is, and fit him/her/it into a box I comprehend, limited by my own ideas of what god 'is' and 'can be'. I'm setting no rules. I'm not trying to impose 'human' absolutes on the 'nature' of god.

Given that God cannot be 'measured' or 'observed', anyone who claims to know anything concrete is setting himself/herself up for a fall.

No, he linked Jesus's words to a 19th Century political theory. He said nothing about soviet communism or Leninism.

"Communist" by itself is not a political party (1) (though there have been political parties with "communist" in the name), it is a theory.

Incidently, what political party are you thinking of?

He picked his words fine. It isn't his fault you automatically think USSR when you see communist (see 1 and 2) written down to the exclusion of all other possibilities.



It does no such thing. (3)

Lets go through this is order...

1: Communist by itself IS a politcal party:
Communist Party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/
Communist Party of Canada
http://www.communist-party.ca/
Communist Party of Britain
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

2:Communist definition, as per Merriam Webster

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: -nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized

3: Communist Manifesto (chapter 4)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.



Looks like you were wrong on all accounts.

May I suggest reading

ACTS 5----Pure Communism, God killed those that didn't give all.

There are directions against violence. But there are directions for violence. Most of the directions for violence are given to the civil government to protect or to punish. Some are given to the people, but very few. Things like self-defense.

The directions against violence are all given directly to the people and all speak to malicious intent such as revenge.
Well, it seems to me that that leaves you with no first principles. There is nothing that God simply will not allow or approve. Everything is a "check with me" situation. There is no lesson that you can learn and then go forward in your life with the knowledge of it without having to go back to square one every time a controversial subject comes up. It seems to me that this leaves Christians in a rather undefined state, if you know what I mean by that.

It also still leaves us at the point of my question. How can you tell whether a person is telling you the truth or not when they say their call for genocide is just according to the Bible? If there are verses allowing people to do violence, and a person calling for violence presents those verses in support of their call, how do you know they are not simply lying to you about their motivations or their relationship with God, in order to get their way.

What are the foundation principles that guide your efforts to reconcile the verses and decide which ones legitimately apply to any given situation?

Well, I may not be part of popular Christianity, but I'm very traditional.



I think he knows it and is just being difficult about it. But gotta love his persistence.

Do we gotta? Really?

May I suggest reading

ACTS 5----Pure Communism, God killed those that didn't give all.

Actually, Ananias and his wife were killed for lying, not for not giving all that they had. They attempted to gain the church members respect by pretending to sell property and give it to the church. As others had done and gained some share or community respect and honor (intentionally or not, they become ‘stars’ in the community. As Joseph, a Levite fro Cyprus did.

Acts 4
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

But afterwards, other people wanted to pretend to emulate that type of selfless giving, and attempted to fake it. Saying they would give the money from the sale of a property and then not actually do it. Sort of like faking a donation to the church so you can lie on your tax return… The church never told Ananias that he had to sell his property at all and even afterwards the money was his to keep if he wished, as is said to him… “it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?”… Ananias lied and tried to steal undeserved respect and honor by pretending to do something that was hard to do and deceiving everyone among the community members.

Acts 5
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
The story is not a story about giving all you have to the church. It is about not pretending to be someone you are not AND not lying to people to emulate your behavior and gain undeserved ‘stardom,’ so to speak, from society at large.

Do we gotta? Really?
Only if you're a Christian and not a hell-bound, Godless heathen like you... :p ...hmn... include me in that as well. HELL HERE WE COME!!

Lets go through this is order...

1: Communist by itself IS a politcal party:
Communist Party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/
Communist Party of Canada
http://www.communist-party.ca/
Communist Party of Britain
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

2:Communist definition, as per Merriam Webster

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: -nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized

3: Communist Manifesto (chapter 4)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Looks like you were wrong on all accounts.

If you want to debate dictionary definitions, that's fine by me...

com·mu·nism (From thefreedictionary.com)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

(From wikipedia)
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

communism (From askoxford.com)

• noun 1 a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Face it pal, Jesus was a communist by the unbiased definition of communism. Communism, as a political ideology, has been used to justify unspeakable crimes, but in its original base forms it was a system based on communal cooperation and direct democracy.

If you want to debate dictionary definitions, that's fine by me...

com·mu·nism (From thefreedictionary.com)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
...

Communism isn't the word being discussed. Jesus was called a communist. A chapter out of a communist manifesto, and a textbook communist.

What you are trying to do is like trying to define what a Republican is by looking up the definitions of Republic. You will not get the correct definition that way.

Communism isn't the word being discussed. Jesus was called a communist. A chapter out of a communist manifesto, and a textbook communist.

What you are trying to do is like trying to define what a Republican is by looking up the definitions of Republic. You will not get the correct definition that way.

Well, i think it would follow that a communist is someone who identifies with the ideology of communism, in its various form. I'm sorry that you are too wrapped in Cold War jingoism to make the huge logical leap. If you were to ask people who identify themselves as communists, nine out of ten of them would say that Soviet "communism" was the worst thing to ever happen to the ideology.

Jesus was a communist. Not a Leninist-Stalinist Bolshevik bureaucratic collectivists; he is someone in word and deed very similar to the non Marxist communists.

Well, i think it would follow that a communist is someone who identifies with the ideology of communism, in its various form. I'm sorry that you are too wrapped in Cold War jingoism to make the huge logical leap. If you were to ask people who identify themselves as communists, nine out of ten of them would say that Soviet "communism" was the worst thing to ever happen to the ideology.

Jesus was a communist. Not a Leninist-Stalinist Bolshevik bureaucratic collectivists; he is someone in word and deed very similar to the non Marxist communists.

Matthew 25
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
According to this story, one which Jesus himself endorsed by telling it himself, Jesus must be a capitalist who favors the idea of investments for profit. In the end of this story, the master, goes so far as to take money from the Poor and gives it the Rich! That is NOT communism. The exact opposite of a communist…

Matthew 25
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
According to this story, one which Jesus himself endorsed by telling it himself, Jesus must be a capitalist who favors the idea of investments for profit. In the end of this story, the master, goes so far as to take money from the Poor and gives it the Rich! That is NOT communism. The exact opposite of a communist…

So now we have biblical inconsistency... In some passages, he's a communist. In others, he's a capitalist. So what is the end conclusion...

The Bible was written by powerful men to serve the interests of powerful men. It is full of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

So now we have biblical inconsistency... In some passages, he's a communist. In others, he's a capitalist. So what is the end conclusion...

The Bible was written by powerful men to serve the interests of powerful men. It is full of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Ah, Now I see. So long as your agenda is being endorsed by the words spoken in scripture, you are all in favor of acknowledging the scripture as a great and meaningful asset. The moment it is turned, you call it useless and full of lies. :rolleyes:

Ah, Now I see. So long as your agenda is being endorsed by the words spoken in scripture, you are all in favor of acknowledging the scripture as a great and meaningful asset. The moment it is turned, you call it useless and full of lies. :rolleyes:

He never did call it good. He just called Jesus a communist.
Which he was, by the way.

Only if you're a Christian and not a hell-bound, Godless heathen like you... :p ...hmn... include me in that as well. HELL HERE WE COME!!

Would yall like to come decorate your handbaskets with me? :p

He never did call it good. He just called Jesus a communist.
Which he was, by the way.

Do you have a verse or story that backs up that statement? I've shown one that makes Jesus look like stock-broker with a quota and an 'I won't accept no for an answer' attitude...

Where is the story of Jesus saying Heaven was like perfect sameness for everyone, no rich and no poor?

Only if you're a Christian and not a hell-bound, Godless heathen like you... :p ...hmn... include me in that as well. HELL HERE WE COME!!

Yeah, baby! We are comin' down, so they better get the party started. :D

Would yall like to come decorate your handbaskets with me? :p

The more the merrier. :)

Acts 4
[indent]32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.




Thanks for throwing in this verse. Pure Communism. Case Closed.

Thanks for throwing in this verse. Pure Communism. Case Closed.

THAT is the problem with people trying to convert Jesus' words into promoting their personal political and or social-economic positions...they are ALWAYS wrong and limiting in which quotes they accept…

If the NT wants us to be communists, why didn't they just tell the rich to give ALL their money to the church so they aren't rich anymore?....

But no, they didn't do that. Instead, they told the rich how to act if they were rich, it never says they shouldn't be rich (although Jesus does say it's hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, all things are possible with God)...The NT never even tells a slave master/owner, read that again, the NT never even bothers to tell a slave owner to let his slaves go free. You think now that Jesus message can be truthfully portrayed as promoting one socio-economic theology over another? I think not.

But here, directions for the rich, straight from the NT.

1 Timothy 6
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

And sure, Okay, YOU (and others here) you think Jesus preached free communal liberty for the poor as a socio-economic advice from heaven itself? I don't think so…

28" 'Take the talent from him (him being the poorest one in the story) and give it to the one who has the ten talents (the richest one in the story). 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

THAT does NOT convey the message of liberty through communism.

Perhaps, rather, Jesus wasn't a communist NOR a capitalist. It is far MORE likely that Jesus simply didn’t care about such trivialities and instead simply wanted to convey to us a route, a direction, to finding our way to God’s kingdom, through him. Capitalism or Communism, Jesus doesn't likely care one way or the other, provided the route to God's kingdom was not or would not be hindered by such definitions of his followers.

If the NT wants us to be communists, why didn't they just tell the rich to give ALL their money to the church so they aren't rich anymore?....


Mat 19:21
Mark 10:21
Luke 14:13
Luke 19:18
Luke 3:11

Mat 19:21
Mark 10:21
Luke 14:13
Luke 19:18
Luke 3:11

Unlike what you think, these verses do NOT convey a message of pro communisim. I will address them each.

Mat 19:21
Mark 10:21
These two verses are not a promotion of communism, they are a promotion of destitutism. “21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (mat, 19:21, and the other verse is the same message from a different gospel), Jesus here is saying, you should be destitute (no money at all, like a street person), with no income or money whatsoever. Dependant on God and charity alone, and NOT dependant on the government for your sustenance either, or that would be like cheating. The exact opposite of communism. Communism thinks every person should depend on and feed off of the state for all of their needs... Jesus said the ‘best’ people are prophets and matures that will agree to being the poorest and the most destitute of us (by this verse translation)… This lesson would mean NOTHING if they were then fed by their communist government… Obviously Jesus intended for us to think of these ‘martyrs” as sacrificing something. They would be sacrificing nothing if they were fed and clothed and housed for free by the communist system, then giving away their money and goods would be an meaningless gesture! Obviously this is NOT a verse that is talking about communism.

Luke 14:13
I’ll add, it says, “13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,” And NONE of this verse says that it isn’t directed at the likes of Bill Gates, and other rich people. When they have parties, they should invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. And you know what, the very rich DO have entire institutions devoted to giving their monies away to the poor the needy causes through their personal charities. This verse is NOT about communism.

Luke 19:18
Are you kidding? The verse is one of the verses I already quoted about making interest on investments! It’s about making 5 more mina. This verse is nothing about communism.

Luke 3:11 I will quote the verse… “11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

So, this is a verse about giving out ‘extras’ our above and beyond requirements, to the charities. Instead of throwing away our excess clothes, we are to give it to the goodwill and the red cross, if we have extra food, give it to the food shelf. This verse is NOT about communism.

Lets go through this is order...

1: Communist by itself IS a politcal party:
Communist Party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/
Communist Party of Canada
http://www.communist-party.ca/
Communist Party of Britain
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

No if "communist" could soley be used to describe a party then those organisations wouldn't have to add (frex) "party of Great Britain" after it. Do you believe all communists are members of a political party?

2:Communist definition, as per Merriam Webster

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: -nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized

You ignored definition 1.

You linked communist with sovietism and Leninism, I see nothing in the definitions wou gave that support your leap of reason. Especially since "an adherent or advocate of communism" is definition 1 and that GnI never capitalised communist.

3: Communist Manifesto (chapter 4)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

I don't see redistribution mentioned anywhere there.

T
1 Timothy 6

Timothy isn't Jesus

Timothy isn't Jesus

Jesus tells people they should be generous when they have money.

Luke 16
9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.


And Jesus tells people to give their wealth away and build riches in Heaven instead of here on earth…

Which part of Jesus message is advocated in the communist manifesto or ‘textbook communist’ handbooks? None of it.

Jesus’ message is not about any socio-economic system here on Earth at all, it is about finding our way to God and an eternal and true life with him in paradise. Communism does NOT advocate the same message as Jesus and the NT, it does not advocate building riches in heaven by giving our money to the poor, and Jesus did NOT advance communism by saying become poor ourselves or at least be generous to the poor with our money. How then does any of this make Jesus a communist? It does not.

You can continue your debate with the meaningless minutiae of “if a letter in a forum post is capitalized or not," etc., but communist manifesto and textbook communist are words do not have to be capitalized in a forum post to change their meaning in any significant way… we know what they mean.

Are you kidding? The verse is one of the verses I already quoted about making interest on investments! It’s about making 5 more mina. This verse is nothing about communism.

I will quote the verse… “11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."


mistyped LK 19:8




“11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

If this (and all of the others people have given you) isn't communism it is certainly socialism.

mistyped LK 19:8

“11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

If this (and all of the others people have given you) isn't communism it is certainly socialism.

One does not have to be a communist NOR a Socialist to be a Philanthropist. Jesus telling people to give their money to the needy is regardless of what type of socio-economic system they believe in or live in... Individual philanthropy is Jesus' directive, NOT how a government should be run.

And by the way, no one else has produced a verse that shows Jesus to be a communist either. There isn't any and all of the others people have given you stuff to be mentioned. I have been quoting verses and you have referred to a few. But they don’t show what you thought they would.

For people joining in at page 57...

We started out discussing the lack of intelligence behind the pastor's choice to lie to his congreation and how some felt it was a test of faith. We moved onto listening to a Calvinist tell us how we're screwed no matter what and how we're all going to hell except for a select few, and now Jesus is a communist...

Now you may post.

We moved onto listening to a Calvinist tell us how we're screwed no matter what and how we're all going to hell except for a select few

You know you love me anyway. :p

I'm not seeing the irreconcilable part. The "Hebrew god" is a subset of the "Chrisitan god" from a christian perspective.


Whereas, the Christian 'god' is an idol, an impossibility, and a blasphemous heresy from the Jewish perspective.


My personal perspective is that God let us try it without structure, let us free form it from Adam to Abraham.
Some good things happened, but few and far between.
Then God tried to put structure on it and work through the Hebrews and the Law of Moses. Some more good things happened, but we (a liberal use of we) fell in love with the structure and added more structure and lived for the structure instead of where the structure was supposed to take us.
Then God became personally involved using Jesus to instruct, sacrifice, lead by example and get us to put the result as more valuable than the structure.
Some more good things happened, but we have a hard time getting our eyes where God is wanting us to focus, on being loving, peaceful, joyous, self-controlled, temperate, etc people.

If we don't get it soon, I'm almost wondering what God will do next, maybe it will be time to blow the whistle and get everyone out of the pool?


I believe, the commonly held conception is that he pointed out that Jesus was a prophet, not Messiah... and laid down the true course of scripture.


Really? You think that people in general were "getting it".
Jesus sure didn't seem to think the religious leadership of his day were getting it.
The Good Samaritan parable would be a pretty good example I think.


You think that 'people in general' are 'getting it' now? No - only those who have been fortunate enough to have encountered the new restriction, and ignore enough of the irreconcilable dichotomies to be able to swallow it.


Are you saying that as a positive or a negative? I can't tell.


Not as either.... it had only just occured to me what a perfect technique it would be for a heretical cult (whether 'truer' or less true than the original faith) to identify itself separately. If the Christian scenario IS a false artifact, it is a cleverly engineered division that they conceived.


Err, no.
Abel got the "sacrifice" thing right whereas Cain just had an "offering".
The Cain thing is a different issue than what I was bringing up.


You read it your way. When I read the scripture, the idea of sacrificing that which is most dear to you is about the MOST common theme... sons or brothers, especially... and I can't think of any other incident where the 'sinner' is 'punished' with immortality.

So - I'm left in the position of looking at what STRONGLY resembles an older story, partly retooled.


Did you reverse your thought then on God changing His plans for man?

No. I was just pointing out that God comes along with his little plan, drops in on Abraham for some advice, and sets out with a different agenda.

Yes you did, perhaps you didn't mean to imply linking them, but you most certainly did when you used words to convey what I identified before. I'll show you, here:


Not only did I not 'mean' to link the thinks you are saying are linked... I actually didn't link them. You did, from your own artifact creation of what you THINK I might have said.


This clearly shows that it was not me who invent the definition, you linked the idea of Christ's words with twentieth century soviet communism and Leninism’s, if you did not mean communist, you could have stopped after using words like communal sharing and communal living, but you chose to use a political party name, you’re then stuck with it’s definition....


No - I linked the idea of Christ's words with the concept of communism. I reiterate, I invoked neither Lenin nor the soviet agenda of the former USSR.

Did I use a political party name? I believe I carefully avoided capitalising the term... but, regardless - the Republican party of the USA is a 'conservative' group. Does that mean they are THE Conservative Party, as evidenced in UK politics?

No - because sometimes a word is more than just a name. SOmetimes it means something also.


I think if you did not intend to link the two in the minds of the reader of your posts, you should have picked your words more carefully. But instead of admitting that you might have made a mistake, if you did not intend to mean the actual communist manifesto when you called it a communist manifesto, you should have simply said so instead of trying to pretend that you never said it, when you did. I was NOT the one that created the idea of linking them. It’s incredulous that you would accuse me of such.


On the contrary - you have confused the issue by ADDING to what I wrote.

Did I say "the communist manifesto"? No - I said a communist manifesto... indeed I invoked an 'idealised' version, if you check my wording. There have been a number of 'communist manifestoes'. It is not my fault you immediately defaulted to an interpretation I didn't suggest.

I didn't 'admit to making a mistake'... because I clearly didn't.


Neither can I think of an instance where that happened. Perhaps this is WHY I called your BS on it, on your accusation in the first place, your accusation that Christ advocated Communism. The Communist Manifesto dictates that we TAKE the money from the rich, by force if necessary, and redistribute it to the poor. Killing the rich and powerful if they resist, for the good of society. Christ did NOT advocate that we take anything from anyone, he said give our own stuff away, and encouraged us to tell others to do the same. Nothing at all like the communist manifesto you said he sounded like.


I am not talking about The Communist Manifesto. I don't remember ever advocating an enforced redistribution. I believe you are conflating what you WANT 'communist' to mean, with what I said.


I do not think that Jesus would tell the third person, who happened to be walking past this story of yours as it happened, to go and steal the rich man's cow to give it to the poor man. Not unless the rich man was a thief who first stole the cow from the poor man to begin with.

But whatever Jesus would say, I doubt very much that it would be for us to, "go take 99 of the rich man's cows by force of arms and give them to ninety nine families that don't have any cows and then tell the once rich man to NOT protest or else we will consider him an enemy of the state," such as the communist manifesto would have had us do, and as YOU said Jesus would subscribe to. Jesus would certainly have not told us to do that.


All irrelevent. It neither answers the question, nor addresses any of the points I have made. You are creating a McCarthyist strawman, and pretending to find it under the bed.


I agree. It would be better for us if we did not accrue wealth at all, if we follow what Jesus preached during his time with the apostles. We would share our wealth as we accrue it, saving nothing. But we wouldn’t raid our neighbor’s barn to feed the poor either, and neither would we withhold the jar of expensive oil from being ‘wasted’ on Jesus head when the opportunity presents itself (we can keep riches for the occasions as they occur, provided we don’t place value on them ourselves. Jesus did not protest the oil hair treatment he received and even more than that, he rebuked those that protested the oil being poured on his head as they said the oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor, but he told them they would always have the poor, that he would be with them only a short time. Jesus attended parties [weddings etc.,] that cost money to host, he did NOT protest it as a waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Jesus said to trust in God for our needs, he didn't say we should deny our needs, money is the root of evil but it is not itself the evil).


I don't believe he actually said that 'money' is the root of all evil, either. I think he said something else... perhaps this is the part where you and I diverge, and the reason you deny what Jesus was meaning for us.


The spirit is with us all, and I do NOT believe that the spirit was silent during past generations nor assume that the people that came before us were incapable of hearing the spirit with God's inspiration, like you seem to assume, suggesting that your new and unique interpretations are somehow discernment of a spirit you deny to even exist. How can you claim inspiration by the spirit when you think the Christian spirit is a false message?


I'm not claiming inspiration. I am claiming that you, as a BELIEVER, should be reading the scripture with spiritual discernment as your guide, rather than the teachings of the post-messianic Pharisees. I believe that accepting the 'traditional' meanings of the scripture is contrary to the message recorded as coming from Jesus.


If I just accept someone else’s reading of it, you simply invent your own version of it as you go along...

The spirit does speak to us and has not been silent for the last two thousand years, your interpretations are unique, your sums at the end of your equations are different than all of the other answers for a reason. The reason your sums are different is because they are incorrect calculations.

We are to test the spirits, those that proclaim Jesus came in the flesh from God for our redemption, these spirits are the spirits from God. Those spirits that claim Jesus did NOT come in the flesh are spirits that are not from God. Your words are a spirit that says Jesus is not from God…

1 John 4
2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

1 John 5
1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

I 'invent' nothing. I read the scripture, and I find something different from what you find. Perhaps I am wrong - but at least I'm making my OWN mistakes. If you are 'wrong', you are the blind follower of thousands of years of wrong interpretations.

If there is a god, I think he/she/it would rather have been genuinely sought, rather than paid lipservice to, through blind obedience to the protestations of men.

Lets go through this is order...

1: Communist by itself IS a politcal party:
Communist Party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/
Communist Party of Canada
http://www.communist-party.ca/
Communist Party of Britain
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/


You say "Communist by itself IS a political party"... and then you introduce three examples of something CLEARLY entitled as Parties, in their names.

I did not 'capitalise' communism. I am referring to an economic/production model. It is you who is hooked on me meaning a party.


2:Communist definition, as per Merriam Webster

Main Entry: com·mu·nist
Pronunciation: -nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized


First definition means an adherent or advocate of communism... and yet, you skip over the firt TWO most common definitions, to try to imply I mean something else.


3: Communist Manifesto (chapter 4)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.



Looks like you were wrong on all accounts.

And then, you pull a specific reference to ONE 'communist manifesto', as though it is somehow representative of ALL ideals held by ALL communists.

Looks like you were wrong on all accounts.

Communism isn't the word being discussed. Jesus was called a communist. A chapter out of a communist manifesto, and a textbook communist.

What you are trying to do is like trying to define what a Republican is by looking up the definitions of Republic. You will not get the correct definition that way.

Actually - that is about the ONLY way you can find out what a republican is. It might not work if you were talking about THE Republican Party - which makes this particularly relevent.

Communism IS one of the words being discussed. Jesus WAS a communist - in as much as he practised AND preached communism. I didn't say he WAS a "chapter out of a communist manifesto"... I said the beatitudes did.... and I didn't specify THE Communist Manifesto... I spoke of idealism.. As for 'textbook communist'... I'm not sure if you are trying to imply there actually IS a 'communist textbook', or if you just failed to realise that 'textbook' would be another way of saying 'classic' or 'definitive'.

Matthew 25
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
According to this story, one which Jesus himself endorsed by telling it himself, Jesus must be a capitalist who favors the idea of investments for profit. In the end of this story, the master, goes so far as to take money from the Poor and gives it the Rich! That is NOT communism. The exact opposite of a communist…

I think you missed the point of the story.

This isn't a story about earthly wealth.

Whereas, the Christian 'god' is an idol, an impossibility, and a blasphemous heresy from the Jewish perspective.


Perhaps to some, but then, the Christian faith was begun by Jews that were followers of a Jew.
That makes it improper to use the term impossibility I think.
Clearly though many of their contemporary religious leaders believed it a blaspemous heresy.


I believe, the commonly held conception is that he pointed out that Jesus was a prophet, not Messiah... and laid down the true course of scripture.


Commonly held by whom? I'm not certain we're on the same wavelength here.


You think that 'people in general' are 'getting it' now? No - only those who have been fortunate enough to have encountered the new restriction, and ignore enough of the irreconcilable dichotomies to be able to swallow it.


No, not really I don't think that people in general are getting it now, I'm rather ashamed of many of my "brothers" in faith and almost every institution, but I do believe there are many fewer restrictions and the opportunity for grace where before there was Law and because of that grace, more are getting it than before.
I don't believe in any irreconcilable dichotomies.


Not as either.... it had only just occured to me what a perfect technique it would be for a heretical cult (whether 'truer' or less true than the original faith) to identify itself separately. If the Christian scenario IS a false artifact, it is a cleverly engineered division that they conceived.


Fair enough, I can agree with that.


You read it your way. When I read the scripture, the idea of sacrificing that which is most dear to you is about the MOST common theme... sons or brothers, especially... and I can't think of any other incident where the 'sinner' is 'punished' with immortality.

So - I'm left in the position of looking at what STRONGLY resembles an older story, partly retooled.


You can read many stories in mulitple ways, but I was referring to a specific element of the Abel story, his sacrifice of the first fruits of the flocks, not his murder at his brother's hand.


No. I was just pointing out that God comes along with his little plan, drops in on Abraham for some advice, and sets out with a different agenda.

But that's the opposite of what you were saying. You were saying that God wouldn't change divine plans for mortal man.

I think you missed the point of the story.

This isn't a story about earthly wealth.
You don’t think so? Then how about this one. Plainly this story is not told from the point of view of a communist.

Luke 19
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'


22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

That’s not a story advocating a communist agenda. Not when Jesus himself is the rich prince to be crowned king…

... Jesus WAS a communist - in as much as he practised AND preached communism. ...

As you keep trying to say, but you’ve yet to show actual verses of Jesus advocating a communist outlook. Perhaps you are confused about how someone can be a philanthropist humanitarian and not be a communist at the same time?

For people joining in at page 57...

We started out discussing the lack of intelligence behind the pastor's choice to lie to his congreation and how some felt it was a test of faith. We moved onto listening to a Calvinist tell us how we're screwed no matter what and how we're all going to hell except for a select few, and now Jesus is a communist...

Now you may post.

THANK YOU!

i was off this thread for a couple days (and to make it worse i was looking at it on another computer!) and i was utterly lost.

now im found thanks to you!

poor pootwaddle seems to think that if jesus was a communist that means he would have been a sniper for the russian army in the seige of stalingrad.

no jesus cant be a COMMUNIST because communism didnt exist as a philosophy before the 19th century.

yes jesus espoused many of the more enlightened ideas behind communism. eye of the needle, eh?

And he still hasnt said whether or not he'd go off with the CPT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Maybe you just don't understand god?

Or maybe you're trying too hard to understand God.

He can't be understood by the ignorant and those who understand God forget the true form of God. God is a force to them that remains from an earlier time when we were still closer to earth and God was little spirits in nature, but because a single form when we evolved into a more compleis species...

God, to me, is not a "force from an earlier time". God is an existant THING, an IMPOSSIBLE thing but a thing nontheless, that has a function in the world, and is useful.

The concept of god, the actual god, did NOT arise from the "coalescence" of the little spirits of nature (of the aspects of "the world").

God came about as a direct contradistinction to those "spirits".

The NEED to find a "quiet place", a "cosmic axis", a non-contentious "something" on which to "hang the universe" has always been, and will always be, a requisite for the human mind.

Those who have found the simple fact that there is such a THING if you simply let there be one, can call god anything they like, but they've found what they inherently need to make the world a sensible place.

Rotating an apple around an axis creates the axis.

The axis has no "physicality", but is no less real.

When you cease rotating the apple, the axis no longer exists, but if you wish to rotate the apple again you create another axis, seemingly magically out of nothing.

Being alive (rotating the apple) creates god (the axis).

God has no physicality, but is no less real.

Not living (ceasing rotation) allows god to become irrelevant (no more axis), but simply being alive will always create god.

The question is not WHETHER you have an axis (whether your existence creates god, or "the existence of god"), but only whether you admit to the axis being there, AS THE AXIS (as the non-physical god).

You certainly don't NEED to admit that it's there, and it really doesn't care whether you admit it or not, but eventually you'll come to the realization that it does exist, and performs a necessary function, and that you've been using it FOR that function without realizing it, and that realization will bring you great comfort (as realizing ANY great truth does),..

..and it will "forgive and accept" you, simply by it's singular nature to "be realized and appreciated as a (the) great truth", and give you strength to carry on in a world that SEEMS composed of nothing but fractious competition but which in reality has a "calm center" (while ALSO being filled with fractious competition).

God is simply the object of realization that gives a positive answer to the question, "Why bother?"

Perhaps to some, but then, the Christian faith was begun by Jews that were followers of a Jew.
That makes it improper to use the term impossibility I think.
Clearly though many of their contemporary religious leaders believed it a blaspemous heresy.


No - just because a radical minority believes some bizarre aberrant version of a long established religion, that doesn't 'invalidate' the long-established 'rules' of the former faith.

Branch Davidians don't redefine Christianity. Mormons don't redefine Christianity. Indeed - as far as I can tell, Christians look at things like the LDS church, and consider it heretical and false, based on the teachings the 'original' faith accepts.

Which is - of course - the exact same situation we would have seen with the nascent Christian church, 2000 years ago.

It isn't just a 'contemporary' matter, either. Those who adhere strictly to the Hebrew text STILL consider Christianity to be blasphemous idol-worship.


Commonly held by whom? I'm not certain we're on the same wavelength here.


By Muslims, obviously. If you are going to accept the idea of an 'updatable' religion, you have to accept that Islam establishes itself as then'correction' of the errors of the Judeo-Christian concepts that went before.


No, not really I don't think that people in general are getting it now, I'm rather ashamed of many of my "brothers" in faith and almost every institution, but I do believe there are many fewer restrictions and the opportunity for grace where before there was Law and because of that grace, more are getting it than before.
I don't believe in any irreconcilable dichotomies.


Of course you don't. You wouldn't.

How can you see it as 'fewer restrictions', when there is now at least ONE extra element that wasn't previously there? One further 'stumbling block'?


You can read many stories in mulitple ways, but I was referring to a specific element of the Abel story, his sacrifice of the first fruits of the flocks, not his murder at his brother's hand.


You read it as 'murder'. I read it as 'sacrifice'.

Or - did Abraham prepare to murder his son?

Did God murder Jesus?


But that's the opposite of what you were saying. You were saying that God wouldn't change divine plans for mortal man.

I don't think I was, you know. I think I was arguing that an 'unchangable' god shouldn't be going around changing his stance just to keep the punters happy.

You don’t think so? Then how about this one. Plainly this story is not told from the point of view of a communist.

Luke 19
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'


22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

That’s not a story advocating a communist agenda. Not when Jesus himself is the rich prince to be crowned king…


Once again - a story that isn't 'about' material wealth.


As you keep trying to say, but you’ve yet to show actual verses of Jesus advocating a communist outlook. Perhaps you are confused about how someone can be a philanthropist humanitarian and not be a communist at the same time?

Perhaps you don't understand the term 'communism'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
I'm not seeing the irreconcilable part. The "Hebrew god" is a subset of the "Chrisitan god" from a christian perspective.


Whereas, the Christian 'god' is an idol, an impossibility, and a blasphemous heresy from the Jewish perspective.

As they might "typically" understand the (rather silly) portrayal of the "christian god", yeah,.. I'd have to agree.

God, by both (real) christian and jewish conceptions of "god" can't be subdivided without losing the essential "god-ness" of god, therefore defining something OTHER THAN god (ie a thing of the world).

If you believe that "the hebrew god" is a subset of the "christian god" then you're describing a "demon/spirit/thingy" which would be some personification of some aspect of "the world".

If you believe that "the cristian god" is an "idol" then that is, equally, a discription of a "demon/spirit/whatever", as above.

The point is to not mistake the "thing of the world" (idol) for god.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
My personal perspective is that God let us try it without structure, let us free form it from Adam to Abraham.
Some good things happened, but few and far between.
Then God tried to put structure on it and work through the Hebrews and the Law of Moses. Some more good things happened, but we (a liberal use of we) fell in love with the structure and added more structure and lived for the structure instead of where the structure was supposed to take us.
Then God became personally involved using Jesus to instruct, sacrifice, lead by example and get us to put the result as more valuable than the structure.
Some more good things happened, but we have a hard time getting our eyes where God is wanting us to focus, on being loving, peaceful, joyous, self-controlled, temperate, etc people.

If we don't get it soon, I'm almost wondering what God will do next, maybe it will be time to blow the whistle and get everyone out of the pool?



I believe, the commonly held conception is that he pointed out that Jesus was a prophet, not Messiah... and laid down the true course of scripture.

God created a system that has the tendency to get more and more complex.

That system was human society.

When some subset of human society got tired of, seemingly needless, growing complexity they made some rules based on what god said to them via the "things of the world".

This could not stop society (one of god's creations) from ding it's job, which was to continue becoming more complex, but at least it (the rules) made it "more comfortable (easier)" to deal with the complexities.

Then, once again, another subset of humanity got tired of the complexity of society, and decided to do something else,.. this time they chose the "jesus path".

Meanwhile, in other parts of the planet, the same drama was happening, with other comfort-producing "de-complexifying" strategies suggested by god's creation (the world).

All the ways that truly point to god as the singular "point of comfort such that action is possible" (optimism) are true religion, and all else is simple cultural overlay, to make the hard-truth of the simple fact that god is not "our family's exclusive property" palitable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
Really? You think that people in general were "getting it".
Jesus sure didn't seem to think the religious leadership of his day were getting it.
The Good Samaritan parable would be a pretty good example I think.



You think that 'people in general' are 'getting it' now? No - only those who have been fortunate enough to have encountered the new restriction, and ignore enough of the irreconcilable dichotomies to be able to swallow it.

To ignore the "cultural overlay" is the job of one truly in search of god.

To fixate on the fine points of the "cultural overlay" is FUN, but is just a tactic to make the cultural overlay look SO SILLY that it becomes easier to ignore.

As they might "typically" understand the (rather silly) portrayal of the "christian god", yeah,.. I'd have to agree.

God, by both (real) christian and jewish conceptions of "god" can't be subdivided without losing the essential "god-ness" of god, therefore defining something OTHER THAN god (ie a thing of the world).

If you believe that "the hebrew god" is a subset of the "christian god" then you're describing a "demon/spirit/thingy" which would be some personification of some aspect of "the world".

If you believe that "the cristian god" is an "idol" then that is, equally, a discription of a "demon/spirit/whatever", as above.

The point is to not mistake the "thing of the world" (idol) for god.


I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you accept the Hebrew scripture as describing 'God'... then the New Testament is heresy - the two texts simply are no reconcilable.

The Hebrew scripture is monotheistic. The Greek scripture is polytheistic. It is not a 'mistake' to see the Christian idea as 'idolatry', if one accepts the Hebrew scripture (which the Greek scripture CLAIMS to be based in) as true.

Once again - a story that isn't 'about' material wealth.

Once again you say? Two great big stories, each told by Jesus himself, detailing specifics about making money through good investments, profitable for your master and for yourself, and the second story a parable specifically about Jesus’ own role in the earth and government to come...

Perhaps you simply make excuses for everything Jesus said that is directly opposite of what you say Jesus would say (and you've said what you think Jesus would say without actually quoting any verses at all yet, BTW) but the stuff I've posted, quotes from Jesus himself, stuff that flatly disagrees with your proposition that Jesus lived and taught as a communist, you dismiss by saying it is being misunderstood and is talking about something different so you won't accept it as evidence against your position. This says something interesting, and telling, about your position.

Jesus' only meaningful talk about money is when YOU say it's about money? I don't think so.


Perhaps you don't understand the term 'communism'.

Perhaps you are having trouble finding incontestable quotes of Jesus that show him sympathetic to actual communism, instead of simply philanthropy and directives to be charitable, or sometimes even directives to his followers to become destitute themselves. But he doesn’t actually say anything about forming or endorsing a communist lifestyle does he?

Once again you say? Two great big stories, each told by Jesus himself, detailing specifics about making money through good investments, profitable for your master and for yourself, and the second story a parable specifically about Jesus’ own role in the earth and government to come...

Perhaps you simply make excuses for everything Jesus said that is directly opposite of what you say Jesus would say (and you've said what you think Jesus would say without actually quoting any verses at all yet, BTW) but the stuff I've posted, quotes from Jesus himself, stuff that flatly disagrees with your proposition that Jesus lived and taught as a communist, you dismiss by saying it is being misunderstood and is talking about something different so you won't accept it as evidence against your position. This says something interesting, and telling, about your position.

Jesus' only meaningful talk about money is when YOU say it's about money? I don't think so.


Both parables about faith, and salvation.

It's not my fault you seem to think 'parable' and 'historical text' are equivalent.


Perhaps you are having trouble finding incontestable quotes of Jesus that show him sympathetic to actual communism, instead of simply philanthropy and directives to be charitable, or sometimes even directives to his followers to become destitute themselves. But he doesn’t actually say anything about forming or endorsing a communist lifestyle does he?

I don't think I can satisfy your need. I think you want me to locate some quote where Jesus directly endorses Marx or Lenin... which would mean you continue to miss the point.

Jesus' whole testimony is about giving, about helping each other... his whole example is about each person giving to their ability, and taking only to their need. Jesus lived and taught community, on a deep and interdependent level.

I think the ideal of a communism is far closer to what Jesus taught, than any model of capitalism... if for no other reason than the fact that capitalism intrinsically means greed. And, I don't think Jesus taught us greed is good.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you accept the Hebrew scripture as describing 'God'... then the New Testament is heresy - the two texts simply are no reconcilable.

The Hebrew scripture is monotheistic. The Greek scripture is polytheistic. It is not a 'mistake' to see the Christian idea as 'idolatry', if one accepts the Hebrew scripture (which the Greek scripture CLAIMS to be based in) as true.


Of course, you simply hate and disregard the book of Hebrews I'm sure.

Of course, you simply hate and disregard the book of Hebrews I'm sure.

Is there a point to that comment? My mindreading powers aren't what they once were.

Of course, you simply hate and disregard the book of Hebrews I'm sure.

i dont suppose youd like to enlighten the audience as to what you meant by this cryptic post

...
I think the ideal of a communism is far closer to what Jesus taught, than any model of capitalism... if for no other reason than the fact that capitalism intrinsically means greed. And, I don't think Jesus taught us greed is good.

I never said Jesus endorsed capitalism either. However, I showed verses that could be used to make the argument that Jesus endorsed hardcore investment brokering to prove a point. The point being that anyone can claim Jesus favored their political system, or one over another, like you claiming Jesus was a communist, but it is much harder to actually back up that position when faced with a more complete picture of all of Jesus' teachings.

What I’ve said more than once in this thread is that Jesus doesn't care what socio-economic system we live under, his directions and directives to us are regardless of our position (rich or poor, powerful or weak, master or slave) in the world. If we live under Kings and Monarchies, republics or communes, Jesus teachings are for you. He was no more a communist than he was an endorser of the Roman Empire, he was simply NOT talking about earthly governmental parties at all.

Teaching people to be charitable and have empathy for their fellow human beings was what the teaching's of Jesus taught about, before completing his mission...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
As they might "typically" understand the (rather silly) portrayal of the "christian god", yeah,.. I'd have to agree.

God, by both (real) christian and jewish conceptions of "god" can't be subdivided without losing the essential "god-ness" of god, therefore defining something OTHER THAN god (ie a thing of the world).

If you believe that "the hebrew god" is a subset of the "christian god" then you're describing a "demon/spirit/thingy" which would be some personification of some aspect of "the world".

If you believe that "the cristian god" is an "idol" then that is, equally, a discription of a "demon/spirit/whatever", as above.

The point is to not mistake the "thing of the world" (idol) for god.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you accept the Hebrew scripture as describing 'God'... then the New Testament is heresy - the two texts simply are no reconcilable.

The Hebrew scripture is monotheistic. The Greek scripture is polytheistic. It is not a 'mistake' to see the Christian idea as 'idolatry', if one accepts the Hebrew scripture (which the Greek scripture CLAIMS to be based in) as true.

The "acceptance" of scripture is always "accepting" a cultural overlay to "true" religion.

If you're pitting "your" scripture against "their" scripture, then you're pitting "your" culture (not god himself) against "their" culture (not god himself).

If your god is the only god possible, and IF you consider (rather generously) that ALL "scriptures" attempt to describe the only god possible, then any place where your scripture and their scripture differ is proof that BOTH scriptures are "wrong" as descriptions of the real god.

In other words, any description of god that CAN be disagreed with is an incorrect one.

..And since ANY description of god CAN be disagreed with, ALL descriptions of god are incorrect,.. which is the root of the simple fact (and theological concept) that god is INEFFABLE.

What is ALWAYS described by our (misguided) attempts at describing god are the "things of the world" that point to god, and are god's creations.

Idolatry is about taking "the things of the world" to BE god, and not merely point to god.

Heresy is about disagreements as to various discriptions of god, all of which are NOT discriptions of god but discriptions of "god's teaching tools", the things of the world.

Heresy is always about someone else's perceived idolatry, while simultaneously not recognizing that our own idolatry is actually idolatry as well.

i dont suppose youd like to enlighten the audience as to what you meant by this cryptic post

GnI said, according the older Hebrew scriptures the entire NT was heresies, and I pointed out that in the NT there is the entire book of Hebrews that shows how the older scriptures were fulfilled through Jesus, not changed through Jesus. Directly opposing what he said. Assuming he's read it, and I'm sure he has, then he must have dismissed it and likely disregards the conclusions of the book of Hebrews in the NT.

GnI said, according the older Hebrew scriptures the entire NT was heresies, and I pointed out that in the NT there is the entire book of Hebrews that shows how the older scriptures were fulfilled through Jesus, not changed through Jesus. Directly opposing what he said. Assuming he's read it, and I'm sure he has, then he must have dismissed it and likely disregards the conclusions of the book of Hebrews in the NT.

ill take your word for that

and remind you that what is very convincing to true believers tends to leave outsiders cold.

that christians are satisfied with the proof is irrelevant to whether or not that proof would satisfy any jew at any time or indeed convince even an objective scholar who is neither jew nor christian.

GnI said, according the older Hebrew scriptures the entire NT was heresies, and I pointed out that in the NT there is the entire book of Hebrews that shows how the older scriptures were fulfilled through Jesus, not changed through Jesus. Directly opposing what he said. Assuming he's read it, and I'm sure he has, then he must have dismissed it and likely disregards the conclusions of the book of Hebrews in the NT.

welp i looked through the book of hebrews.

it *explains* the priesthood and divinity of jesus but it doesnt *prove* anything (or even attempt to prove) about whether or not jesus can qualify as the jewish messiah based on the old testament prophesies. it doesnt discuss whether or not the messiah was supposed to be human or divine or a combination of both.

the jewish god is ONE god. the christian god is THREE gods in one. the jews never had the notion of the trinity. its not present in any way shape or form in the old testament. thus i would agree with grave that from a jewish point of view it must be heresy.

welp i looked through the book of hebrews.

it *explains* the priesthood and divinity of jesus but it doesnt *prove* anything (or even attempt to prove) about whether or not jesus can qualify as the jewish messiah based on the old testament prophesies. it doesnt discuss whether or not the messiah was supposed to be human or divine or a combination of both.

the jewish god is ONE god. the christian god is THREE gods in one. the jews never had the notion of the trinity. its not present in any way shape or form in the old testament. thus i would agree with grave that from a jewish point of view it must be heresy.

I don't know what the exact discussion is, but every view is heresy from someone's point of view. From my point of view, everyone from the Methodist to the atheist is a heretic, though some have fewer heresies than others.

Heresy just means false teaching.

I don't know what the exact discussion is, but every view is heresy from someone's point of view. From my point of view, everyone from the Methodist to the atheist is a heretic, though some have fewer heresies than others.

Heresy just means false teaching.

very true.

which is why i said "from a jewish point of view".

very true.

which is why i said "from a jewish point of view".

I was using your post as a foundation for mine. I wasn't really responding to you. But thanks for the support.

PS. The Trinity is three Persons in one God, not three gods.

GnI said, according the older Hebrew scriptures the entire NT was heresies, and I pointed out that in the NT there is the entire book of Hebrews that shows how the older scriptures were fulfilled through Jesus, not changed through Jesus. Directly opposing what he said. Assuming he's read it, and I'm sure he has, then he must have dismissed it and likely disregards the conclusions of the book of Hebrews in the NT.

I have problems with the Book of Hebrews, certainly.

I have problems with Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

If for no other reason than the simple fact that Leviticus clearly states a number of times, that the 'sacrifice' ritual is eternal... it cannot be changed.

There are better reasons, of course - Torah teaches that Messiah will not change the law (Indeed, anyone who claims to be able to change the law is dealt with very harshly in Deuteronomy 13). "The Book of Hebrews", then, is contradictory.


As to 'fulfilling' older scripture... apart, obviously from the contradiction already highlighted... the book of Hebrews relies heavily upon the assumption that Jesus IS godlike in ability. You have to accept the basic assumption that Jesus IS an aspect of god, before the 'justifications' can fall into place... there is no reason to suppose Jesus as 'high priest', UNLESS you assume a heavenly tabernacle in which Jesus spiritually dwells... there is no reason to attach great significance to Jesus' actions UNLESS you already presuppose that he IS 'god'.

But, does this 'fulfill' older scripture anyway? Calling Jesus 'High Priest' fulfills nothing... it just means you are using a term - the text fails to PROVE that Jesus IS 'high priest'... except, if you take it on faith. Circular logic... Jesus is priest because Jesus is fulfillment, and Jesus is fulfillment because Jesus is priest.

Indeed - I don't see Hebrews as being a 'prophecy fulfilled' scripture, at all... but more of an admonition (usually considered as having been written by either Paul or Timothy) maybe, to Jewish converts to Christianity, to be secure in their faith, and not give up in trying times... thus, Jesus is referred to in terms of enduring and persistence... in the pursuit of heavenly 'church work' - as an encouragement to 'keep the faith'.

(I believe the text itself actually claims as much.... Hebrews 13:22 "And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.")

welp i looked through the book of hebrews.

it *explains* the priesthood and divinity of jesus but it doesnt *prove* anything (or even attempt to prove) about whether or not jesus can qualify as the jewish messiah based on the old testament prophesies. it doesnt discuss whether or not the messiah was supposed to be human or divine or a combination of both.

the jewish god is ONE god. the christian god is THREE gods in one. the jews never had the notion of the trinity. its not present in any way shape or form in the old testament. thus i would agree with grave that from a jewish point of view it must be heresy.


Exactly.. while I was out rounding up the verses I wanted, you had actually made a large part of my post for me. :)

welp i looked through the book of hebrews.

it *explains* the priesthood and divinity of jesus but it doesnt *prove* anything (or even attempt to prove) about whether or not jesus can qualify as the jewish messiah based on the old testament prophesies. it doesnt discuss whether or not the messiah was supposed to be human or divine or a combination of both.

References to how Jesus fulfills the older scriptures, addressed in the book of Hebrews. This is just the first two chapters mind you.

Hebrews 1:5 ~ Psalm 2:7
Hebrews 1:5 ~ 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13
Hebrews 1:6 ~ Deut. 32:43
Hebrews 1:7 ~ Psalm 104:4
Hebrews 1:9 ~ Psalm 45:6,7
Hebrews 1:12 ~ Psalm 102:25-27
Hebrews 1:13 ~ Psalm 110:1

Hebrews 2:8 ~ Psalm 8:4-6
Hebrews 2:12 ~ Psalm 22:22
Hebrews 2:13 ~ Isaiah 8:17
Hebrews 2:13 ~ Isaiah 8:18

Should I go on? The book goes step by step, leading a description/lesson of first what the old scriptures promised and foretold, and how this relates to Jesus, and THEN it concludes with the priesthood authority explanation you jumped to several chapters later.


the jewish god is ONE god. the christian god is THREE gods in one. the jews never had the notion of the trinity. its not present in any way shape or form in the old testament. thus i would agree with grave that from a jewish point of view it must be heresy.

Psalm 40:6-8
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."

The book of Hebrews tells us that these message are about Jesus. People can deny it, and argue with it, but three Gods in One or any other variations of disputing the claim that Jesus was with God in the beginning and all things were created through him, means that the argument is being made that when the OT was talking about ONE God, as you put it, the ONE God since creation WAS Jesus, the eventual final sacrifice offering.

Hebrews 10
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The book of Hebrew DOES make the claim that Jesus is the messiah from the OT. It didn't skip over the issue like you suggested.

I have problems with the Book of Hebrews, certainly.

I have problems with Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

If for no other reason than the simple fact that Leviticus clearly states a number of times, that the 'sacrifice' ritual is eternal... it cannot be changed.

There are better reasons, of course - Torah teaches that Messiah will not change the law (Indeed, anyone who claims to be able to change the law is dealt with very harshly in Deuteronomy 13). "The Book of Hebrews", then, is contradictory.

Jesus describes it as a fulfillment of the law:
Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Fulfilling the law is mandating a change in practice, not changing the law.

Luke 24
44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Jesus describes it as a fulfillment of the law:
Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Fulfilling the law is mandating a change in practice, not changing the law.

Luke 24
44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

What, you haven't read Leviticus?

I already said, it says that the sacrificial laws are 'forever'. It doesn't say 'until Messiah comes'. Messiah doesn't get to change the rules - it isn't part of the Messianic remit.

Jeez - this is the reason they SHOULD teach Bible in schools... because so many Christians either didn't understand the Hebrew scripture, or have just never ACTUALLY read it.

References to how Jesus fulfills the older scriptures, addressed in the book of Hebrews. This is just the first two chapters mind you.

Hebrews 1:5 ~ Psalm 2:7
Hebrews 1:5 ~ 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13
Hebrews 1:6 ~ Deut. 32:43
Hebrews 1:7 ~ Psalm 104:4
Hebrews 1:9 ~ Psalm 45:6,7
Hebrews 1:12 ~ Psalm 102:25-27
Hebrews 1:13 ~ Psalm 110:1

Hebrews 2:8 ~ Psalm 8:4-6
Hebrews 2:12 ~ Psalm 22:22
Hebrews 2:13 ~ Isaiah 8:17
Hebrews 2:13 ~ Isaiah 8:18

Should I go on? The book goes step by step, leading a description/lesson of first what the old scriptures promised and foretold, and how this relates to Jesus, and THEN it concludes with the priesthood authority explanation you jumped to several chapters later.




Psalm 40:6-8
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."

The book of Hebrews tells us that these message are about Jesus. People can deny it, and argue with it, but three Gods in One or any other variations of disputing the claim that Jesus was with God in the beginning and all things were created through him, means that the argument is being made that when the OT was talking about ONE God, as you put it, the ONE God since creation WAS Jesus, the eventual final sacrifice offering.

Hebrews 10
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The book of Hebrew DOES make the claim that Jesus is the messiah from the OT. It didn't skip over the issue like you suggested.

when did the psalms become prophecy? im thinking "not when they were written" and "not until christians started scouring the old testament for proof"

and a claim ISNT proof, its just a claim.

What, you haven't read Leviticus?

I already said, it says that the sacrificial laws are 'forever'. It doesn't say 'until Messiah comes'. Messiah doesn't get to change the rules - it isn't part of the Messianic remit.

Jeez - this is the reason they SHOULD teach Bible in schools... because so many Christians either didn't understand the Hebrew scripture, or have just never ACTUALLY read it.

Jesus IS the sacrificial offerings, 'forever'. Jeez - this is the reason they SHOULD teach logic and theory in schools... Because so many anti-Christians either don't understand doctrine and theology or have never actually comprehended it when they take pieces apart from the whole in an attempt to make it not work and then make exaggerated claims about how they don't fit together.

The sacrifices ARE forever, through Christ's perfect sacrifice. Annual and other periodic sacrifices were step-gap and insufficient measures for the ultimate sacrifice.

You can pretend that only your interpretation is right, and everyone else’s is wrong (again you make this claim…), but this time you are arguing with modern day Jews as well as Christians. Have they maintained the laws of Leviticus forever, by YOUR interpretation? No, they do not and have not continued those directives, your red herrings is a bad one.

when did the psalms become prophecy? im thinking "not when they were written" and "not until christians started scouring the old testament for proof"

and a claim ISNT proof, its just a claim.


I didn't call it proof, I called it a claim. YOU had said that the book of Hebrews didn't claim that Jesus was linked to the God of the old scriptures, I pointed out that the book of Hebrews DOES make that claim of fulfilling the old scriptures messianic and salvation promises and requirements.

I didn't try to pretend that you would accept this as 'proof' of divinity.

P.S., and by the way, the many of the Psalms are prophesy songs, of glory and future rewards and pleas for future action etc.,.

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son ;
today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Say Just out of Curiosity when is the Jewish day of Sacrifice and what exactly are they Sacrificing nowadays?
Off Topic I know, but since I haveread it is required forever I assume there is an unbroken chain of sacrifice...right? I mean that is what the Jewish faith would require yes? Since the Law Cant be changed and all.

I dont really understand all this but I just have never heard any of the Jewish people I know mention anyhting about Sacrifices....ever, of any type.

If this thread takes any more turns I'm going to have to be treated for whiplash.

I'm going to go back to my basic belief which is in both the OT and NT.

Love God, Love everyone else

Every other rule, every other law, every other suggestion, every other story or parable or legend, every other writing, every history in both the OT and NT are just commentary on these two.

Worry more about these other things and forget the basic two rules and you are wrong.

I didn't call it proof, I called it a claim. YOU had said that the book of Hebrews didn't claim that Jesus was linked to the God of the old scriptures, I pointed out that the book of Hebrews DOES make that claim of fulfilling the old scriptures messianic and salvation promises and requirements.

I didn't try to pretend that you would accept this as 'proof' of divinity.

P.S., and by the way, the many of the Psalms are prophesy songs, of glory and future rewards and pleas for future action etc.,.

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son ;
today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

whats that a prophesy of?

No - just because a radical minority believes some bizarre aberrant version of a long established religion, that doesn't 'invalidate' the long-established 'rules' of the former faith.


I never said it did. I don't believe that Christianity invalidates Judaism. Fulfill would be a much better word.
You are really spinning this part though.
Bizarre, aberrant, invalidating, etc. are all just how you are framing this.


Branch Davidians don't redefine Christianity. Mormons don't redefine Christianity. Indeed - as far as I can tell, Christians look at things like the LDS church, and consider it heretical and false, based on the teachings the 'original' faith accepts.

Which is - of course - the exact same situation we would have seen with the nascent Christian church, 2000 years ago.


No, because Jesus specifically says that he doesn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
The movements youi are trying to draw parallels with hear predominantly were/are about telling others they missed the boat, they got it wrong, but they can fix that.

Jesus is supposed to be about a NEW Covenant, not about correcting the OLD covenant.


It isn't just a 'contemporary' matter, either. Those who adhere strictly to the Hebrew text STILL consider Christianity to be blasphemous idol-worship.


Of course they would, to accept it carries quite a bit of accumulated baggage now.


By Muslims, obviously. If you are going to accept the idea of an 'updatable' religion, you have to accept that Islam establishes itself as then'correction' of the errors of the Judeo-Christian concepts that went before.


LOL.
Nice. I totally missed where you went with that.
You're right that it should be considered, but Islam isn't about advancing from where Christ left off. It reverses. It reduces Jesus from Son of God to prophet. It re-applies Law.


Of course you don't. You wouldn't.


Wouldn't? That's not very nice.
I probably overstated it though, because when I think about it, I have. So there are some traditional Christian doctrines that I don't accept.
Gets me in trouble with some christians on occasion when I won't agree with what I believe is a modern day golden calf.


How can you see it as 'fewer restrictions', when there is now at least ONE extra element that wasn't previously there? One further 'stumbling block'?


How can you not?
The Torah has some 613 commandments, yes?
Jesus sums them all up in , "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind and body and Love your neighbour as yourself"

613 >> 2


You read it as 'murder'. I read it as 'sacrifice'.


Sorry, you read it wrong then.
There is clearly a time when Abel brings a sacrifice of a lamb to his altar and Cain brings a sacrifice of fruits, vegetable, grain, etc to his altar and the text states that God is pleased with Abel's and not Cain's.

This is followed by a passage describing how Cain is angry and murders his brother. He's certainly not "sacrificing" Abel to God. He even attempts to hide it from God by not admitting he knows where Abel is.

I can accept that many passages can be interpreted in several fashions, but to call the murder of Abel by Cain a sacrifice just doesn't have evidence to support it other than wishful thinking.


I don't think I was, you know. I think I was arguing that an 'unchangable' god shouldn't be going around changing his stance just to keep the punters happy.

OK. I find it a bit presumptuous to tell God what He can't do, but you're welcome to.
I don't buy the unchangeable bit.
I think I've already said this, but God doesn't have to change who He is to change how we relate to Him.

the jewish god is ONE god. the christian god is THREE gods in one. the jews never had the notion of the trinity. its not present in any way shape or form in the old testament. thus i would agree with grave that from a jewish point of view it must be heresy.

The Christian God is one, not three. Trinity is no where in the New Testament.

The Christian God is one, not three. Trinity is no where in the New Testament.

I have to agree. This is one of the many things that Christians use to lock people out. All it really does is confuse and repel the "outsiders". Another is the cannabalism of eating flesh and drinking blood. It is interesting that when Jesus broke bread and passed the wine he said a prayer. There isn't one Christian in a thousand that knows what those prayers were. Yet every Jewish kid knows them as they are part of the Passover and printed in every Haggadah.

The Christian God is one, not three. Trinity is no where in the New Testament.

I agree.

Jesus IS the sacrificial offerings, 'forever'. Jeez - this is the reason they SHOULD teach logic and theory in schools... Because so many anti-Christians either don't understand doctrine and theology or have never actually comprehended it when they take pieces apart from the whole in an attempt to make it not work and then make exaggerated claims about how they don't fit together.

The sacrifices ARE forever, through Christ's perfect sacrifice. Annual and other periodic sacrifices were step-gap and insufficient measures for the ultimate sacrifice.

You can pretend that only your interpretation is right, and everyone else’s is wrong (again you make this claim…), but this time you are arguing with modern day Jews as well as Christians. Have they maintained the laws of Leviticus forever, by YOUR interpretation? No, they do not and have not continued those directives, your red herrings is a bad one.


Have the Jews continued the Levitical laws? For the most part, yes. Do they continue the yearly offerings in the great temple? No - and I'm sure if you think about it, you'll know why, and when they will restart.

Another reason that Jesus cannot be Messiah, if you think about it.

I find it amusing that you refer to me as 'anti-Christian'. I am not 'anti' any religion - which appears to agitate SOME Christians... but I do not accept ANY of them as intrinsically truer, more 'real' or better than any other.

Apparently, you confuse that with being 'anti' your little clique.

Does Leviticus say that ONE ascrifice can replace all the others? No. Does the Hebrew text say anywhere that Messiah will be imbued with a power to change the rules of sacrifice? No... so - even if Jesus WAS the Hebrew text's 'messiah'... He STILL wouldn't have been able to make the kind of changes to the religion that you pretend he would.

It really is that simple - no one gets to change the rules... not even 'messiah'.

As for your idea of a final solution to the 'stop-gap' sacrifices... this is purely an artifact of Christian mythology, and nothing to do with what is in the Hebrew scripture. Suck it down if it helps you sleep at night, but it IS irreconcilable with the Hebrew scripture.

So - one of those texts (or both) is a lie. A problem really - because either the New Testament is a lie (in which case you have to admit you are being suckered), or the Old Testament is a lie (in which case all the fancy Christian talk about Messiah, etc... is based in nothing).

Better to just ignore the inconsistency, and hope it goes away. Not an angle I'd want to be favouring if I thought my 'immortal soul' was on the line...

I never said it did. I don't believe that Christianity invalidates Judaism. Fulfill would be a much better word.
You are really spinning this part though.
Bizarre, aberrant, invalidating, etc. are all just how you are framing this.


I didn't say Christianity invalidates Judaism... I implied that Christianity attempts to invalidate the LAWS of Judaism.

As for 'fulfill'... that's propoganda... there is no 'fulfill', except in the Christian texts.

As for how I'm framing it... how do you think Jews perceived the young man claiming to be, not only a Rabbi, a baptiser and a prophet... but also God himself?


No, because Jesus specifically says that he doesn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
The movements youi are trying to draw parallels with hear predominantly were/are about telling others they missed the boat, they got it wrong, but they can fix that.


Jesus says that, but it isn't scriptural according the the Hebrew scripture.

The movements I draw a parallel with predominantly are about telling others they missed the boat but 'we' can fix it...

Isn't that EXACTLY the message of Christianity? You were doing it wrong, and now you can be saved through the perky notion of grace?


Jesus is supposed to be about a NEW Covenant, not about correcting the OLD covenant.


You can say that all you like. God claimed he was establishing something other than that... you and your Jesus quotes set yourself up opposite of God's established word.

Good luck with that.


Of course they would, to accept it carries quite a bit of accumulated baggage now.


Or maybe, the idea of raping the Hebrew scripture is no more palatable now than it was 2000 years ago?


LOL.
Nice. I totally missed where you went with that.
You're right that it should be considered, but Islam isn't about advancing from where Christ left off. It reverses. It reduces Jesus from Son of God to prophet. It re-applies Law.


That's because, according to Judaism, Christianity must have been a mis-step... someone misunderstood something, and Islam sets out to correct it. In this case, the ridiculous idea of a God that procreates with humans.

Of course, according to Judaism, Islam must ALSO be untrue - because the time of prophecy is finished.


How can you not?
The Torah has some 613 commandments, yes?
Jesus sums them all up in , "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind and body and Love your neighbour as yourself"

613 >> 2


He sums up the most important as those two, yes. That explains the Ten Commandments maybe, but ignores the bulk of Levitical law, which 'Jewish' Christians are theoretically still bound by.


Sorry, you read it wrong then.
There is clearly a time when Abel brings a sacrifice of a lamb to his altar and Cain brings a sacrifice of fruits, vegetable, grain, etc to his altar and the text states that God is pleased with Abel's and not Cain's.

This is followed by a passage describing how Cain is angry and murders his brother. He's certainly not "sacrificing" Abel to God. He even attempts to hide it from God by not admitting he knows where Abel is.

I can accept that many passages can be interpreted in several fashions, but to call the murder of Abel by Cain a sacrifice just doesn't have evidence to support it other than wishful thinking.


Cain brings a sacrifice. God is displeased.

Abel brings a sacrifice. God is pleased.

The difference between the sacrifices is in the spilling of blood, and the 'worth' of the sacrifice.

Cain kills Abel, and is rewarded with a reversal of the Adamic curse... he is rendered immortal.

You can take a fine tooth comb to the wording if you choose, but the overall story is clearly about sacrifice rewarded. It is just the later patina of wording that finetunes it to mean the opposite.


OK. I find it a bit presumptuous to tell God what He can't do, but you're welcome to.
I don't buy the unchangeable bit.
I think I've already said this, but God doesn't have to change who He is to change how we relate to Him.

No - but if he changes what he does BECAUSE of how he relates to us, then he has changed.

Once again you say? Two great big stories, each told by Jesus himself, detailing specifics about making money through good investments...

Perhaps you simply make excuses for everything Jesus said that is directly opposite of what you say Jesus would say (and you've said what you think Jesus would say without actually quoting any verses at all yet, BTW) ...

Jesus' only meaningful talk about money is when YOU say it's about money? I don't think so...

Perhaps you are having trouble finding incontestable quotes of Jesus that show him sympathetic to actual communism...


Matthew 5:42
Matthew 6:19-21
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 7:9
Matthew 10:8-10
Matthew 19:21
Matthew 19:23,24,29

Mark 8:33-6 explains how those embrace the material are his enemies.

Matthew 13:11-2 and Mark 4:24-5 explain the parables you cited, and show why they are NOT about earthly wealth.

Luke 6:30-5
Luke 11:8

John 4:36-8
John 13:14

I didn't say Christianity invalidates Judaism... I implied that Christianity attempts to invalidate the LAWS of Judaism.


OK, Chrisitianity claims to fulfill the LAWS of Judaism then, not invalidate them.


As for 'fulfill'... that's propoganda... there is no 'fulfill', except in the Christian texts.


Except in the Christian texts?? Where else would it be?
It's not propaganda if it is the actual message.


As for how I'm framing it... how do you think Jews perceived the young man claiming to be, not only a Rabbi, a baptiser and a prophet... but also God himself?


So, then you are holding to a solely Jewish perspective then? I hadn't picked up on that before.
It's pretty clear how they percieved the man (being 30 at the beginning of his ministry, I can't really call him young), they hated him, conspired against him and had him executed while others tracked down his followers and attempted to execute them.


Jesus says that, but it isn't scriptural according the the Hebrew scripture.

We have a disconnect there. Who is saying that is Hebrew scripture?
Jesus said it, that's why it is the Christian story.


The movements I draw a parallel with predominantly are about telling others they missed the boat but 'we' can fix it...

Isn't that EXACTLY the message of Christianity? You were doing it wrong, and now you can be saved through the perky notion of grace?


No. That is definitely not the Christian message.
Judaism wasn't missing the boat, although its practitioners and particularly its
leaders at the time of Jesus seem to have their focus wrong. Again, the Samaritan parable is prime example.

Christianity isn't about fixing any "mistake" in Judaism, it's about God doing a new thing.
Leaving school to go to a job is a new thing, it doesn't mean that going to school was a mistake.


He sums up the most important as those two, yes. That explains the Ten Commandments maybe, but ignores the bulk of Levitical law, which 'Jewish' Christians are theoretically still bound by.


No, he's summing up the Law, all of it.
Jewish Christians wouldn't be anymore bound to Levitical Law than the original Christians, which were Jews, would have been, which is to say they are not 'bound' by it, even theoretically.


Cain brings a sacrifice. God is displeased.

Abel brings a sacrifice. God is pleased.

The difference between the sacrifices is in the spilling of blood, and the 'worth' of the sacrifice.

Cain kills Abel, and is rewarded with a reversal of the Adamic curse... he is rendered immortal.

You can take a fine tooth comb to the wording if you choose, but the overall story is clearly about sacrifice rewarded. It is just the later patina of wording that finetunes it to mean the opposite.


Who taught you the Cain and Abel story??
Cain is cursed for murdering Abel, with no mention of eternal life. The only reprieve God gives to Cain is that no one will kill him, without a sevenfold retribution.
It might be time to strip away that patina you see when you think of this story.


No - but if he changes what he does BECAUSE of how he relates to us, then he has changed.

No, our perception of Him may change, but that does not mean that God has changed. Very much the blind men and the elephant story happens here I think.

Matthew 5:42
Matthew 6:19-21
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 7:9
Matthew 10:8-10
Matthew 19:21
Matthew 19:23,24,29

Mark 8:33-6 explains how those embrace the material are his enemies.

Matthew 13:11-2 and Mark 4:24-5 explain the parables you cited, and show why they are NOT about earthly wealth.

Luke 6:30-5
Luke 11:8

John 4:36-8
John 13:14

~Matthew 5:42
42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Teaching us to be charitable with our possession and giving to the poor is not communism.

~Matthew 6:19-21
19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Storing up treasures in heaven and learning not to over-value material things on Earth is not communism. Teaching us to honor things of real value over material wealth is in everything from Disney movies to Grimm fairy tales, this is not a communist lesson...

~Matthew 7:7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
This has NOTHING to do with communism. As a matter of fact, it's anti-communist thinking. IF you want it, you will get it by persistence of trying.

~Matthew 7:9
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
And this is means what to any socio-economic system?

~Matthew 10:8-10
8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
This advocated destitutism, not communism. It is telling his followers sent out on missionary work to accept charity from those they visit instead of bringing their own requirements with them.

~Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
And perhaps you have a communist manifesto or handbook that tells us the same thing? I think not. Same as the one above though, this is advocating destitutism as a sign that you reject the world and the things in it for heavenly treasures, it is NOT advocating communism to tell people to give all of their worldly possessions away, communist don’t do that.

~Matthew 19:23,24
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
It's hard for anyone who is overly concerned with material things (just like communists themselves are overly worried about the equal distribution of it) so it is hard tp get into Heaven. But everything is possible for God.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
This is much more like hardcore investment brokering than it is communism. Making a small investment to get a much larger return is was this is about. Not communism at all.

~Mark 8:33-6 (GnI said; explains how those embrace the material are his enemies.)

No it does not. It is about trying to NOT do God's will when God's will is personally hard or painful for us to do. Mark 8:31-32 sets up the verses you cited;
31He (Jesus) then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

Peter is not rebuking Jesus for the desire of wealth, but of life and to continue living. THEN Jesus says what you cited (Mark 8:33-36)
33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

This is a story about obeying God, even when the ultimate price is demanded, and what would it profit a man to stay alive and gain the whole world IF it meant losing his soul. This is NOT a story about material wealth, it is about obeying God in all things.

~Matthew 13:11-2 and Mark 4:24-5 (GnI said; explain the parables you cited, and show why they are NOT about earthly wealth.)

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
He who has will be given more, and will have an abundance. He who does NOT have will lose even what he has… this is ANTI-Communism. What part of this is confusing to you? It’s the exact opposite thing of communist ideals and theory.

~Luke 6:30-5
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
This story is ANTI-Communism as well. In a communist society you would ‘do good’ because if was forced on you, you would get not credit for it. Even ‘sinners’ can be charitable if the government forces them to do it. Jesus is telling people to be charitable on their own accord. To do it when they are not expected to be doing it, when they are not forced to do it. Allow a rich man the opportunity to be charitable, again, anti-communism.

~Luke 11:7-8 (GnI left off 7, but I added it to 8)
7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

This is a parable telling us to be irritatingly persistent in going to God with our prayers, to keep knocking on the door, to ‘bug’ god with our prayers, to not stop asking. What does it have to do with anything communist?


~John 4:36-38
36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."
The reaper draws wages, wages are anti-communism. The sower paid with work and was not rewarded, anti-communism. One gets paid for the work the other has done, anti-communism. Others do the hard work and the benefits go to another, anti-communism.

John 13:14
14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.
This verse is telling us to become servants to other. To make ourselves lower than others and to serve them. To become first one must be last. Anti-communism, again.

Communism says everyone is equal, and no one should be sub-servant to another…

-----

Your verses did NOT support your assertion. Some simply had nothing to do with communists and communism, and others are arguing against your claim by being lessons that are contrary to communist theory. Your assertion that Jesus was a communist has now been thoroughly debunked. Your argument fails due to proof to the contrary by your own list of verses.

Poot and GnI, you two might want to actually agree on what communism is before you argue about whether it is endorsed by Jesus.

Jesus was clearly not a capitalist and by his words, I think he would have appreciated the goals of pure communism while at the same time I don't think he would have thought much at all of enforced institutionalised communism that we see anywhere bigger than a commune.

Jungle drums?

The natives are angry.

Poot and GnI, you two might want to actually agree on what communism is before you argue about whether it is endorsed by Jesus.

Understanding Communism 101

1: Liberate the proletariat (labor class) from the bondage of working for wages, i.e., selling themselves by the hour and day.

2: End all forms of private property, ending all individual ownership of property.

3: Abolish traditional marriage and family rearing, as children will be raised by the community and private property is impossible, marriage and family will be eliminated.

4: End all religious institutions. "All religion are the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

And by the way that Jesus never advanced any of the ideas presented by the ancient Greek philosophers about Greece’s “Golden Age” (closest thing to an ancient communism and in the region that Jesus would have known about) but instead made references to divine kingships and the glory days of David’s kingdom, the utopian writings of Greece seem far fetched to put into Jesus’ mouth.

Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of wages, Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of private property, Jesus did not promote the idea that marriages should cease and the community (and not the parents) should raise the children, Jesus did not dictate that all worship of God should come to an end. Thus, Jesus was NOT a communist.


Jesus was clearly not a capitalist and by his words, I think he would have appreciated the goals of pure communism while at the same time I don't think he would have thought much at all of enforced institutionalised communism that we see anywhere bigger than a commune.

And to this, I’ll just quote what I said earlier…

I never said Jesus endorsed capitalism either. However, I showed verses that could be used to make the argument that Jesus endorsed hardcore investment brokering to prove a point. The point being that anyone can claim Jesus favored their political system, or one over another, like you claiming Jesus was a communist, but it is much harder to actually back up that position when faced with a more complete picture of all of Jesus' teachings.

What I’ve said more than once in this thread is that Jesus doesn't care what socio-economic system we live under, his directions and directives to us are regardless of our position (rich or poor, powerful or weak, master or slave) in the world. If we live under Kings and Monarchies, republics or communes, Jesus teachings are for you. He was no more a communist than he was an endorser of the Roman Empire, he was simply NOT talking about earthly governmental parties at all.

Teaching people to be charitable and have empathy for their fellow human beings was what the teaching's of Jesus taught about, before completing his mission...

Understanding Communism 101

1: Liberate the proletariat (labor class) from the bondage of working for wages, i.e., selling themselves by the hour and day.

2: End all forms of private property, ending all individual ownership of property.

3: Abolish traditional marriage and family rearing, as children will be raised by the community and private property is impossible, marriage and family will be eliminated.

4: End all religious institutions. "All religion are the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

And by the way that Jesus never advanced any of the ideas presented by the ancient Greek philosophers about Greece’s “Golden Age” (closest thing to an ancient communism and in the region that Jesus would have known about) but instead made references to divine kingships and the glory days of David’s kingdom, the utopian writings of Greece seem far fetched to put into Jesus’ mouth.

Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of wages, Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of private property, Jesus did not promote the idea that marriages should cease and the community (and not the parents) should raise the children, Jesus did not dictate that all worship of God should come to an end. Thus, Jesus was NOT a communist.



And to this, I’ll just quote what I said earlier…


That's all wonderful, but I'm not arguing Jesus and communism with you.
If GnI agrees with your summation of communism, then you'll be much closer to seeing each other's points and perhaps resolving, or at least getting to a point where you respectfully agree to disagree.

Actually the only true communists to succeed over any period of time have been Christian.

Among others, the Amana's of central Iowa just had one kitchen in each town. They all ate as a family. The church assigned a house based on need. The problem is that communism only works with small groups that can exert peer pressure. So when the Amana's grew too large they had to give it up.

The biggest group I know of today are the Hutterites. They live mostly in the NW US and SW Canada. They get past the size problem by splitting every time they get so big. They get together, buy a new farm, split the assets between the farms. Then AFTER everything is split, the men draw lots to see which families will move and which will stay at the old farm.

Actually the only true communists to succeed over any period of time have been Christian.

Among others, the Amana's of central Iowa just had one kitchen in each town. They all ate as a family. The church assigned a house based on need. The problem is that communism only works with small groups that can exert peer pressure. So when the Amana's grew too large they had to give it up.

The biggest group I know of today are the Hutterites. They live mostly in the NW US and SW Canada. They get past the size problem by splitting every time they get so big. They get together, buy a new farm, split the assets between the farms. Then AFTER everything is split, the men draw lots to see which families will move and which will stay at the old farm.


Now you see, this is the problem, you are making an all too common mistake, but a mistake all the same. Communes and people who chose communal living are NOT necessarily communists (although they might be).

There are two basic types of communes. There is the anarchistic libertarian type that opposes all forms of organization and the other kind that is focused on organized service and intentionally designed to function with schedules and assignments, the religious type usually fall into this later category I imagine, or else they won’t likely last very long.

When religion is not the focus of the group, it might be vegetarianism or a social/political world outlook or anti-materialism etc., that brought the group together in the first place, and this might or might not be communism as it’s goal. But in today’s world, most communes are not communists communes.

Non communist communes:
Up to date style:
http://www.communa.org.il/world.htm

Old style:
http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/cmnl.html

But in the end, one does NOT have to be a communist to live in a commune and not all communists live in communes, thus, communal living and communist are NOT the same thing.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online:
The words communal and commune are obviously related to the word common in the sense of something shared. They are also related to communism, and many experiments in communal living have called themselves communist societies. But there is a great difference between the communism of communal living experiments and what is called Communism in the 20th century. Today Communism is the name for an economic system related to socialism, and it is defined by the fact that the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the government.
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273753

How'd we get on communists? :P

I don't know. But I read about a commune group in a national geographic. It was a nonreligious commune.

How'd we get on communists? :P

GnI called Jesus a communist and I've been trying to make him take it back ever since. :blush:

Now you see, this is the problem, you are making an all too common mistake, but a mistake all the same. Communes and people who chose communal living are NOT necessarily communists (although they might be).


If you ever get a chance to go through Iowa, stop at the Amana's. They make a living on tourists and there's not much else to see in the area. They use the word communist to describe their roots.

If you ever get a chance to go through Iowa, stop at the Amana's. They make a living on tourists and there's not much else to see in the area. They use the word communist to describe their roots.

In 1932 the AMANA group I'm thinking of in Iowa voted to abandon their communal community system and became a profit-sharing corporation.

P.s., and they used the word Communalism, at least the Amana community I'm thinking of.

In 1932 the AMANA group I'm thinking of in Iowa voted to abandon their communal community system and became a profit-sharing corporation.

P.s., and they used the word Communalism, at least the Amana community I'm thinking of.

If you look, I mentioned they had to give it up because it grew so big that the peer pressure no longer worked. Today they rent property from the church.

I've visited the Amana's several times. A great place for German food, wine, hand made furniture. I have never heard them use the word Communalism. They always say they were communists. The church owned everything just as the church in Acts 5. They had only one kitchen in each town. The houses were assigned according to need. No one paid for anything. If you needed shoes, you went to the shoemaker and he made you shoes at no charge. If you needed cloth you went to the mill and picked up cloth at no charge, etc. They had to learn to use money after the change.

Even today, when you die, you are buried in the next plot in order of death. Families are not buried together and all stones are the same.

GnI called Jesus a communist and I've been trying to make him take it back ever since. :blush:

Well jesus was more socially liberal..But I wouldn't say communist. I don't think he plays into all that anyways.

I don't know. But I read about a commune group in a national geographic. It was a nonreligious commune.

There's an EAST WIND commune in southern Missouri. It dates from the '60s commune movement. They make peanut butter and other organic foods.

If you look, I mentioned they had to give it up because it grew so big that the peer pressure no longer worked. Today they rent property from the church.

*without looking* Yes, yes you did.

I've visited the Amana's several times. A great place for German food, wine, hand made furniture. I have never heard them use the word Communalism. They always say they were communists.

Okay, fine, Instead of arguing about it, I'll look it up with the Amana groups instead of trying to go by memory, this is what I found...

12. What does communalism mean?
Communalism is a social arrangement for people living together in which all property -- except for some personal property like clothing -- is held in common. Amana Colonies communalism had nothing to do with political communism.
http://www.amanacolonies.org/educat/index.html

Perhaps this is the wrong Amana group? I don't think so though.

The church owned everything just as the church in Acts 5. They had only one kitchen in each town. The houses were assigned according to need. No one paid for anything. If you needed shoes, you went to the shoemaker and he made you shoes at no charge. If you needed cloth you went to the mill and picked up cloth at no charge, etc. They had to learn to use money after the change.

Even today, when you die, you are buried in the next plot in order of death. Families are not buried together and all stones are the same.

And I don't think Jesus' teachings were against any of this type of communal living. I’m sure he appreciates their sincereness and agrees with their goals.


P.S. Now that I've started looking things up, I decided to look up other Christian communities mentioned that I don't recognize myself...

I do not believe the Hutterites call themselves communists either, but describe themselves as communal.

Hutterites are a communal people, living on scattered bruderhöfe or colonies throughout the prairies in North America.
This communal lifestyle finds its roots in the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
http://www.hutterites.org/

I don't know what the exact discussion is, but every view is heresy from someone's point of view. From my point of view, everyone from the Methodist to the atheist is a heretic, though some have fewer heresies than others.

Heresy just means false teaching.

That may be a workable generalization, but there are many exceptions to it, when you work on a case by case basis. While many polytheist religions, for example, do have a concept of heresy, many others do not, especially those that emphasize personal experience over dogmatic teachings. It is also very difficult to find examples of heresy concepts in Buddhism, which is why it is so prone to syncretism.

In fact, I would say the idea of heresy is absent or extremely minor in any religion that shows any kind of syncretism or ecumenicism at all. Buddhists, Unitarians, Universalists, and many animist and polytheist religions tend to be free of heresy ideas UNLESS they develop within themselves codified doctrines and/or charismatic leaders.

A codified doctrine and a leadership that teaches it are really key to whether there can be heresy or not. If there is no "true" teaching, there can be no "false" teaching.

I was using your post as a foundation for mine. I wasn't really responding to you. But thanks for the support.

PS. The Trinity is three Persons in one God, not three gods.

Just out of curiosity, do you mean three manifestations of God?

If this thread takes any more turns I'm going to have to be treated for whiplash.

I'm going to go back to my basic belief which is in both the OT and NT.

Love God, Love everyone else

Every other rule, every other law, every other suggestion, every other story or parable or legend, every other writing, every history in both the OT and NT are just commentary on these two.

Worry more about these other things and forget the basic two rules and you are wrong.

I remember reading something once about a "voice crying in the wilderness..." :D

Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
The Christian God is one, not three. Trinity is no where in the New Testament.
I have to agree. This is one of the many things that Christians use to lock people out. All it really does is confuse and repel the "outsiders". Another is the cannabalism of eating flesh and drinking blood. It is interesting that when Jesus broke bread and passed the wine he said a prayer. There isn't one Christian in a thousand that knows what those prayers were. Yet every Jewish kid knows them as they are part of the Passover and printed in every Haggadah.

So, let's see... we have communists versus capitalists, Christians versus Jews, and now Protestants versus Catholics.

This is getting good. :D

So, let's see... we have communists versus capitalists, Christians versus Jews, and now Protestants versus Catholics.

This is getting good. :D

the trinity isnt a protestant vs catholic thing. the trinity is a standard tenet of christianity since the first nicean conference in the 4th century. only a few minor sects dont believe in the trinity--the mormons and the jehovas witnesses come to mind.

i didnt bother to dispute that post because the reality of the trinity wasnt my point. i figured edwardis could deal with that part. my point was that the god of the old testament (and of jews today) is very different from the god of christianity.

One does not have to be a communist NOR a Socialist to be a Philanthropist. Jesus telling people to give their money to the needy is regardless of what type of socio-economic system they believe in or live in... Individual philanthropy is Jesus' directive, NOT how a government should be run.
Still why should Christians be capitalists?

the trinity isnt a protestant vs catholic thing. the trinity is a standard tenet of christianity since the first nicean conference in the 4th century. only a few minor sects dont believe in the trinity--the mormons and the jehovas witnesses come to mind.

i didnt bother to dispute that post because the reality of the trinity wasnt my point. i figured edwardis could deal with that part. my point was that the god of the old testament (and of jews today) is very different from the god of christianity.
I'm not arguing against your point, which is entirely correct.

But to my mind, the exceptions are not insignificant, even if they boil down to nothing but opinion (and, really, what else are we talking about here?) or even social or political expediency. Remember, the US was founded by several of such minor sects. In our history, it was common throughout the colonial period and then again during the waves of immigration during the 19th century, for American Protestants to denounce the trinity as being among the evidences of Catholic "idolatry." Such insults were lobbed even by sects that later endorsed the idea of trinity, because, in fact, the conflict was really political, not theological.

Edwardis can hardly be thought of a representative of mainstream Christian thinking, regardless of his claims of being "traditional." If we are going to let him handle questions of what consitutes heresy, then I think the Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, Congregationalists, and other "minor sects" should have their views represented as well.

What all of these latest arguments in this thread seem to boil down to is differences in various people's interpretations of various selected verses from the Bible. I.e., difference of opinion. I am learning from this a lot about those opinions, but really nothing about Jesus or Christianity.

Still why should Christians be capitalists?
Perhaps because of Matthew 25:14

Matthew 25:14 For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. 17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. 18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, "Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.' 21 His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, "Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.' 23 His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. 25 "And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered and said to him, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. 27 "Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 28 "Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.' 29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Well, ok, maybe that's taking things to literally :rolleyes:

Understanding Communism 101

1: Liberate the proletariat (labor class) from the bondage of working for wages, i.e., selling themselves by the hour and day.

2: End all forms of private property, ending all individual ownership of property.

3: Abolish traditional marriage and family rearing, as children will be raised by the community and private property is impossible, marriage and family will be eliminated.

4: End all religious institutions. "All religion are the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm



Here's the problem

I say 'communism'.

All Poot can hear is 'Marxism' - no matter how many times I reiterate it is a strawman of his own creation.

Today I went to the campus church at the University Union. It was a normal worship service. We all gathered in and sat, and then began to sing a song. Halfway through the song, the service pastor told us the following:
At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights, and had one band member stay up on stage with his acoustic guitar, and he was going to play a few songs. We were furious. Several members began to cry. But the funniest thing happened, instead of being quiet with our worship, we sang loud and with such great passion. It was the first service I have been to where I have felt the Spirit just flood down and fill everyone. Everyone was just crying out to God and we had Him there with us, and our hands were raised, and we sang sang so loudly, and just praised Him. It was the greatest feeling ever, as if we were all raised to a new level, perhaps right in front of God Himself at that point. After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?


Regardless of whether not the pastor should have done it in that way, he did get his answer. You all stood up for the Lord and because you did the Holy Sprit filled your church. You all passed the test! Thats what is important!

It sickens you? I think it is good that we are shaken up every now and then. This was an excellent thing in my eyes. I mean, it kind of gave me an insight to how some christians around the world have to practice their faith- underground, being quiet and so on. But we looked past that and we came together as one body and we overcame the situation. I don't see anything wrong with that.


Here, Here!!

Regardless of whether not the pastor should have done it in that way, he did get his answer. You all stood up for the Lord and because you did the Holy Sprit filled your church. You all passed the test! Thats what is important!

Trying to start the thread over again? A bit late for that, isn't it?

That's all wonderful, but I'm not arguing Jesus and communism with you.
If GnI agrees with your summation of communism, then you'll be much closer to seeing each other's points and perhaps resolving, or at least getting to a point where you respectfully agree to disagree.

Very astute.

Poot is not arguing with me at all, but with Marx... which, unfortunately for this debate - he introduced... not I.

Particularly since isn't lying a sin? Or at least, something that Jesus Wouldn't Do?

Whatever. This incident sickens me, as does Zilam's fanwanking about how feel-goody it made him feel to know that he's One with the Religious Hive Mind.

I mean, maybe if religious people didn't feel the need to lie just to "unify" their followers, there'd be less things like terrorist bombings, or ethnic cleansing, or whathaveyou. But no.

Oh please Mary ... you missed the point entirely

What a vomit-inducing story...I am not sure what is worse, the stunt pulled by your preacher or your fawning reaction to it.

Perhaps your reaction to it is the worst of it.

Wow, talk about harsh. Frankly I'd like to take a moment to congratulate Zilam and his Union for standing up for their faith that way. Who cares if it wasn't true? Who cares if the pastor made it up? The point is that they found in themselves a strength they wouldn't otherwise have known, and grew that closer to God.

Good on you Zilam, and not least for standing up for yourself here too, even amidst all the hostility. I always wonder how far I'd go for God, and the only way to really know how strong my faith is would be to put it to the test.

Zilam the Lord is proud of you and your Union for what you did don't allow anyone to tear that down.

Well aside from praising Him in most all I do, I am in the planning stages of becoming a permanent missionary. In which i am going to go spread a message of love. Go help the sick, the poor and the hungry, and if they want to hear my message I will teach them why I love them so. Thats what I am going to do.


May God Bless you in your missionary work Zilam, lord knows this world needs all the help we can muster.

Protestant services are so weird and emotional.

Don't knock it if you haven't experienced it. You might even decide you liked it to.

Zilam the Lord is proud of you and your Union for what you did don't allow anyone to tear that down.

Just what we need - still more people interposing themselves between God and the great unwashed. Just how did the Lord inform you of His pride - or are you just assuming He's even interested in truly minor events on the temporal plane, like whether Billy wins his baseball game?

If I may, the ideas being promoted by Insignificantia are not anywhere near traditional Chritianity.


If that is true, why would the Holy Sprit of God come? Doesn't Traditional Chritianity believe in the Holy Trinity and the blessings therein. If I may, If not then they better re-read the scriptures.

Don't knock it if you haven't experienced it. You might even decide you liked it to.

Prosyletizing, I see.

First, the important thing is to consider the whole message... not to pick the verses you think work for you, and pervert the scripture to your own ends... as you continue to do.

I have attempted to draw the 'essence' of the message from throughout the Greek scripture, and you have studiously ignored the 'collective' message, to try to quibble individual words.

Jesus' Greek Testament message is about giving and receiving, sharing, and avoiding accruing to oneself.

~Matthew 5:42
42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Teaching us to be charitable with our possession and giving to the poor is not communism.


Part of a message: Give freely, and share freely. Listen to the WHOLE message.

~
~Matthew 6:19-21
19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Storing up treasures in heaven and learning not to over-value material things on Earth is not communism. Teaching us to honor things of real value over material wealth is in everything from Disney movies to Grimm fairy tales, this is not a communist lesson...


Part of a message: do not hold wealth to yourself.

I've met almost no Christians, by the way, that actually practise this.

~
~Matthew 7:7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
This has NOTHING to do with communism. As a matter of fact, it's anti-communist thinking. IF you want it, you will get it by persistence of trying.


Ask and it shall be given. Again part of the message...: give freely.

~
~Matthew 7:9
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
And this is means what to any socio-economic system?


The point is... well, you missed it. Apparently, if Jesus doesn't spell it out for you, you don't have to think it through?

The point is - if you are asked for bread, you give. Part of the message again. Note a lot of giving, a lot of asking if you need, a lot of giving if you have. Not much talk of selling (and where it is, it is a means to an end) or buying.

~
~Matthew 10:8-10
8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
This advocated destitutism, not communism. It is telling his followers sent out on missionary work to accept charity from those they visit instead of bringing their own requirements with them.


Freely you have received, freely give.

--- To each according to ability, to each according to need.

Take no money, take no material possession.

--- Your material needs will be supplied as YOU supply your 'trade'.

~
~Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
And perhaps you have a communist manifesto or handbook that tells us the same thing? I think not. Same as the one above though, this is advocating destitutism as a sign that you reject the world and the things in it for heavenly treasures, it is NOT advocating communism to tell people to give all of their worldly possessions away, communist don’t do that.


What is your obsession with handbooks and manifestoes?

I'm not willing to accept your opinion on what 'communists do', because you clearly have no idea on the matter.

~
~Matthew 19:23,24
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
It's hard for anyone who is overly concerned with material things (just like communists themselves are overly worried about the equal distribution of it) so it is hard tp get into Heaven. But everything is possible for God.


No - communists aren't 'overly worried'. You made that part up.

It doesn't matter, comrade, if you and I both have an EQUAL number of blankets... only that each of us has ENOUGH.

~
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
This is much more like hardcore investment brokering than it is communism. Making a small investment to get a much larger return is was this is about. Not communism at all.


Actually, it is 'forsake all, for the promise of heaven'.

~
~Mark 8:33-6 (GnI said; explains how those embrace the material are his enemies.)

No it does not. It is about trying to NOT do God's will when God's will is personally hard or painful for us to do. Mark 8:31-32 sets up the verses you cited;
31He (Jesus) then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

Peter is not rebuking Jesus for the desire of wealth, but of life and to continue living. THEN Jesus says what you cited (Mark 8:33-36)
33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

This is a story about obeying God, even when the ultimate price is demanded, and what would it profit a man to stay alive and gain the whole world IF it meant losing his soul. This is NOT a story about material wealth, it is about obeying God in all things.


The crux of the message is: "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Peter was 'walking in the flesh', not 'in the spirit'... that includes the mortal AND material.

~
~Matthew 13:11-2 and Mark 4:24-5 (GnI said; explain the parables you cited, and show why they are NOT about earthly wealth.)

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
He who has will be given more, and will have an abundance. He who does NOT have will lose even what he has… this is ANTI-Communism. What part of this is confusing to you? It’s the exact opposite thing of communist ideals and theory.


Again, you (deliberately?) miss the important part... Jesus explains WHY he uses the parables he uses: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them"

The scary thing is - if I can see that he is talking about faith and salvation... and you think the parable is about money... it would idenyify me with the group with "knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom"... and you as one of the ones Jesus encoded it from.

Which is a scary thought, because I certainly don't think it should be that way.

~
~Luke 6:30-5
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
This story is ANTI-Communism as well. In a communist society you would ‘do good’ because if was forced on you, you would get not credit for it. Even ‘sinners’ can be charitable if the government forces them to do it. Jesus is telling people to be charitable on their own accord. To do it when they are not expected to be doing it, when they are not forced to do it. Allow a rich man the opportunity to be charitable, again, anti-communism.


Lend freely anf give freely. According to your ability to give, and according to the needs of others.

Why are you confusing 'communism' with authoritarianism?

~
~Luke 11:7-8 (GnI left off 7, but I added it to 8)
7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

This is a parable telling us to be irritatingly persistent in going to God with our prayers, to keep knocking on the door, to ‘bug’ god with our prayers, to not stop asking. What does it have to do with anything communist?


I left of seven because, while a man in bed with children is more of the unique flavour of the scripture, it has no bearing.


Get, and give, as much as needed. Part of a message.

~
~John 4:36-38
36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."
The reaper draws wages, wages are anti-communism. The sower paid with work and was not rewarded, anti-communism. One gets paid for the work the other has done, anti-communism. Others do the hard work and the benefits go to another, anti-communism.


The sower AND the reaper. You miss that? They both gain benefit from the endeavour. You don't pay much attention, even when you are quibbling.

~
John 13:14
14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.
This verse is telling us to become servants to other. To make ourselves lower than others and to serve them. To become first one must be last. Anti-communism, again.

Communism says everyone is equal, and no one should be sub-servant to another…


No - it doesn't. But, it can. What is important is that each man is the servant of each OTHER man.

-----

~
Your verses did NOT support your assertion. Some simply had nothing to do with communists and communism, and others are arguing against your claim by being lessons that are contrary to communist theory. Your assertion that Jesus was a communist has now been thoroughly debunked. Your argument fails due to proof to the contrary by your own list of verses.

The only part of the closing paragraph that is true, is the part I've highlighted.

Tee hee. Thats funny.

Prosyletizing, I see.


If you mean "Proselytizing: To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." then you are correct. However you might at least make sure you are spelling it right before you post it.

If you mean "Proselytizing: To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." then you are correct. However you might at least make sure you are spelling it right before you post it.

Dont be a grammar nazi.

You knew what he meant.

Dont be a grammar nazi.

You knew what he meant.


I mean to spread the Good News of Christ, no self respecting Nazi would ever do that, but a English Teacher might.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=spread+the+word&qs_version=31

*snip*

After about 2 or 3 songs, the service pastor come back up and told us we had been "Punk'd", and that this was a test of our faith, to see if we would be quiet in the midst of a particular danger, IE losing our place of worship, or if we would be like Peter and John in the early part of Acts, where they say "We can't help but to speak what we have seen and heard". This is definitely something that will stay with me forever. I mean, that initial felling of just anger, and being upset about having to be silent, but then it was washed away by our praises to God. I feel so...free inside now. I think this was a very needed step in my walk. So does anyone else have a similar experience?

Sorry, but does this "pastor" realize that what he did is the kind of thing Jim Jones used to to to his congregation? He told them this kind of lie too, and used it to test them and to get them ready for the day when he had them -- all 913 of them -- drink poison themselves. Other sect-leaders have done this kind of thing too, to test the faith of [read: "teach mindless obedience to"] their victims. There is a long history of this kind of abuse of congregations by their pastor, and it's often one of the first steps an abuser takes in dominating people. It usually ends very badly.

The kind of "pastor" who tells lies to manipulate a congregation's emotions often has an unhealthy need to exercise power over people. Unchecked, he is likely to hurt someone sooner or later, perhaps badly. The key to the significance of this is the deliberate act of manipulative lying. Lies told to advance spiritual truth or whatever are still lies. That nullifies the liar's claim to love the truth. In Christian terms, lying is sin and is contrary to serving Christ. The Christian is supposed to do good by telling the truth, not by lying.

This kind of action is a sign that this pastor has departed from proper Christian doctrine and practice. If I were you, I'd talk to that pastor's "boss" (senior pastor, denominational leader, whatever). If the "boss" stops it, good; you'll have saved yourself and others from potentially dangerous and cultic abuse. I'd actually be looking for a public apology being made by the pastor who committed the act. If the "boss" laughs it off, or worse, tries to excuse it, get out! And take as many people away with you as you can. And contact a local "cult-watching" organization and report this to them as well. At best, you were victimized by someone being very silly and self-indulgent; at worst, you may be witnessing the beginning of something nasty.

People who care about the integrity of the Christian teaching and message need to take some of the responsibility for opposing such abuses and nonsense. So many of the abuses that have given Christianity a bad name with ordinary people could have been stopped if only Christians would have stood up and challenged it, instead of naively trusting that the perpetrators "meant well".

I'm glad for you that you may have learned an important personal lesson in that situation, but whatever the benefit, it was despite the lie, not because of it. A good pastor would have found a way to teach you and the congregation that same lesson without lying to you to do it. If I were you I'd hang onto the lesson but shun the sin.

FWIW...

I mean to spread the Good News of Christ, no self respecting Nazi would ever do that, but a English Teacher might.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=spread+the+word&qs_version=31

Self-respecting Nazi? I'm not sure if you can use those words like that.

Is it worth pointing out the Nazi party had close ties with the church?

How many times has everyones parents lied to them about things in their childhood? Toothfairy, easter bunny, santa claus, etc? But yet the children have faith in their parents no? I'll give you a better example. Take anyone of Jesus' parables about a particular person, Jesus told them these stories, wheter it was about the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, or whoever, to get a message across, no matter if it really happened or not. Is that a lie? some might say yes, but I say no, since it is giving people a moral lesson, where as a lie is something non moral. So take this pastor's story about the politician. It was a story made to change our view point. He wasn't trying to make us feel anger towards anyone, although some people were angry, but rather he tried to let us see in ourselves wether in times or peril if we could stand for Christ or allow ourselves to be quiet.
*snip*



1. The effect of what parents do or don't do cannot be an argument here. There are parents who beat, abuse, rape and murder their kids. Thanks to a dynamic not unlike Stockholm syndrome many abused children find it difficult to stop loving their parents at some level. BTW, I do know kids who never got over discovering that the tooth fairy or Santa Claus aren't real.

2. Your "better" example is actually worse. In a story-telling culture, Jesus told stories, as any rabbi would. His hearers would have known they were stories. There is no reason to suppose that the 1st-century Jews believed that these were real events. In any case, the way Jesus presented these stories, complete with application, makes clear that they are illustrations of teaching. The stories themselves are not the point. Jesus wasn't expecting anyone to run off looking for bandit-victims, or prodigal sons, etc.

By contrast, in your OP your pastor did more than tell a story to "give people a moral lesson" or "change your viewpoint". He told you a LIE (he invented something you had no reason to suppose was anything but a literal event) with a view to influencing you immediate behaviour in direct response to that supposedly literal event.

The scary thing to me is that you now are rationalizing this man's sin against God and his manipulation of you.

Don't knock it if you haven't experienced it. You might even decide you liked it to.

You know, I was once told that about homsexual sex.

Worst decsion of my life! *god did it hurt*:eek:

Self-respecting Nazi? I'm not sure if you can use those words like that.

Is it worth pointing out the Nazi party had close ties with the church?

Oh Please Mary ... what church? The Church of Satan! Certainly not a Christian Church that is living by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

1. The effect of what parents do or don't do cannot be an argument here. There are parents who beat, abuse, rape and murder their kids. Thanks to a dynamic not unlike Stockholm syndrome many abused children find it difficult to stop loving their parents at some level. BTW, I do know kids who never got over discovering that the tooth fairy or Santa Claus aren't real.

2. Your "better" example is actually worse. In a story-telling culture, Jesus told stories, as any rabbi would. His hearers would have known they were stories. There is no reason to suppose that the 1st-century Jews believed that these were real events. In any case, the way Jesus presented these stories, complete with application, makes clear that they are illustrations of teaching. The stories themselves are not the point. Jesus wasn't expecting anyone to run off looking for bandit-victims, or prodigal sons, etc.

By contrast, in your OP your pastor did more than tell a story to "give people a moral lesson" or "change your viewpoint". He told you a LIE (he invented something you had no reason to suppose was anything but a literal event) with a view to influencing you immediate behaviour in direct response to that supposedly literal event.

The scary thing to me is that you now are rationalizing this man's sin against God and his manipulation of you.


The Holy Sprit does not respond positively to sinners. That is proof enough for anyone that knows him. I suggest you stop trying to rationalize something you can't possibility understand until you have experienced it.

If you mean "Proselytizing: To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." then you are correct. However you might at least make sure you are spelling it right before you post it.

Ah, I see - so no doubt it will warm you to no end when I then say that you sir, are in fact a gormless pillock with little to no redeeming qualities to remark upon in a positive manner.

You know, I was once told that about homsexual sex.

Worst decsion of my life! *god did it hurt*:eek:



And your point is? Now you are likeing Christians to homsexual sex? You are really reaching now aren't you. Shame on you!

Ah, I see - so no doubt it will warm you to no end when I then say that you sir, are in fact a gormless pillock with little to no redeeming qualities to remark upon in a positive manner.


When you can show me an intelligent arguement please let me know until then do keep quite because you are show your stupidity.

Ah, I see - so no doubt it will warm you to no end when I then say that you sir, are in fact a gormless pillock with little to no redeeming qualities to remark upon in a positive manner.


When you can show me an intelligent arguement please let me know until then do keep quite because you are showing your stupidity. Because you are the clueless idiot not me. Oh and stop trying to impress everyone with your little used names.

When you can show me an intelligent arguement please let me know until then do keep quite because you are showing your stupidity.

I will if you promise to learn to spell 'quiet' properly. How'd that be?

I will if you promise to learn to spell 'quiet' properly. How'd that be?

Well at least I can spell it properly when I am not agitated by an odiot.

Well at least I can spell it properly when I am not agitated by an odiot.

My, my. You must be particularly thin-skinned. Not good for someone trying to annoy people by spreading the word of the Lard unbidden. Doesn't lend itself to the task you've set for yourself, dontcha know. The task of beating everybody over the head with just how jim-dandy your belief system is, in an unremitting fashion.

You know. Proselytizing.

My, my. You must be particularly thin-skinned. Not good for someone trying to annoy people by spreading the word of the Lard unbidden. Doesn't lend itself to the task you've set for yourself, dontcha know. The task of beating everybody over the head with just how jim-dandy your belief system is, in an unremitting fashion.

You know. Proselytizing.


I feel sorry for you. You speak as if you know what you are talking about
calling me names that only fit you. I know what I am talking about, I have experienced the healing power of the Holy Sprit. I have felt him come into a room and completely change the negitivity of the world into something wonderful. I have watched as my sight was healed from praying and laying on of hands! Have you? I doubt it or you wouldn't be saying all these negitive things. So before you continue prove me wrong if you can. If not just drop it because you are embarrassing yourself before the Lord.

I feel sorry for you. You speak as if you know what you are talking about
calling me names that only fit you. I know what I am talking about, I have experienced the healing power of the Holy Sprit. I have felt him come into a room and completely change the negitivity of the world into someyhing wonderful. Have you? I doubt it or you wouldn't be saying all these things. So before you continue prove me wrong.

To quote James T. Kirk - "What does God need with a Starship?". Why do you feel it incumbent upon you to sell your notion of God to the people around you? If God is as amazingly amazing as you'd like us all to think, then he doesn't need individual humans poking their noses around unbidden, shilling on His behalf, now does He? God doesn't need a salesman. So I look to see what else motivates you.

Are you somehow incomplete? Are you living an unrealized existence? Do you reach for the warm, ready-made security blanket that is organized worship whenever you briefly glimpse the abyss in those moments of frailty and uncertainty? Why would I ever consider the salespitch of someone who cannot claim to walk their own unique path? Why would I ever allow another to interpose themselves between my own self (or others) and God - those who would claim to speak on behalf of God?

I am at one with God. I have no need of intermediaries. And you should know by now that if you have the world's greatest mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door, and not vice-versa.

Oh Please Mary ... what church? The Church of Satan! Certainly not a Christian Church that is living by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Actually, I think the Church of Satan would have some major problems with the Nazis, as their theology in a nutshell is:

1. Do what you want to do
2. Let other people do what they want to do
3. If other people have gotten in the way of your pursuit of pleasure, then you may do anything nessisary to regain it/remove theirs.

Whereas the theology of the modern christian church is:
1. Do what you think God said, irregardless of how barbaric this sounds or how reliable the source is.

Oh Please Mary ... what church? The Church of Satan! Certainly not a Christian Church that is living by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic church, though the Catholics tried to downplay it. On the whole it was more a case of the Nazis claiming divine approval for their agenda than the church actually giving approval. In practice, church leaders had a spotty record. Some aided the Nazis. Some stood by and did nothing. Some resisted bravely. Unfortunately, they were not helped by their pope, who fell pretty much in the do-nothing group.

I'd beg to differ the bolded statement. Just because 80%(or whatever the number is) affiliates with Christianity, doesn't mean they are Christians. And no I am not judging anyone, just saying if they are not Christ like, then they really can't be considered Christians.
No true Scottsman...


As I learned it, the "no true Scotsman fallacy", isn't actually a fallacy if the definitions used really are mutually exclusive.

Speaking in terms of Christian theology, being in the process of becoming Christ-like defines being Christian.

OTOH, the trouble is, deciding if someone is showing "Christ-likeness" requires Divine knowledge in certain areas that by definition is beyond human reach. Humans can see the outside; only God sees the heart. We can say certain behaviour isn't Christ-like, but that isn't the same as proving the person isn't a Christian.

So, IF it were possible to really know if a person is becoming Christ-like, Zilam's statement wouldn't be a fallacy. But since we're limited we can only talk about appearances, we have to be provisional and accept our limitations. That doesn't make what Zilam said a fallacy; just a determination about another person which is subject to a lot of uncertainty at the most fundamental level.

None of you are qualified to make these determinations. All your big words and fancy speech will not change the fact that you don't know the Lord as your Savior so you are closed to the workings of the Holy Sprit. :rolleyes:

:

None of you are qualified to make these determinations. All your big words and fancy speech will not change the fact that you don't know the Lord as your Savior so you are closed to the workings of the Holy Sprit. :rolleyes:

:

:eek: Is there ANOTHER poster who claims those who disagree with him are not qualified to have their own opinions?!?!? Noooooo!!!!!

Whatever. The bottom line is, your idea of what constitutes true understanding of religion is applicable only to you and, thus, meaningful only to you. If your mission is life is to make that meaning available to others, then giving up at the first sign of resistance is a pretty quick route to failure, don't you think?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Does no one hear me saying it wasn't about the CONSTITUTION? HE JUST USED THAT AS AN EXAMPLE TO POINT OUT THAT WE SHOULD WALK THE WALK,AND NOT JUST TALK THE TALK!


And Zilam, do you not understand what people here are trying to say? THE PASTOR LIED!

To put it another way, he may have been trying to get all of you to "walk the walk", but the method he used to do it means he wasn't walking the walk when he did it.

That's not a Christian understanding of God.

And BTW, is that your way of answering people in love when they dissent from you? Try as I may to imagine Jesus banging His head in frustration and bellowing, I'm drawing a blank. As for imagining Jesus lying to manipulate behaviour and then excusing it with "it's just an example to ..." blah blah, well...

I can imagine Jesus calling that kind of thing "hypocrisy" and condemning it. As someone else said already,
The end DOES NOT justify the means. That's because Christian teaching is that the end and the means are the same thing. Righteousness is to be accomplished by being righteous, truth is to be advanced by telling truth, and so on.

The fact that the Church already has accummulated a reputation for ignoring this principle for the sake of expediency and "because it's easy" doesn't change Christian standards, it just shows that people aren't acting like Christians.

Regardless of whether not the pastor should have done it in that way, he did get his answer. You all stood up for the Lord and because you did the Holy Sprit filled your church. You all passed the test! Thats what is important!

actually there were 2 tests here, one he passed, the other he didnt

it is important for young christians to learn that being a good christian isnt always the same as obeying civil authority. when you are young, you are under the care of your parents and learn that obeying their authority one of the commandments. when you become an adult, you have to move beyond the idea that disobedience is a sin. sometimes it must be done.

for zilam and his congregation to NOT defy the bogus authority of the unknown official would have been pathetic. all they were risking is losing the free space they meet in. it would be selling out their ideals for a very cheap price.

this test they passed.

the other test is to know that people lie. that even a minister can be a liar. this minister told a rather obvious lie that one called him on. zilam, as an ns regular, can be expected to know that there IS no violation of church and state invovled in being allowed a free meeting space at his public university. he should have wondered why his minister would be so cowed by the supposed official that HE would compromise his beliefs and encourage his congregation to do the same. he should have questioned the (pretend) sickening behavior of his minister. he needs to learn to be skeptical of even the authority of religious leaders.

he failed this test.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Does no one hear me saying it wasn't about the CONSTITUTION? HE JUST USED THAT AS AN EXAMPLE TO POINT OUT THAT WE SHOULD WALK THE WALK,AND NOT JUST TALK THE TALK!

Let's define some things here:
"Walk the walk"- Handling this as Jesus would have.
"Talk the talk"- Saying you would have handled this as Jesus would have.
Now, we have to see what Jesus would have done if the government was oppresing him for being Jesus.
Oh wait, we know exactly what he did:
He gave up.
Granted, he gave up in a public way(and in a way that didn't make him any less messianic), but he gave up nonetheless.
Which is exactly what you should have done, and didn't do.
Therefore, you don't walk the walk, you only talk the talk.

28 days is just 4 weeks.

Doesn't seem so odd.


While we're being exact, 28 isn't odd, it's even.


but I suppose nobody wanted to know that, right?

actually there were 2 tests here, one he passed, the other he didnt

it is important for young christians to learn that being a good christian isnt always the same as obeying civil authority. when you are young, you are under the care of your parents and learn that obeying their authority one of the commandments. when you become an adult, you have to move beyond the idea that disobedience is a sin. sometimes it must be done.

for zilam and his congregation to NOT defy the bogus authority of the unknown official would have been pathetic. all they were risking is losing the free space they meet in. it would be selling out their ideals for a very cheap price.

this test they passed.

the other test is to know that people lie. that even a minister can be a liar. this minister told a rather obvious lie that one called him on. zilam, as an ns regular, can be expected to know that there IS no violation of church and state invovled in being allowed a free meeting space at his public university. he should have wondered why his minister would be so cowed by the supposed official that HE would compromise his beliefs and encourage his congregation to do the same. he should have questioned the (pretend) sickening behavior of his minister. he needs to learn to be skeptical of even the authority of religious leaders.

he failed this test.


Can what the Pastor did be held against Zilam, I think not. The point is that Zilam stood up for the Lord in front of the world at large. In doing so he proved to the Lord that he wasn't ashamed of being a Christian.That was the only test that Zilam needed to pass, and he passed it with flying colors. The fact that the Holy Sprit intervened is proof of that. Can you not see what is right in front of your face?

Can what the Pastor did be held against Zilam, I think not. The point is that Zilam stood up for the Lord in front of the world at large. In doing so he proved to the Lord that he wasn't ashamed of being a Christian.That was the only test that Zilam needed to pass, and he passed it with flying colors. The fact that the Holy Sprit intervened is proof of that. Can you not see what is right in front of your face?

of course zilam cant be held responsible for what his minister did, he is responsible for what HE does.

human history is replete with stories of religious leaders who led their congregations astray. jim jones and david koresh we can perhaps all agree on. it is every christians duty to question things when a minister or other religious leader suddenly asks them to do something unusual.

None of you are qualified to make these determinations. All your big words and fancy speech will not change the fact that you don't know the Lord as your Savior so you are closed to the workings of the Holy Sprit. :rolleyes:

:

My you come off sounding arogant!

Not that you mean to. I sound arrogant nearly all the time, but I hardly ever mean to be.

It's not a good tactic to tell them they don't understand anything, however true it may be.

My you come off sounding arogant!

Not that you mean to. I sound arrogant nearly all the time, but I hardly ever mean to be.

It's not a good tactic to tell them they don't understand anything, however true it may be.


I only become arrogant sounding when I feel threatened. I don't appreciate being talked down to.

of course zilam cant be held responsible for what his minister did, he is responsible for what HE does.

human history is replete with stories of religious leaders who led their congregations astray. jim jones and david koresh we can perhaps all agree on. it is every christians duty to question things when a minister or other religious leader suddenly asks them to do something unusual.

Point made ... he did nothing wrong.

I only become arrogant sounding when I feel threatened. I don't appreciate being talked down to.

maybe you should quit making assumptions and using them to talk down to people and we would be nicer to you......just a thought.

Point made ... he did nothing wrong.

I don't follow. Do you disagree with Ashmoria? Christians should not question their leaders when they tell them to do something unusual?

Separation of church and state is overrated anyway.

I don't follow. Do you disagree with Ashmoria? Christians should not question their leaders when they tell them to do something unusual?

apparently inaction and poor skills at recognizing dangerous leaders are not "wrong"

I only become arrogant sounding when I feel threatened. I don't appreciate being talked down to.

Of course not. But then, don't talk down to others. It's hard. You understand (or at least it appears that you do) and they don't. So guide them. Don't cast them away.

It's hard. I always end up turning into someone who sounds arrogant. For the same reason as you. But remember: Who can bring charge against you, God's elect?

Try not to feel threatened and be slow to wrath.

Separation of church and state is overrated anyway.

Of course it is. :)

Jim Jones obviously didn't know the Holy Sprit, so your using him as a basis for your arguement is not only irrelevant but insulting as well.

Separation of church and state is overrated anyway.

Yeah. Make things easier to give morality back to America if religions could have more influence on politicians then they already have.

Luckily we have the seperation of church and state so we don't have to worry about fundies trying to impose their morality on us.

Jim Jones obviously didn't know the Holy Sprit, so your using him as a basis for your arguement is not only irrelevant but insulting as well.

And you're patronizing, but why sit around cataloguing each others' faults? Really, you're going to have to put up with far worse than the peeps here on NSG if you have any hope at all of drumming up support for Jehovah among we heathens.

I don't follow. Do you disagree with Ashmoria? Christians should not question their leaders when they tell them to do something unusual?

I have two names to give you to refute that argument:


Slobodan Milosevic

Pope Urban II


Enough said. If that doesn't convince you that you should not do things because you are supposedly commanded to by God, a religious leader, or someone of a highly religious sect, then you are an ultra fundamentalist, and I will see you at the Hague one day.

Jim Jones obviously didn't know the Holy Sprit, so your using him as a basis for your arguement is not only irrelevant but insulting as well.

I have a question for you:
If God himself came up to you and told you to kill every person on earth, would you do it(or at least, try to)?

I have two names to give you to refute that argument:


Slobodan Milosevic

Pope Urban II


Enough said. If that doesn't convince you that you should not do things because you are supposedly commanded to by God, a religious leader, or someone of a highly religious sect, then you are an ultra fundamentalist, and I will see you at the Hague one day.

:confused:
Muryavets wasn't arguing that, she was asking "is this your argument?"

I don't follow. Do you disagree with Ashmoria? Christians should not question their leaders when they tell them to do something unusual?

If those people had not done as they did then it would have looked like they were ashamed of being a Christian. Jesus said that if you are ashamed of him before the world that he will be ashamed of you before the Father. In other words you would not be saved. Since being saved is the idea behind christianity, by asking those people to do anything but what they did could cost them their soul.

I have a question for you:
If God himself came up to you and told you to kill every person on earth, would you do it(or at least, try to)?

If I knew It was God, I would. But I don't think that will ever happen. I could be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says He wouldn't (so far as I know), but what it does say about His nature leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely He would ask me to do that.

:confused:
Muryavets wasn't arguing that, she was asking "is this your argument?"

I know, I was referring to the person she was arguing with. I was backing her up ;)


Sorry I didn't clerify that...

If those people had not done as they did then it would have looked like they were ashamed of being a Christian. Jesus said that if you are ashamed of him before the world that he will be ashamed of you before the Father. In other words you would not be saved. Since being saved is the idea behind christianity, by asking those people to do anything but what they did could cost them there soul.

So if you were told by the Pope, or who ever, that it was God's will that you carry out a Crusade killing all non-Christians, and if you didn't, Jesus would be ashamed, would you do this?


EDIT:

Damnit, someone already made the same point....:mad: :(

If I knew It was God, I would. But I don't think that will ever happen. I could be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says He wouldn't (so far as I know), but what it does say about His nature leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely He would ask me to do that.


I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.

If I knew It was God, I would. But I don't think that will ever happen. I could be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says He wouldn't (so far as I know), but what it does say about His nature leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely He would ask me to do that.

If someone claiming to be God told you to do such an act then obviously this "God" is a fraud.

I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.

isn't one of God's laws "not" to lie?

So if you were told by the Pope, or who ever, that it was God's will that you carry out a Crusade killing all non-Christians, and if you didn't, Jesus would be ashamed, would you do this?


EDIT:

Damnit, someone already made the same point....:mad: :(

The Pope isn't God and I am not a Catholic and I would not do it.

The Pope isn't God and I am not a Catholic.

Supposedly, to the Catholics at least, he is the voice and mouthpiece of god.

I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.

Then why does God tell us to do anything? Because although He can do it very well without us, He desires that we do it for a purpose known only to Him.

And there are many times when God says to kill - look all through the Law and you will find a lot of death penalties.

As for what is more likely, I agree with you. That's why I said, "If I knew It was God..."

If someone claiming to be God told you to do such an act then obviously this "God" is a fraud.

That's why I said "If I knew It was God..."

Supposedly, to the Catholics at least, he is the voice and mouthpiece of god.

Direct representative I think. So basically what the pope says, God is saying it as well.

Then why does God tell us to do anything? Because although He can do it very well without us, He desires that we do it for a purpose known only to Him.

And there are many times when God says to kill - look all through the Law and you will find a lot of death penalties.

As for what is more likely, I agree with you. That's why I said, "If I knew It was God..."


He doesn't ask people to kill other people, it is against his own laws.

Then why does God tell us to do anything? Because although He can do it very well without us, He desires that we do it for a purpose known only to Him.

And there are many times when God says to kill - look all through the Law and you will find a lot of death penalties.

As for what is more likely, I agree with you. That's why I said, "If I knew It was God..."

I refuse to countenance a God who engages in pointless make-work.

He doesn't ask people to kill other people, it is against his own laws.

Well, then. Who's the executioner? An unperson? Who's the soldier? A nonperson?

I refuse to countenance a God who engages in pointless make-work.

Who said it was pointless? Just because we don't know the point, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well, then. Who's the executioner? An unperson? Who's the soldier? A nonperson?

Mankind.

Direct representative I think. So basically what the pope says, God is saying it as well.

I don't need the Pope to tell me what the Lord is saying. Jesus will speak to everyday people if they are willing to listen. I'm sure you have heard of thou shall not kill. Jesus will not tell you to do something that go's against what the new testament teachs.

That's why I said "If I knew It was God..."

It is still a contradiction. Saying you would follow those instructions if you knew it was Him. If there is a God and he instructed me to follow that instruction I wouldn't want to have anything to do with that deity.

Mankind.

Soldiers still have a choice

It is still a contradiction. Saying you would follow those instructions if you knew it was Him. If there is a God and he instructed me to follow that instruction I wouldn't want to have anything to do with that deity.

I didn't say I would do it

I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.

isn't one of God's laws "not" to lie?

am I right to assume you are ignoring me for a reason?

Soldiers still have a choice

If God commanded someone to go to war (which the OT says He has) then He has told someone to kill someone.