NationStates Jolt Archive

A very good bit on CNN today, rather enjoyed it.


By Jay Bakker and Marc Brown
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jay Bakker, son of former Praise The Lord leaders Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is minister of Revolution Church and subject of a new documentary series, "One Punk Under God," on Sundance Channel. Marc Brown is a Revolution staff member.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not.

Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.

The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

But don't take our word for it; look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion.


Says most of the things I've been wondering, and why I refer to fundies as Xians rather than Christians.

Well, considering how difficult it is to separate the church and state, I won't hold my breath over separating the church and politics, I'm afraid.:(

A very good bit on CNN today, rather enjoyed it.

Says most of the things I've been wondering, and why I refer to fundies as Xians rather than Christians.

and one reason why I tend to stand out of things like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc...

it's one thing to live by God's rule because you want to, it's another to live by God's rule because you HAVE to.

but to allow it to happen also has the feeling of condoning it...

thus why I am strictly on the fence for those types of topics.

Extremism on any topic is... ugly.

I should show that "love" quote to my gf - she'd bitchslap me for insinuating she was abusive. :)

I refer to fundies as Xians rather than Christians.

I refer to them as arseholes myself

I can see your point there. Its not just christianity either. Almost all major religions seem to have become about them being right and everyone else being wrong (tho budism still seems good).
I dont know if i believe in god or not, but even if i knew i did i still would not join a church because organised religion always seems to go bad.

Perhaps he should try reading the other things Christ said. How about not coming to end the Law?

And Paul? Paul was the one who told us to not be tolerant of sin, to throw unrepentant sinners out of the Church (excommunication).

The other Apostles? Peter and John warn us of anti-Christs who preach the acceptance of sin. John makes it pretty clear in Revelation that the world is not in God's favor: they are playing the whore.

We need to stop being so concerned with accepting people and start being more concerned with accepting people: you're a sinner, God loves you, proclaim Christ your personal Lord and Savior, and then live (or try to live) according to His Law.

Perhaps he should try reading the other things Christ said. How about not coming to end the Law?

And Paul? Paul was the one who told us to not be tolerant of sin, to throw unrepentant sinners out of the Church (excommunication).

The other Apostles? Peter and John warn us of anti-Christs who preach the acceptance of sin. John makes it pretty clear in Revelation that the world is not in God's favor: they are playing the whore.

We need to stop being so concerned with accepting people and start being more concerned with accepting people: you're a sinner, God loves you, proclaim Christ your personal Lord and Savior, and then live (or try to live) according to His Law.

Hey lookit, an Xian!

Quick question, how can the world God created not be in God's favor?

Hey lookit, an Xian!

Quick question, how can the world God created not be in God's favor?

He created a perfect world. He put us in charge of it, to be stewards of it. We messed it up with sin. He cannot tolerate sin. We are not in His favor.

What I love here is that all Christians (or even all "fundies") are lumped into the same category.

Well, if there's no hivemind of Islam, there's no hivemind of Fundies.

Case closed.

The real problem for Christianity in the US, is the persecution. There simply isn't enough of it.

He created a perfect world. He put us in charge of it, to be stewards of it. We messed it up with sin. He cannot tolerate sin. We are not in His favor.

Who created Sin?

Who created Sin?

Sin is any want of conformity to or any transgression of the Law of God. It's not a thing. It's a word which describes a lack of obedience to God.

Sin is any want of conformity to or any transgression of the Law of God. It's not a thing. It's a word which describes a lack of obedience to God.

Tidus and Yuna would disagree!

Tidus and Yuna would disagree!

Who?

Sin is any want of conformity to or any transgression of the Law of God. It's not a thing. It's a word which describes a lack of obedience to God.

So free will is sin. I know I've made that argument before and people disagreed with me. Now then, who created free will?

So free will is sin. I know I've made that argument before and people disagreed with me. Now then, who created free will?

No, free will is not sin. Free will can want to obey, or it can want to disobey. That is why it is free.

And to answer your question, God made Man with free will, but we lost it in the Fall. We have free agency still (the ability to make a decision free from outside forces) but our will (what we desire to do) is bound to sin.

So free will is sin. I know I've made that argument before and people disagreed with me. Now then, who created free will?

Free will is not sin. It is that which allows you to choose to sin or choose to obey God's Law.

We need to stop being so concerned with accepting people and start being more concerned with accepting people: you're a sinner, God loves you, proclaim Christ your personal Lord and Savior, and then live (or try to live) according to His Law.

can you explain this please? the rest doesn't concern me but this doesn't make sense and i can't figure out what you meant to say. (particularly bolded part).

can you explain this please? the rest doesn't concern me but this doesn't make sense and i can't figure out what you meant to say. (particularly bolded part).

He means don't worry about getting people accepted, worry about too many people getting accepted.

He's weird.

No, free will is not sin. Free will can want to obey, or it can want to disobey. That is why it is free.

And to answer your question, God made Man with free will, but we lost it in the Fall. We have free agency still (the ability to make a decision free from outside forces) but our will (what we desire to do) is bound to sin.

Free will is not sin. It is that which allows you to choose to sin or choose to obey God's Law.

so you're saying that free will is good only if we do what we're told. somewhat contradictory, no?

He means don't worry about getting people accepted, worry about too many people getting accepted.

He's weird.

oh yeah, i forgot, christianity is an inclusive religion, "but only if we like you".

can you explain this please? the rest doesn't concern me but this doesn't make sense and i can't figure out what you meant to say. (particularly bolded part).

We are not to ostracize people (with the exception perhaps of prison) and mock them and ridicule them and do those stupid things like we did in 1st grade: "He looks funny with those glasses!"

We are to accept people.

But what that word "accept" is used to mean today is this idea of "whatever you want to do as long as you aren't physically hurting me". So by accepting, we are putting our stamp of approval on sin saying "This is simply an alternative and we should not try to change their minds." Many of the things we are stamping with this seal are sins. But, no one promotes the idea of "Love the sinner; hate the sin." The raining thought right now is "Hate the sin, and you obviously hate the sinner."

So we are not to accept people.

so you're saying that free will is good only if we do what we're told. somewhat contradictory, no?

Of course it is. The very idea that we fell because we did something god didn't want us to do is ridiculous.

I'd normally go on a rant about various things in the bible and the story of Adam and Eve, but I've already done it so many times - probably once or twice in the direction of Edwardis, even, so lemme sum it up real quick:


Fuck the bible.


That was fun.

so you're saying that free will is good only if we do what we're told. somewhat contradictory, no?

No. It's not contradictory. We were designed to have free will, so we were good. But free will is neutral, neither good nor bad, or else it wouldn't be free.

Perhaps he should try reading the other things Christ said. How about not coming to end the Law?neither did he say he was there to uphold it. He just said that the laws of man were not his concern.

And Paul? Paul was the one who told us to not be tolerant of sin, to throw unrepentant sinners out of the Church (excommunication).and when those sinners repent?

The other Apostles? Peter and John warn us of anti-Christs who preach the acceptance of sin. John makes it pretty clear in Revelation that the world is not in God's favor: they are playing the whore.so, doesn't that mean we are supposed to fight the sin, not the sinner.

We need to stop being so concerned with accepting people and start being more concerned with accepting people: you're a sinner, God loves you, proclaim Christ your personal Lord and Savior, and then live (or try to live) according to His Law.
I think you're missing a word or three here.

oh yeah, i forgot, christianity is an inclusive religion, "but only if we like you".

wrong, it is an Inclusive Religion, but "Only if you want to join."

Granted, for some churches, they gotta fire the marketing department...

so you're saying that free will is good only if we do what we're told. somewhat contradictory, no?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Free will in of itself is neither good nor evil. Your choices can be either good or evil.

neither did he say he was there to uphold it. He just said that the laws of man were not his concern.

He said He came to fulfill it which is why we no longer hold to the ceremonial law.

and when those sinners repent?

We are to let them back in. More than that, we should run to them with open arms like the father of the prodigal son. But only when they repent.

so, doesn't that mean we are supposed to fight the sin, not the sinner.

We are to wage war against the sin. But we are to correct the sinner.

I think you're missing a word or three here.

Which would those be?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Free will in of itself is neither good nor evil. Your choices can be either good or evil.

Okay, let's assume this:

Free will is a pointed hill, and mankind is at the very top, balancing perfectly.

What tips us one way or the other if not something given to us by god?

. But we are to correct the sinner.


Define correct

Define correct

Your actions are wrong, you need to repent and come to Christ for forgiveness. If you don't repent, there will be punishment, some of which may be temporal (prison, excecution, fines, etc.).

Define correct

Evangelize.

Your actions are wrong, you need to repent and come to Christ for forgiveness. If you don't repent, there will be punishment, some of which may be temporal (prison, excecution, fines, etc.).

Okay, but answer my question about the pointed hill.

A very good bit on CNN today, rather enjoyed it.





Says most of the things I've been wondering, and why I refer to fundies as Xians rather than Christians.

good article, and defines nicely why i'm so often baffled by right-wing christians... i don't know much about the bible, but i am pretty sure jesus taught forgiveness and tolerance, as well as compassion and help for the poor. seems more left-wing and hippie than 'fundie' to me :)

Your actions are wrong, you need to repent and come to Christ for forgiveness. If you don't repent, there will be punishment, some of which may be temporal (prison, excecution, fines, etc.).

Ok, does this count for all types of sin. Should people go to prison for adultery? What about swearing, or lying?

Okay, let's assume this:

Free will is a pointed hill, and mankind is at the very top, balancing perfectly.

What tips us one way or the other if not something given to us by god?

free thought? introspection and philisophical ethics?

a 2000 year old book is not the only place where morality can come from

free thought? introspection and philisophical ethics?

a 2000 year old book is not the only place where morality can come from

Nono, I'm talking about in Adam and Eve's situation, when they were supposedly perfect, affected only by the infinitely neutral power of free will, they were completely balanced.

What pushed them out of balance?

Okay, but answer my question about the pointed hill.

Nothing tips you. You decide which way to go; you have free agency.

Nothing tips you. You decide which way to go; you have free agency.

Yes but we decide based on what?

Okay, let's assume this:

Free will is a pointed hill, and mankind is at the very top, balancing perfectly.

What tips us one way or the other if not something given to us by god?

More like you're on a hill and free will is your legs which allow you to run down either side.

No, free will is not sin. Free will can want to obey, or it can want to disobey. That is why it is free.

And to answer your question, God made Man with free will, but we lost it in the Fall. We have free agency still (the ability to make a decision free from outside forces) but our will (what we desire to do) is bound to sin.

No, if you consign your will over to another power you give up free will. Thus free will is sin.

Nono, I'm talking about in Adam and Eve's situation, when they were supposedly perfect, affected only by the infinitely neutral power of free will, they were completely balanced.

What pushed them out of balance?

They were tempted, whether by God or by Satan, and chose to disobey God. The key is that the chose to disobey.

Ok, does this count for all types of sin. Should people go to prison for adultery? What about swearing, or lying?

Every sin no matter how large.

And we also need to distinguish between two types of temporal punishment.

The first is from God. You get cancer, your nation is invaded, a tornado takes you house away. These are generally not punishment for any specifc act (though they can be), but usually for a life of sin. See the STD's as Punishment thread for this topic.

The second type is done by Man. This is prison, excommunication, fines, excecution and the like.

Some sins will not have this second type temporal punishment (pride, for example).

Other will, like murder.

Some we don't give the punishment we are required to give or not the correct punishment. The Bible says to excecute the adulterer.

As for swearing and lying, I cannot honsetly remember what the Bible says is the appropriate punishment for those, if there is to be one.

Yes but we decide based on what?

What seems good to us. Adam and Eve thought that the serpent's statement "You will be as God" sounded pretty good and decided to disobey.

The first is from God. You get cancer, your nation is invaded, a tornado takes you house away. These are generally not punishment for any specifc act (though they can be), but usually for a life of sin. See the STD's as Punishment thread for this topic.

That's complete bullshit.

Every sin no matter how large.

And we also need to distinguish between two types of temporal punishment.

The first is from God. You get cancer, your nation is invaded, a tornado takes you house away. These are generally not punishment for any specifc act (though they can be), but usually for a life of sin. See the STD's as Punishment thread for this topic.

The second type is done by Man. This is prison, excommunication, fines, excecution and the like.

Some sins will not have this second type temporal punishment (pride, for example).

Other will, like murder.

Some we don't give the punishment we are required to give or not the correct punishment. The Bible says to excecute the adulterer.

As for swearing and lying, I cannot honsetly remember what the Bible says is the appropriate punishment for those, if there is to be one.

You are insane. Being apart from god in the afterlife is the punishment of sin.

No, if you consign your will over to another power you give up free will. Thus free will is sin.

No, if you consign your will over to God, it is obedience. The angels had free will. Some chose to obey God and others chose to disobey. Those that disobeyed are now demons.

They were neutral, they had free will. Now, they still have free agency, but they are confirmed in their wills which are bound to obedience for the angels and sin for the demons.

He said He came to fulfill it which is why we no longer hold to the ceremonial law.I believe the quote he said was "I am not here to tear down what your fathers have built"

his purpose was to fulfill GOD's plan, which is why there is no need for ceremonial Rituals.

We are to let them back in. More than that, we should run to them with open arms like the father of the prodigal son. But only when they repent.and how can they repent if they are not taught? (excommunication) we can only provide the lessions and the tools. Nudge them to the path that we also walk. and we must allow ourselves to be led by others.

We are to wage war against the sin. But we are to correct the sinner.and the 1 million dollar question... how to seperate the two? To attack the sin, will be perceived to be an attack on the sinner.



Which would those be?to the question about the bolded lines.
We are not to ostracize people (with the exception perhaps of prison) and mock them and ridicule them and do those stupid things like we did in 1st grade: "He looks funny with those glasses!"that is more we are not to judge people. and wrong, the ones in prison are the people that need use more. unless you are taking Ostracize to be a physical removal of a person and not just a rejection in total.

We are to accept people.with no strings attached. Even Jesus talked to the Samaritains and others as he did with his disciples.

But what that word "accept" is used to mean today is this idea of "whatever you want to do as long as you aren't physically hurting me". So by accepting, we are putting our stamp of approval on sin saying "This is simply an alternative and we should not try to change their minds." Many of the things we are stamping with this seal are sins. But, no one promotes the idea of "Love the sinner; hate the sin." The raining thought right now is "Hate the sin, and you obviously hate the sinner."

So we are not to accept people. we are not to Judge them. That is for God to do, not us. we can only provide a way for God into their hearts, and each person has their own way of doing so.

Some like to point out their sins, to "Scold" them and humble them into submission. *shrugs* that works for some people, but not all.

Others creates a warm and loving atmosphere that makes the sinner feel welcome and more accepting to the lessions that Jesus and his disciples taught. and through those lessions as well as living by example, do they learn to live a godly life. *Shrugs* that too works with some, but not all.

Sin, is a condition that exsists between a person and God. we can only talk about the sin, but the utlimate elements to remove that sin is the willingness of the sinner and God. we can only assist, or watch. we cannot force.

You are insane. Being apart from god in the afterlife is the punishment of sin.

Have you looked at the Old Testament? All the horrible things which happened to the Israelites were a result of their disobedience: going after idols, child sacrifice, fertility rite, etc.

But yes, THE punishement is the eternal fire. But that is not to say that there cannot be punishments.

So any exercise of free will is a sin and condemns you to hell. Which is the point I've made time and time again.

Some we don't give the punishment we are required to give or not the correct punishment. The Bible says to excecute the adulterer.

As for swearing and lying, I cannot honsetly remember what the Bible says is the appropriate punishment for those, if there is to be one.

The Old Testament said alot of things. Punishment for our sins because we could not possibly atone for them all. However, after the sacrifice of Christ for our sins, I don't think these punishments are necessary anymore. As long as you have accepted Christ as your savoir, all your sins have been washed away and there is nothing to punish.

They were tempted, whether by God or by Satan, and chose to disobey God. The key is that the chose to disobey.

Yes, but WHY. If they were, indeed, perfectly neutral as you suggest they were, with no outside influence, what gave them the push into sin?

If it is, as you suggest, Satan, then is it simply a case of Satan being more persuasive in a situation where they're both trying to gain control over a neutral being? If so, what does that say about the power of god? Also, god made Satan, and knew he would try to affect Adam and Eve - why did he not prevent that from happening, or at the very least, put forth more effort into taking them into his side? Are you suggesting that god, with all his power, simply lost to Satan?

God allowed Satan into Eden, and allowed him to tempt the humans, knowing that they were perfectly neutral and that temptation would tip them over in one side or another, yet he allowed them to be tempted, and punished them for it.


Or am I missing something?

By the way, who created satan? This all goes back to God, he's flawed, he created flawed beings and then punished them for being flawed.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Free will in of itself is neither good nor evil. Your choices can be either good or evil.

so we're given a choice to do one thing and god gives us a cookie, or the other thing and we get eternal damnation? now correct me if i'm wrong, but that doesn't quite follow what free will is supposed to be. it's the sort of choice a torturer would give their victim.

I believe the quote he said was "I am not here to tear down what your fathers have built"

Umm, I'm thinking of a different place. And I don't have a Bible with me.

his purpose was to fulfill GOD's plan, which is why there is no need for ceremonial Rituals.

But the moral law is still in effect.

and how can they repent if they are not taught? (excommunication) we can only provide the lessions and the tools. Nudge them to the path that we also walk. and we must allow ourselves to be led by others.

Excommunication is not to throw them out and never talk to them again. It is to say "You are no longer a member. We will not allow you to take Communion with us. We will not baptize your children. You have shown through your conduct that you must not care very much for how God's Word says we are to behave and so we must assume that you are not truly a Christian. And so, we are not to allow you to participate in those things which Christians only are allowed to participate. Which would be the Sacraments and church government." There are still allowed to come to church and youth group and Bible study and whatever else.

and the 1 million dollar question... how to seperate the two? To attack the sin, will be perceived to be an attack on the sinner.

Yes, of course. But that is not our fault. We must make sure that we are truly only attacking the sin. Everything else is up to the other person.

that is more we are not to judge people. and wrong, the ones in prison are the people that need use more. unless you are taking Ostracize to be a physical removal of a person and not just a rejection in total.

By ostracizing in prison, I mean removing from society as a whole, not rejecting and removing all contact.

with no strings attached. Even Jesus talked to the Samaritains and others as he did with his disciples.

Yes.

we are not to Judge them. That is for God to do, not us. we can only provide a way for God into their hearts, and each person has their own way of doing so.

We are not to judge souls, but we are to judge actions and ideas based soley on what Scripture tells us.

Some like to point out their sins, to "Scold" them and humble them into submission. *shrugs* that works for some people, but not all.

Well, you have to point out the sin. How you do it can of course differ, but you still have to point out the sin.

Others creates a warm and loving atmosphere that makes the sinner feel welcome and more accepting to the lessions that Jesus and his disciples taught. and through those lessions as well as living by example, do they learn to live a godly life. *Shrugs* that too works with some, but not all.

Same as above.

Sin, is a condition that exsists between a person and God. we can only talk about the sin, but the utlimate elements to remove that sin is the willingness of the sinner and God. we can only assist, or watch. we cannot force.

No, we cannot force.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/media/calvinist.jpg

So any exercise of free will is a sin and condemns you to hell. Which is the point I've made time and time again.

No, the sin is choosing to disobey God. You can use free will to choose to obey, and that is not sin.

The Old Testament said alot of things. Punishment for our sins because we could not possibly atone for them all. However, after the sacrifice of Christ for our sins, I don't think these punishments are necessary anymore. As long as you have accepted Christ as your savoir, all your sins have been washed away and there is nothing to punish.

I disagree about the punishments being necessary.

And I would also be careful about your line of thought in the last sentence. Your sins are washed away, but that does not mean that you stop sinning.

Yes, but WHY. If they were, indeed, perfectly neutral as you suggest they were, with no outside influence, what gave them the push into sin?

If it is, as you suggest, Satan, then is it simply a case of Satan being more persuasive in a situation where they're both trying to gain control over a neutral being? If so, what does that say about the power of god? Also, god made Satan, and knew he would try to affect Adam and Eve - why did he not prevent that from happening, or at the very least, put forth more effort into taking them into his side? Are you suggesting that god, with all his power, simply lost to Satan?

God allowed Satan into Eden, and allowed him to tempt the humans, knowing that they were perfectly neutral and that temptation would tip them over in one side or another, yet he allowed them to be tempted, and punished them for it.


Or am I missing something?

If I allow you eat my cookie (as in I don't make any movement to stop you) after I told you not to eat it, you still chose to eat it and are still guilty. It doesn't matter that I didn't stop you. You knew your responsibility and you went against it.

By the way, who created satan? This all goes back to God, he's flawed, he created flawed beings and then punished them for being flawed.

God created the angels with free will also.

Some chose obedience and other chose disobedience. Satan was one who chose disobedience.

If I allow you eat my cookie (as in I don't make any movement to stop you) after I told you not to eat it, you still chose to eat it and are still guilty. It doesn't matter that I didn't stop you. You knew your responsibility and you went against it.

But I'm a person. I'm a fallable, tainted human being who is already fallen.

Adam and Eve, on the other hand, were not. They were truly neutral - completely innocent to anything, one way or the other, until God allowed Satan to tempt them.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/media/calvinist.jpg

Haha:rolleyes:

But I'm a person. I'm a fallable, tainted human being who is already fallen.

Adam and Eve, on the other hand, were not. They were truly neutral - completely innocent to anything, one way or the other, until God allowed Satan to tempt them.

If they are truly neutral, it is easier to get them to do evil than it is to get you to do good. Do you do good?

Excommunication is not to throw them out and never talk to them again. It is to say "You are no longer a member. We will not allow you to take Communion with us. We will not baptize your children. You have shown through your conduct that you must not care very much for how God's Word says we are to behave and so we must assume that you are not truly a Christian. And so, we are not to allow you to participate in those things which Christians only are allowed to participate. Which would be the Sacraments and church government." There are still allowed to come to church and youth group and Bible study and whatever else.


i'm bored now, but, isn't there something in the bible about not punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

If they are truly neutral, it is easier to get them to do evil than it is to get you to do good. Do you do good?

It's easier to get them to do evil only if god puts forth less of an argument than Satan does. If that's true, and by a truly neutral standard Satan has bested god, then again, what does that say about the abilities of the lord?

I do good, yes. I do evil, too - evil, keep in mind, what you would consider evil or sinful, but not me. I love my family, I'm kind to everyone, I'm patient and understanding. I'm also vengeful, gluttonous, blasphemous... hm... what else... I don't steal or kill, I don't truly hate...

Honestly I've probably got more good in me than what you would consider bad.

But we're getting off-subject: God allowed Satan into Eden. Why?

i'm bored now, but, isn't there something in the bible about not punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

Yes, but there is also the statement that only the children of believers are to be baptized. And we're excommunicating this person because s/he refuses to live as a believer, so we are to assume that s/he is not a beliver.

That's what James is talking about when He says that we are justified by our works. Not before God, but before Man. Works are the natural result of faith and if there are no works, there must not be faith.

i'm bored now, but, isn't there something in the bible about not punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

Probably not, the bible isn't too lenient on children.

It's easier to get them to do evil only if god puts forth less of an argument than Satan does. If that's true, and by a truly neutral standard Satan has bested god, then again, what does that say about the abilities of the lord?

Who said God put forth any argument? You tell your children not to smoke, but there comes a point where you must let them go and see if they obey or not.

I do good, yes. I do evil, too - evil, keep in mind, what you would consider evil or sinful, but not me. I love my family, I'm kind to everyone, I'm patient and understanding. I'm also vengeful, gluttonous, blasphemous... hm... what else... I don't steal or kill, I don't truly hate...

That wasn't my point. My point was that you do things which are considered good even though you are bent to evil. Why is hard to think that Adam and Eve could do something evil when they have no bent at all?

Honestly I've probably got more good in me than what you would consider bad.

Hmm, I doubt that, but that's another discussion.

But we're getting off-subject: God allowed Satan into Eden. Why?

Two ways of looking at and both are Christian.

He wanted to test Adam and Eve, knowing they would sin, but not wanting to have robots, proving to them that they truly had free agency.

And the one I support: He allowed Satan in to have sin enter the world so that His grace, mercy, forgiveness, wrath, and justice could all be glorified.

I didn't have breakfast and it's 1:30pm here. I'm going to get lunch. I'll be back in 15 minutes maybe.

No, the sin is choosing to disobey God. You can use free will to choose to obey, and that is not sin.

It rubs the lotion on it's skin or it gets the ETERNAL HELLFIRE again!

Yes, but there is also the statement that only the children of believers are to be baptized. And we're excommunicating this person because s/he refuses to live as a believer, so we are to assume that s/he is not a beliver.

That's what James is talking about when He says that we are justified by our works. Not before God, but before Man. Works are the natural result of faith and if there are no works, there must not be faith.

so, to sum up. depending on how much you want to hate and punish people you can find something in the bible to justify that. i love religion, i brings a warm glow to my heart to know i'm not part of it.

so, to sum up. depending on how much you want to hate and punish people you can find something in the bible to justify that. i love religion, i brings a warm glow to my heart to know i'm not part of it.

You can do the reverse to.

i'm bored now, but, isn't there something in the bible about not punishing the child for the sins of the parents?

The bible says quite a few contradictory things

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.


DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

so, to sum up. depending on how much you want to hate and punish people you can find something in the bible to justify that. i love religion, i brings a warm glow to my heart to know i'm not part of it.

Edwardis isn't a great deal of help, nor is he someone I consider an authority on the matter of Christianity.

He sounds a lot like this guy:

One of our members recently expressed a concern I've heard frequently of late: "Brother Harry, given all the people who say they've accepted Christ, will Heaven be overcrowded?" The answer, friends, is absolutely not. Granted, we have no idea how large Heaven actually is, but it doesn't matter, because there will be far fewer people in Heaven than you might think. In fact, the vast majority of people you know will roast in Hell instead.

We know the first plunged into the smelly, hot bowels of Satan's abode will be the members of the liberal cult. A cult is a group of individuals who share a common, outlandish belief they are not willing to subject to rational discourse. I am, of course, referring to those sacrilegious, blasphemous liberals who think the Bible is a tiny pamphlet containing nothing more than the verse, John 3:16. The liberal cultists say what you do wrong doesn't make one iota of difference – as long as you say, "I accept Jesus," you're going to Heaven. Can you believe that? According to this cult, once you say, "I accept Jesus," you can murder, rape, rob, plunger, pillage, blow up churches and molest babies, and you're still going to Heaven as though nothing happened, just 'cause you uttered the magic words. Needless to say, the liberal cultists won't debate you on this, because they know it makes no sense, hence making them cultists. But they have to hold this belief, because they know it's the only hope they have to go to Heaven despite their depraved, decadent, deviant, debauched, degenerate lifestyles.

True Christians know that the Bible, Old and New Testaments combined, promises Hell for countless sinners. And when you review the Bible in context, just about everyone is going to Hell. Through the apostle, Paul, Jesus told us the majority of so-called Christians cannot enter Heaven because of their sins (and if you don't go to Heaven, the only place left is Hell). "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)." I don't know where the liberal cultists get off suggesting otherwise. I haven't read any verse saying John trumps Paul. Just because John's verse appears on more banners at college football games doesn't make it preeminent. And under the long accepted legal doctrine that the specific controls over the general, Paul's pronouncement that these particular people are going to Hell is clearly an exception to the general rule vaguely enunciated by John.

When you consider Paul's words with the rest of the Bible, rest assured, there'll be plenty of room for driving ranges in Heaven. Studies show the majority of people have had premarital sex. They're condemned as fornicators. All those other than Christians are going to Hell as idolaters (and that includes the Catholics who worship that harlot, Mary, and the so-called "saints"). Studies show most people get drunk at times, so they're out. And, of course, the sodomites are out (but we knew that anyway, without Paul's words).

But the Hell-bound group is even larger. Of the few people remaining, most of them will go to Hell as adulterers. Matthew told us that anyone who lusts after (has sexual thoughts about) someone to whom he is not married is an adulterer (Matthew 5:28). Matthew also told us that anyone who divorces, then remarries is committing adultery (as is the person the individual marries)(Matthew 5:32). The majority of those who get married wind up divorcing and remarrying at a later date. And the vast majority of people have sexual thoughts about people other than their mates. We're now down to very few people, indeed.

But even if you think you're somehow in the clear, guess again. Not only are individuals who marry a second time condemned, but so are their children, their grandchildren, their great grandchildren, etc. Because their second marriage is a nullity, any children of that marriage are illegitimate and are thus condemned to the 10th generation (Deuteronomy 23:2). In other words, not only must you make sure you do not engage in any of the sins Paul said would ensure eternity aflame, you must hope none of your distant ancestors ever divorced and conceived one of your great, great, great grandparents out-of-wedlock or during the second (and unrecognized) marriage.

You see, friends, Heaven is going to be a very select place, indeed -- more exclusive than even the best of country clubs. Now, I know some of you may find these condemnations a bit disheartening, but you really shouldn't. After all, God told us centuries ago that children would be slaughtered for the sins of their parents (Isaiah 14:21-22). Plus, these condemned people will be joined in Hell by individuals who did nothing wrong in their lives because they had no lives. God said not only that we are all born in sin, but that we are conceived in sin as well (Genesis 5:3; Job 15:14; 25:4; Psalms 51:5). In light of that sin, we have no hope of reaching Heaven unless and until we accept Jesus. Unfortunately, many never have that opportunity. I am, of course, speaking of all the unborn children who die in the womb or during delivery, the SIDS children, all the children who die before they reach the age at which they can understand Jesus, the mentally retarded who don't have the capacity to know Jesus, and all those third world residents the missionaries never reached with the good news of our Lord. What a shame that all of these individuals must spend forever in flames. Let us pray that Satan takes it easy on them in the hereafter. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

so we're given a choice to do one thing and god gives us a cookie, or the other thing and we get eternal damnation? now correct me if i'm wrong, but that doesn't quite follow what free will is supposed to be. it's the sort of choice a torturer would give their victim.

i'm gunna draw attention to this one again for when you come back seeing as you've deftly ignored it so far.

You can do the reverse to.

Yup ... but when you are using the bible as a reference guide to morality ... that leniency in interpretation is questionable

Who said God put forth any argument? You tell your children not to smoke, but there comes a point where you must let them go and see if they obey or not.

Only if you're a horrible parent. Also, if you're god, you don't have to do a trial and error type parenting method: You know what to say to convince them of doing something, you know what tone to use, you know what you need to do to get them to understand you. It just follow logically that he knew, and did less than that.

That wasn't my point. My point was that you do things which are considered good even though you are bent to evil. Why is hard to think that Adam and Eve could do something evil when they have no bent at all?

It's not hard to imagine. If you tip over something that's perfectly balanced without something else counteracting the force you're exerting on it, it will fall in accordance to what direction you tipped it in. It's just hard to imagine that god knew they would be tipped in one direction by Satan, but didn't feel it necessary to counteract that force or remove it altogether.

Hmm, I doubt that, but that's another discussion.

Yar. =)

Two ways of looking at and both are Christian.

He wanted to test Adam and Eve, knowing they would sin, but not wanting to have robots, proving to them that they truly had free agency.

Why would he have to prove it to them? It's not like they didn't believe him. It's not a test if you know the result - that defeats the purpose of the test.

And the one I support: He allowed Satan in to have sin enter the world so that His grace, mercy, forgiveness, wrath, and justice could all be glorified.

So he did it out of vanity. He felt he wasn't getting enough recognition or attention, so he let evil in, knowing it would corrupt his creations, and then punished his creations for being corrupt? This doesn't seem stupid to you?.

You can do the reverse to.

i know, i was just trying to point out to him what he was doing with it.

The bible says quite a few contradictory things

Hell the bible can't even decide how many commandments there are.


Also, god wants you to go to hell:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

Umm, I'm thinking of a different place. And I don't have a Bible with me.could be.

But the moral law is still in effect.MORAL Law, not Man's Law

Excommunication is not to throw them out and never talk to them again. It is to say "You are no longer a member. We will not allow you to take Communion with us. We will not baptize your children. You have shown through your conduct that you must not care very much for how God's Word says we are to behave and so we must assume that you are not truly a Christian. And so, we are not to allow you to participate in those things which Christians only are allowed to participate. Which would be the Sacraments and church government." There are still allowed to come to church and youth group and Bible study and whatever else. gee... you just stated that they will be ignored and ostracised by their own church and their people... So what is the incentive then to go to church and bible study? Excommunication is a threat against the person's soul. but like the Muslim "Jihad" it was used too often for the wrong reason.

Yes, of course. But that is not our fault. We must make sure that we are truly only attacking the sin. Everything else is up to the other person.which doesn't answer the question of how to attack one without attacking the other.

Yes.then you accept the person for who that person is, not by what they done.

We are not to judge souls, but we are to judge actions and ideas based soley on what Scripture tells us.how can we judge on atcions and ideas when we too are guilty of the same actions and ideas? we can only teach and help. Guide and Nurture, not judge anything except by the laws of Man.

Well, you have to point out the sin. How you do it can of course differ, but you still have to point out the sin.you can do that without the "HellFIRE and BRIMSTONE!" routine. you can do that without making the person feel guilty or defensive.

No, we cannot force.yet making Mortal laws baised on Religious laws is forcing someone to adhere to them.

now if everyone (the populace) voted, that's different, as it's the popular choice. but to have a selected few (even if those are elected by the people) to make such laws on their own...

Well, considering how difficult it is to separate the church and state, I won't hold my breath over separating the church and politics, I'm afraid.:(

I think one of the major issues for this "separation of church and state" is that the phrase no longer means anything because it is a cliche political term.

So if anything were to be agreed in this thread, most constructively it should be whatever "separation of church and state" should look like.

so we're given a choice to do one thing and god gives us a cookie, or the other thing and we get eternal damnation? now correct me if i'm wrong, but that doesn't quite follow what free will is supposed to be. it's the sort of choice a torturer would give their victim.

... wants to answer... but must... wait...

I think the whole excommunication bit is absurd and contradictory to the church's philosophy. If you're saved, you're saved.

Why such a fuss?

Christianity would not be at all where it is today if it weren't for it becoming the state religion of the greatest empire known to Man at the start of the first millenium.

Religion and politics cannot be separated so long as it is used to project power.

1 Corinthians 13:7
Believeth all things.


Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.


The bible is a laugh a minute! But this is off the topic. Why do Christians spend more time judging others and casting stones than offering love and charity?

Why do Christians spend more time judging others and casting stones than offering love and charity?

Not all Christians. Maybe just the ones you have met.

Why do Christians spend more time judging others and casting stones than offering love and charity?
because the ones that judge and cast stones are the loudest and the most newsworthy. (see Phred Phelps)

It rubs the lotion on it's skin or it gets the ETERNAL HELLFIRE again!

I really don't see what the problem is.

so, to sum up. depending on how much you want to hate and punish people you can find something in the bible to justify that. i love religion, i brings a warm glow to my heart to know i'm not part of it.

No. For instance, I can't use the Bible to justify the slaughter people wearing glasses.

And on to more serious things, I can probably use a passage from the Bible to support anything I want. But, I cannot use the Bible as a whole to support anything I want.

What happened to Christianty?

As my mother would say, it got too big for its britches. It got too powerful, too institutionalized and politicized. Christianity got itself into a position where it, in short, became an idol on a pedestal.

Idols have an unfortunate habit of toppling off of those pedestals, and we're seeing the results of that now.

Not all Christians. Maybe just the ones you have met.

Which is truly unfortunate. But not surprising. I mean, we see the same thing with regard to religious folks' attitudes towards atheists. Because all the religious folks see of atheists are the judgemental loudmouths, they miss the fact that some of their quiet, well-mannered neighbors and friends are also atheists. They just don't go on about it like the ones who get all the attention.

The bible says quite a few contradictory things

Isaiah's talking about God's judgment on the people of Israel.

Deuteronomy is talking about the civil government's resonse to specific crimes.

I really don't see what the problem is.

You wouldn't.

Which is truly unfortunate. But not surprising. I mean, we see the same thing with regard to religious folks' attitudes towards atheists. Because all the religious folks see of atheists are the judgemental loudmouths, they miss the fact that some of their quiet, well-mannered neighbors and friends are also atheists. They just don't go on about it like the ones who get all the attention.

Well, everyone is fond of saying
"Christians are assholes"
"Atheists are soulless unethical bastards with no morality"
"Muslims are teh evil"

i'm gunna draw attention to this one again for when you come back seeing as you've deftly ignored it so far.

Yes, it does seem unbalanced doesn't it. Eternal fire on one hand, eternal bliss on the other. Why would anyone use their free choice when they had free will to choose the eternal flame?

But, such is the allure of sin.

so we're given a choice to do one thing and god gives us a cookie, or the other thing and we get eternal damnation? now correct me if i'm wrong, but that doesn't quite follow what free will is supposed to be. it's the sort of choice a torturer would give their victim.

No. If you obey God you get eternal life and if you disobey him, you get eternal damnation. That was before Jesus came to save us from sin. Now you just have to accept him as your savoir and repent.

Well, everyone is fond of saying
"Christians are assholes"
"Atheists are soulless unethical bastards with no morality"
"Muslims are teh evil"

Yep. And all of those are cases of judgmental loudmouths ruining things for the rest of the perfectly good folks who actually practice their beliefs instead of just preaching it.

I really don't see what the problem is.

I sincerely hope you're missing the reference. 'Cause if you got it, you're scary.

Only if you're a horrible parent. Also, if you're god, you don't have to do a trial and error type parenting method: You know what to say to convince them of doing something, you know what tone to use, you know what you need to do to get them to understand you. It just follow logically that he knew, and did less than that.

Point taken. It was only an illustration.

It's not hard to imagine. If you tip over something that's perfectly balanced without something else counteracting the force you're exerting on it, it will fall in accordance to what direction you tipped it in. It's just hard to imagine that god knew they would be tipped in one direction by Satan, but didn't feel it necessary to counteract that force or remove it altogether.

Again, I don't see how it must be that God put forth any argument. That does not say that Satan is stronger. Prompts are not forces. The only way it would be a battle of power is if God and Satan were each trying to possess Adam and Eve. And if that were to have happened, God would have one.

Why would he have to prove it to them? It's not like they didn't believe him. It's not a test if you know the result - that defeats the purpose of the test.

I don't know. I disagree with this view, too.

So he did it out of vanity. He felt he wasn't getting enough recognition or attention, so he let evil in, knowing it would corrupt his creations, and then punished his creations for being corrupt? This doesn't seem stupid to you?

No.

Yes, it does seem unbalanced doesn't it. Eternal fire on one hand, eternal bliss on the other. Why would anyone use their free choice when they had free will to choose the eternal flame?

But, such is the allure of sin.

you're so far under you can't even see. all you just did was paraphrase me and then say that sin is tempting. basically adding nothing to what you have already said before i posed the question.

No. If you obey God you get eternal life and if you disobey him, you get eternal damnation. That was before Jesus came to save us from sin. Now you just have to accept him as your savoir and repent.

i don't get why you say 'no' at the start of this post cuz you just paraphrased me with that first full sentence.

as for jesus. well i never heard this before but are you saying that jesus took away our 'free will'? or are you saying that jesus presented us with the exact same torture chamber choices that god presented to adam and eve? i mean, jesus didn't save us from the temptation to sin, cuz it's still there, even christians are still tempted to sin. or are you saying that jesus saved us from the concequences of sin (ie eternal damnation)?

MORAL Law, not Man's Law

Yes, the moral law in the Bible: Ten Commandments etc.

gee... you just stated that they will be ignored and ostracised by their own church and their people... So what is the incentive then to go to church and bible study? Excommunication is a threat against the person's soul. but like the Muslim "Jihad" it was used too often for the wrong reason.

No, they are not to be ignored. They are just no longer members.

which doesn't answer the question of how to attack one without attacking the other.

Carefully.

then you accept the person for who that person is, not by what they done.

Is the person a murderer? That's who the person is: it is tied very much into what they've done.

how can we judge on atcions and ideas when we too are guilty of the same actions and ideas? we can only teach and help. Guide and Nurture, not judge anything except by the laws of Man.

That's exactly what we are not to judge by. We are to look at the Bible and ask "Is this supported?" If not, then we ask "Is this refuted?" If yes, we must demand they repent, and then show them the consequenses for refusing. If no, then we say nothing either way.

you can do that without the "HellFIRE and BRIMSTONE!" routine. you can do that without making the person feel guilty or defensive.

Can you? Yes. Should you? Sometimes.

yet making Mortal laws baised on Religious laws is forcing someone to adhere to them.

And there's a problem with that? If it's truly God's Law, then everyone should obey it, Christian or not.

now if everyone (the populace) voted, that's different, as it's the popular choice. but to have a selected few (even if those are elected by the people) to make such laws on their own...

The populace is concerned only with the here and now, with what will give them what they want, not what they need, with what they think ought to be done, not what God tells them ought to be done.

Which is why I favor a theocratic republic.

What seems good to us. Adam and Eve thought that the serpent's statement "You will be as God" sounded pretty good and decided to disobey.

I didn't see this post, so I'm responding to it now :p

But we don't have any instincts at that point - we have no greed, unless god gave it to us. We have no covetous nature before we fall, unless we were designed to fall from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 13:7
Believeth all things.


Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Context, context, context.

The bible is a laugh a minute! But this is off the topic. Why do Christians spend more time judging others and casting stones than offering love and charity?

There is a difference between what people do, and what they ought to do.

There is a also a difference between who people are and who they claim to be.

Context, context, context.



There is a difference between what people do, and what they ought to do.

There is a also a difference between who people are and who they claim to be.

you saying you are not a christian then? cuz you seem to be a big fan of the judgement and casting stones.

I didn't see this post, so I'm responding to it now :p

But we don't have any instincts at that point - we have no greed, unless god gave it to us. We have no covetous nature before we fall, unless we were designed to fall from the beginning.

So... was the sin the actual eating of the fruit, or was it the thoughts and mindset which led to the eating of the fruit?

In other words, was their something wrong with that fruit? No, God made all things good. But it was Adam's heart, his thoughts of greed, covetousness, idolatry, etc. and over all blasphemy (I will be as God and make my own rules) which were the sin.

Point taken. It was only an illustration.

And it illustrates the situation well.

Again, I don't see how it must be that God put forth any argument. That does not say that Satan is stronger. Prompts are not forces. The only way it would be a battle of power is if God and Satan were each trying to possess Adam and Eve. And if that were to have happened, God would have one.

But again, why would god not have put forth any argument at all? He simply let them be taken away by sin.

I don't know. I disagree with this view, too.

At least we agree on something.

No.

No what? It doesn't seem stupid to you that god, the immortal and perfect being, would succumb to jealousy and be an attention whore at the risk of putting all of mankind to damnation? Why would a childish god like that deserve praise and worship?.

you're so far under you can't even see. all you just did was paraphrase me and then say that sin is tempting. basically adding nothing to what you have already said before i posed the question.

Because I see nothing else to add.

Ah the joys of arguing over fairytales. How about this? Christians worship and adhere to their laws voluntarily and stop trying to impose a theocracy over the rest of humanity! Some days I wonder if any other americans percieve the internal threat to our republic that these Christan Fundies pose. They scare me as much as the islamic ones do.

So... was the sin the actual eating of the fruit, or was it the thoughts and mindset which led to the eating of the fruit?

In other words, was their something wrong with that fruit? No, God made all things good. But it was Adam's heart, his thoughts of greed, covetousness, idolatry, etc. and over all blasphemy (I will be as God and make my own rules) which were the sin.

And god created that sinful heart of his, did he not?

i don't get why you say 'no' at the start of this post cuz you just paraphrased me with that first full sentence.

as for jesus. well i never heard this before but are you saying that jesus took away our 'free will'? or are you saying that jesus presented us with the exact same torture chamber choices that god presented to adam and eve? i mean, jesus didn't save us from the temptation to sin, cuz it's still there, even christians are still tempted to sin. or are you saying that jesus saved us from the concequences of sin (ie eternal damnation)?

You compared eternal life with God giving you a cookie. That's what the no is for. Before Christ, you were damned if you sinned. Now, you get a chance to wipe clean the slate by accepting Christ as your savoir. You can sin all your life and in the end, be forgiven for all of it if you accept Christ and repent for them.

I've already said what free will is a few times now. It it the ability to choose what to do for yourself. Having free will means that God does not make any choices for you and neither can anyone else.

But again, why would god not have put forth any argument at all? He simply let them be taken away by sin.

That's why I favor the view discussed below.

No what? It doesn't seem stupid to you that god, the immortal and perfect being, would succumb to jealousy and be an attention whore at the risk of putting all of mankind to damnation? Why would a childish god like that deserve praise and worship?

First, I would say that the world and everything in it were created for no other purpose.

Second, it is not jealousy, at least not as we mean it usually. Just as it would be wrong for us to be jealous, to desire to us things that our not ours, it would be wrong for God to not desire things which are His. He deserves to be glorified (not to be made glorious, but for His glory to be seen). He deserves all worship and praise. The reason jealousy is a sin for us is because we are seeking our own glorification, when we should be doing all things to glorify God.

Finally, God did not put all mankind at risk of damnation. He had a way out prepared from all eternity. He became man. He suffered and died taking the penalty of the sins of those who call Him Lord. And He rose again, ascended into heaven and will come again in glory. And I hope you call Him Lord before then.

EDIT: 2000th Post! :)

Ah the joys of arguing over fairytales. How about this? Christians worship and adhere to their laws voluntarily and stop trying to impose a theocracy over the rest of humanity! Some days I wonder if any other americans percieve the internal threat to our republic that these Christan Fundies pose. They scare me as much as the islamic ones do.

Okay, Rosie O'Donnell.

Christians may support a theocracy (I do), but we do not support the violent institution of one. Big difference between us and the Muslim extremists.

You compared eternal life with God giving you a cookie. That's what the no is for. Before Christ, you were damned if you sinned. Now, you get a chance to wipe clean the slate by accepting Christ as your savoir. You can sin all your life and in the end, be forgiven for all of it if you accept Christ and repent for them.

I've already said what free will is a few times now. It it the ability to choose what to do for yourself. Having free will means that God does not make any choices for you and neither can anyone else.

He doesn't make any choices for us if he clarifies what he wants. He simply makes the choice easier and less tricky - people will still choose to obey or disobey, regardless. The fact that the bible can be INTERPRETED in more than one way at all simply means he doesn't want us to know what he wants. He'd rather we guess? He wants us to play guessing games when our soul is on the line?

Again, why does a childish god like that deserve praise and worship?

And god created that sinful heart of his, did he not?

No, God created the perfect heart. Adam invited sin in at the invitation of Satan.

Okay, Rosie O'Donnell.

Christians may support a theocracy (I do), but we do not support the violent institution of one. Big difference between us and the Muslim extremists.

Um, I don't support any theocracy. Religion is between you and God, you can spread the word but you can't force His word on anyone who doesn't want to listen.

Um, I don't support any theocracy. Religion is between you and God, you can spread the word but you can't force His word on anyone who doesn't want to listen.

Christians may support theocracy....

Yes, the moral law in the Bible: Ten Commandments etc.which is different from the laws of man.

No, they are not to be ignored. They are just no longer members.but your statement is to that effect. "they cannot participate in activities only open for Christians?"


Carefully.but HOW? How do you do it?

Is the person a murderer? That's who the person is: it is tied very much into what they've done.so you're saying that a murder should not be witnessed to? A rapist should not be given a chance to redeem him/herself?

That's exactly what we are not to judge by. We are to look at the Bible and ask "Is this supported?" If not, then we ask "Is this refuted?" If yes, we must demand they repent, and then show them the consequenses for refusing. If no, then we say nothing either way.but you just said that it was.
We are not to judge souls, but we are to judge actions and ideas based soley on what Scripture tells us. Some say that the Dietary restrictions are removed, others say not. both say the same for Homosexuality. one says it's a sin, the other says it's not. who's right?

WE cannot DEMAND repentance... Even GOD doesn't DEMAND repentance. Repentance is something that the sinner has to do him/herself. Without Repentance, the sin is not removed.

and how do we SHOW them the consequences. only God knows what the consiquences is. We can only inform what was written.

Can you? Yes. Should you? Sometimes.I don't, I haven't and I won't. My fellowship doesn't do the Hellfire routine. We talk about Revelations and the ring of fire, but don't do the whole "YOU WILL BE SENT TO HELL" speech.

And there's a problem with that? If it's truly God's Law, then everyone should obey it, Christian or not.yes, God wants the Wiling Follower, not the one forced to do so.

if they don't accept God into their hearts, then even if they follow God's laws, they won't be saved. if they are forced to obey God's laws, then all they are doing is going though the motions without the Belief, Faith and Love that God wants.

in the end, you won't save anyone.

The populace is concerned only with the here and now, with what will give them what they want, not what they need, with what they think ought to be done, not what God tells them ought to be done.that's why we, as christians, need to witness to them and show them through how we live, the benefits of following God's word.

We have to walk with them, not rule over them, not stand like some teacher with a ruler in hand... no. we walk with them as friends and family, not as Lord and Ruler.

Which is why I favor a theocratic republic.then go live in Iraq or the Middle east. Those are Theocratic Republics... they are not Christian Theocratic Republics but they will illustrate why the Heavy Hand doesn't work.

No, God created the perfect heart. Adam invited sin in at the invitation of Satan.

That he did, because God created Adam to be perfectly neutral, and god let satan enter the garden. God let satan tempt adam, knowing the outcome.

God's an asshole.

That's why I favor the view discussed below.

Regardless of what view you favor, he let them be taken away without so much as a thread in Satan's direction.

First, I would say that the world and everything in it were created for no other purpose.

I didn't ask to be born, so I won't subscribe to the belief that the only reason we're here is to make some all-powerful child feel better about himself.

Second, it is not jealousy, at least not as we mean it usually. Just as it would be wrong for us to be jealous, to desire to us things that our not ours, it would be wrong for God to not desire things which are His. He deserves to be glorified (not to be made glorious, but for His glory to be seen). He deserves all worship and praise. The reason jealousy is a sin for us is because we are seeking our own glorification, when we should be doing all things to glorify God.

People deserve praise most when they do not care if they get praise for the good deeds they do. They do them regardless of what praise they may or may not get, and are fine with it. God should be taken under the same standard.

Finally, God did not put all mankind at risk of damnation. He had a way out prepared from all eternity. He became man. He suffered and died taking the penalty of the sins of those who call Him Lord. And He rose again, ascended into heaven and will come again in glory. And I hope you call Him Lord before then.

Yes, but during the time BEFORE Christ died, people didn't have that option. Did he send them to hell, knowing that the people in the future would have a way out where these people didn't? He put everyone at the risk of damnation when he supposedly wrote a bible in the form of a riddle. You have to guess and suppose your way through to try and figure out what he really wants, otherwise you're fucking and are going to hell forever.

Again, this god you seem to love so much does not deserve my worship. -I- and more worthy of such worship than this childish, jealous, immature bastard of a deity you consider god. I think it to be much more likely that god lost a bet to Satan and allowed him to take control of earth for a certain amount of time, during which Satan could act as god and influence the hearts and minds of his followers. Even then, what god would make a bet like that?.

No, God created the perfect heart. Adam invited sin in at the invitation of Satan.

Ugh. You're so short-sighted.

If Adam would prefer to take Satan over god, then it stands to reason that he was created that way from birth. That was his purpose. This would further prove your theory that god allowed Satan to enter Eden specifically to corrupt the humans so that god, in comparison, would look better.

If this is true, then he indeed did create Adam and Eve for the purpose of their fall, and lied to them their entire lives, and then punished them for carrying out their purpose.

I'm not sure how many more times I can stress how infantile god seems to be in this situation. I refuse to give my worship such a god, and am frankly baffled to no end as to why you would offer yours.

That he did, because God created Adam to be perfectly neutral, and god let satan enter the garden. God let satan tempt adam, knowing the outcome.

God wanted Adam to confront evil and overcome it, much like Jesus did. Adam simply failed the test.

God's an asshole.

If God were an ass, he wouldn't have come down to die for your sins.

Okay, Rosie O'Donnell.

Christians may support a theocracy (I do), but we do not support the violent institution of one. Big difference between us and the Muslim extremists.

And how are laws enforced? By force. A theocracy by definition would be a government that would enforce the laws of the bible by force. So, tell me again how you are any diffirent that muslim extremists?

God wanted Adam to confront evil and overcome it, much like Jesus did. Adam simply failed the test.



If God were an ass, he wouldn't have come down to die for your sins.

Again, god cannot TEST anybody, because he knows the outcome. A teacher cannot give a test, knowing that the student will fail - it's a sentencing, a carrying out of protocol, when you know the end result.

God is an ass, because he waited so long to do it, and did it in a way that seems very ineffective and inefficient.

which is different from the laws of man.

Hopefully not, because the laws of Man should reflect the Law of God, but quite often they are different.

but your statement is to that effect. "they cannot participate in activities only open for Christians?"

Which I named: the Sacraments and church government. The Sacraments are rituals: outward signs of inward realities. Why would we let someone who doesn't have the inward reality make the outward sign? If we do that, it's nothing more than a superstition.

And why would we want non-Christians deciding what the church does? That's like saying we want Democrats to run the Republican party or vice-versa. Onyl this would be infinitely worse.

but HOW? How do you do it?

Full steam ahead. Look at what I say. Edit what I must. Apologize when I need to.

so you're saying that a murder should not be witnessed to? A rapist should not be given a chance to redeem him/herself?

No. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that person A is a murderer and must face the consequenses, whatever those may be. And we are to work toward his repentence no matter who he is.

but you just said that it was.
Some say that the Dietary restrictions are removed, others say not. both say the same for Homosexuality. one says it's a sin, the other says it's not. who's right?

The person who agrees with the whole of Scripture based on Scripture alone.

WE cannot DEMAND repentance... Even GOD doesn't DEMAND repentance. Repentance is something that the sinner has to do him/herself. Without Repentance, the sin is not removed.

God demands obedience to His commands and He commands us to repent.

and how do we SHOW them the consequences. only God knows what the consiquences is. We can only inform what was written.

What I meant was that we should open the Bible to the verses and say "Here."

I don't, I haven't and I won't. My fellowship doesn't do the Hellfire routine. We talk about Revelations and the ring of fire, but don't do the whole "YOU WILL BE SENT TO HELL" speech.

Well, I hope that your approach is effective with the people you witness to.

yes, God wants the Wiling Follower, not the one forced to do so.

Yes.

if they don't accept God into their hearts, then even if they follow God's laws, they won't be saved. if they are forced to obey God's laws, then all they are doing is going though the motions without the Belief, Faith and Love that God wants.

But it's better to obey the Law for the wrong reasons than to not obey at all. If God has to have one or the other, He'll take your heart, but that doesn't change that the heart He does not have is still required to obey Him.

in the end, you won't save anyone.

The point of a theocracy is not to save anyone. It's to promote the Church spreading the Gospel and to obey God's commands regarding civil government.

that's why we, as christians, need to witness to them and show them through how we live, the benefits of following God's word.

Yes.

We have to walk with them, not rule over them, not stand like some teacher with a ruler in hand... no. we walk with them as friends and family, not as Lord and Ruler.

We walk with them pointing to the Lord and Ruler.

I didn't ask to be born, so I won't subscribe to the belief that the only reason we're here is to make some all-powerful child feel better about himself.

God doesn't need you to make Him feel better about Himself. It's not for Him. It's for you, that you might see the Ruler of creation for what He is.

People deserve praise most when they do not care if they get praise for the good deeds they do. They do them regardless of what praise they may or may not get, and are fine with it. God should be taken under the same standard.

People don't deserve any praise.

The Creator is to be under the same standard as the creature?

Yes, but during the time BEFORE Christ died, people didn't have that option. Did he send them to hell, knowing that the people in the future would have a way out where these people didn't? He put everyone at the risk of damnation when he supposedly wrote a bible in the form of a riddle. You have to guess and suppose your way through to try and figure out what he really wants, otherwise you're fucking and are going to hell forever.

Christ's death paid for the sins of those who had faith in all times.

There's really not that much "guess work" in the Bible.

Again, this god you seem to love so much does not deserve my worship. -I- and more worthy of such worship than this childish, jealous, immature bastard of a deity you consider god. I think it to be much more likely that god lost a bet to Satan and allowed him to take control of earth for a certain amount of time, during which Satan could act as god and influence the hearts and minds of his followers. Even then, what god would make a bet like that?

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Again, god cannot TEST anybody, because he knows the outcome. A teacher cannot give a test, knowing that the student will fail - it's a sentencing, a carrying out of protocol, when you know the end result.

God is an ass, because he waited so long to do it, and did it in a way that seems very ineffective and inefficient.

In my opinion, God simply sees all possible choices you will make, not that he knows your choice before you choose it. If God saw the choice you would make before you made it, you wouldn't really have a choice and thus would not have free will. Assuming Adam had free will, he could have choosen not to eat the fruit.

And how are laws enforced? By force. A theocracy by definition would be a government that would enforce the laws of the bible by force. So, tell me again how you are any diffirent that muslim extremists?

First, there would be no union between Church and state. There is a biblical precedent for that, just not in the form endorsed by so many today.

Second, we work for the bringing about of a theocracy through peaceful ends, not through terror or war, because so long as the civil government is not harming us, we must be at peace with it.

.

Szanth... A tip.

copy the Quote tag. [ QUOTE=Edwardis;12084878 ]
then put the end tag after the section you want to reply to. [ /Quote ]
then post your response, then paste the quote tag you copied at the start of the next quoted sentence... it would make replying easier. ;)

God wanted Adam to confront evil and overcome it, much like Jesus did. Adam simply failed the test.



If God were an ass, he wouldn't have come down to die for your sins.

If god weren't an ass he wouldn't sit on high and dictate that all lessers are evil unless they kiss his ass.

First, there would be no union between Church and state. There is a biblical precedent for that, just not in the form endorsed by so many today.

Second, we work for the bringing about of a theocracy through peaceful ends, not through terror or war, because so long as the civil government is not harming us, we must be at peace with it.

You obviously have no concept of what a theocracy is. A theocracy is a religous government that bases it laws off its scripture. Think Saudi Arabia.

If you believe in the seperation of church and state, then logically you should allow those who dont believe the way you do, to live as they will aslong as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

First, there would be no union between Church and state. There is a biblical precedent for that, just not in the form endorsed by so many today.

Second, we work for the bringing about of a theocracy through peaceful ends, not through terror or war, because so long as the civil government is not harming us, we must be at peace with it.

I think you fail at English.


An objective explanation of what a theocracy is or in what sense that term is used has to deal with two very different approaches.

* For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (in monotheisms the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g. as incarnation in a human) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). [1]
* Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion (or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well), a theocracy is a form of Gleichschaltung that purports to fulfill a divine intention but (since they do not believe in the existence of anything divine or believe this religion is heretical) instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.

You obviously have no concept of what a theocracy is. A theocracy is a religous government that bases it laws off its scripture. Think Saudi Arabia.

If you believe in the seperation of church and state, then logically you should allow those who dont believe the way you do, to live as they will aslong as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

You obviously don't understand that "seperation of Church and state" does not necessarily mean "secular state"

The Church and the state have different responsibilities and different powers. The Church is not to control the state and the state is not to control the Church. But the state is supposed to go back to God's Law as a basis for its policy.

Hopefully not, because the laws of Man should reflect the Law of God, but quite often they are different.the Laws of Man are set by man. God's laws are different.

Which I named: the Sacraments and church government. The Sacraments are rituals: outward signs of inward realities. Why would we let someone who doesn't have the inward reality make the outward sign? If we do that, it's nothing more than a superstition.but forcing them to do so via Laws of man will do just that.

And why would we want non-Christians deciding what the church does? That's like saying we want Democrats to run the Republican party or vice-versa. Onyl this would be infinitely worse.who says they would. "Seperation of Church and State" Run both ways.

Full steam ahead. Look at what I say. Edit what I must. Apologize when I need to.then you don't seperate the Sinner from the Sin.

No. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that person A is a murderer and must face the consequenses, whatever those may be. And we are to work toward his repentence no matter who he is.and in order to help them with their redemption, we have to accept them for who they are first. we have to invite them into our fellowship as they are.

The person who agrees with the whole of Scripture based on Scripture alone.but which is it?

God demands obedience to His commands and He commands us to repent. please show scripture where he DEMANDS repentance. "Ask and it shall be given, Seek and ye shall find." You ask for Repentance, you ask for forgiveness, but God doesn't DEMAND it from you.

What I meant was that we should open the Bible to the verses and say "Here."and if they don't believe in the Bible?

Well, I hope that your approach is effective with the people you witness to.No complaints yet. :p

Yes.and making a Theocratic Government is FORCING people to follow God.

But it's better to obey the Law for the wrong reasons than to not obey at all. If God has to have one or the other, He'll take your heart, but that doesn't change that the heart He does not have is still required to obey Him.... are you serious?! Ok, Please show me where it says your actions alone, without Faith and Belief are enough for salvation.

Obediance to the law does not mean Faith and Belief.

The point of a theocracy is not to save anyone. It's to promote the Church spreading the Gospel and to obey God's commands regarding civil government.it will cause resentment and animostiy towards the Church. it will produce the opposite effect you say you want.

Yes.and forcing them is not the way to go. see the Crusades and the Inquisition.

We walk with them pointing to the Lord and Ruler.sorry, so far you've shown me that you walk with them as their Lord and Ruler.

the Laws of Man are set by man. God's laws are different.

Hopefully the laws of Man are based on the Law of God and are not contrary to it.

but forcing them to do so via Laws of man will do just that.

Who's forcing non-Christians to participate in the Sacraments?

who says they would. "Seperation of Church and State" Run both ways.

I'm talking about the church only right now. When a Minister (a member of the government of the Church) teaches blasphemy, he needs to be excused.

then you don't seperate the Sinner from the Sin.

No, I do. Just people are so attached to their sins, that if I speak against their sin, they think I am speaking against them. And so I apologize for hurting feelings, not for speaking against the sin.

and in order to help them with their redemption, we have to accept them for who they are first. we have to invite them into our fellowship as they are.

Christians have a fellowship which non-Christians could never participate in, but I understand what you are saying and agree with some reservation.

but which is it?

Neither. The Bible teaches that the ceremonial law was fulfilled and that the moral Law is still in effect.

please show scripture where he DEMANDS repentance. "Ask and it shall be given, Seek and ye shall find." You ask for Repentance, you ask for forgiveness, but God doesn't DEMAND it from you.

I don't have a Bible. All the Prophets command the people to repent, though. I think the people are commanded to repent several times in Revelation.

and if they don't believe in the Bible?

Oh, well. That's all I have.

No complaints yet. :p

Good. :)

and making a Theocratic Government is FORCING people to follow God.

No. It's merely saying "God knows best, so we're following His commands about how a civil government should be run." The people are free to believe what they want.

... are you serious?! Ok, Please show me where it says your actions alone, without Faith and Belief are enough for salvation.

I can't because the Bible doesn't say that. I didn't say that. What I said was, is that works with no faith is better than no faith with no works.

Obediance to the law does not mean Faith and Belief.

Correct.

it will cause resentment and animostiy towards the Church. it will produce the opposite effect you say you want.

Oh, I no how many will respond. But I'm not told what will happen when I obey. I'm only told to obey.

and forcing them is not the way to go. see the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Examples of what a theocracy can be and can do, not what a theocracy must be or must do.

sorry, so far you've shown me that you walk with them as their Lord and Ruler.

Well, I'm sorry, too, because that's not what I do.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that this little discussion between Junii and Edwardis is a perfect example of how the bible is vague and inefficient. Not even the christians, among the christians, can agree on how to be a christian! If god wanted us to follow a specific path, he would not allow things to become this vague and misconstrewed. He would make his will known for sure, no interpretations required.

Again, before you forget what I said before, this would not take away from free will, it would simply make the decision to obey or disobey a much more just and logical one.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that this little discussion between Junii and Edwardis is a perfect example of how the bible is vague and inefficient. Not even the christians, among the christians, can agree on how to be a christian! If god wanted us to follow a specific path, he would not allow things to become this vague and misconstrewed. He would make his will known for sure, no interpretations required.

Again, before you forget what I said before, this would not take away from free will, it would simply make the decision to obey or disobey a much more just and logical one.

Most of the disagreement is because we're misunderstanding one another.

Most of the disagreement is because we're misunderstanding one another.

Misunderstandings, yes, and disagreeing on interpretations of the bible.

Both of these are results of the inefficiency through which the bible was created.

Misunderstandings, yes, and disagreeing on interpretations of the bible.

Both of these are results of the inefficiency through which the bible was created.

No, that's not what I meant. S/he thinks I'm talking about theocracy, when I'm talking purely about church government only and stuff like that.

You obviously don't understand that "seperation of Church and state" does not necessarily mean "secular state"

The Church and the state have different responsibilities and different powers. The Church is not to control the state and the state is not to control the Church. But the state is supposed to go back to God's Law as a basis for its policy.

If the state justifies its laws by using the bible, then how the hell are the state and church seperate? They may have structures that are techinally seperate yes, but in the end if the state runs itself based off the bible then it really doesnt matter.

Nice to know that there are Christians who want to turn our beloved republic into a North American version of Saudi Arabia. Frankly sir, you are a threat to the principles this nation was founded on.

If the state justifies its laws by using the bible, then how the hell are the state and church seperate? They may have structures that are techinally seperate yes, but in the end if the state runs itself based off the bible then it really doesnt matter.

Nice to know that there are Christians who want to turn our beloved republic into a North American version of Saudi Arabia. Frankly sir, you are a threat to the principles this nation was founded on.

Oh, that's no surprise. I would like to see the United States (and Canada, and Russia and China and all those other vast, globe spanning empires) disbanded into smaller, more efficient states.

No, that's not what I meant. S/he thinks I'm talking about theocracy, when I'm talking purely about church government only and stuff like that.

And you're a very silly man, because that's exactly what a theocracy is. If they follow the will of a religion, i.e. the ten commandments or the bible, then they're a theocracy.

If the state justifies its laws by using the bible, then how the hell are the state and church seperate? They may have structures that are techinally seperate yes, but in the end if the state runs itself based off the bible then it really doesnt matter.

Nice to know that there are Christians who want to turn our beloved republic into a North American version of Saudi Arabia. Frankly sir, you are a threat to the principles this nation was founded on.

I would have to agree with you. Seperation of church and state nescesarily implies a secular state, and a transcendence from biblical legalism to a more humanistic legal system.

My stance on what a theocracy ought to be:

The civil governement and church government are two seperate entities.

The civil government has a constitution which outlines the form of government (very close to presbyterian government) and the basis for interpretation of the Bible (hopefully as broad as possible while still being evangelical). Only people who believe these standards can run for office, though all people of a certain age (18 or 21) can vote. The government bases its laws on this interpretation of Scripture.

There you go. Unpopular, but I'm convinced and convicted that it is what Scripture requires.

I really need to study for my linguistics final. Thank you for the discussion.

My stance on what a theocracy ought to be:

The civil governement and church government are two seperate entities.

The civil government has a constitution which outlines the form of government (very close to presbyterian government) and the basis for interpretation of the Bible (hopefully as broad as possible while still being evangelical). Only people who believe these standards can run for office, though all people of a certain age (18 or 21) can vote. The government bases its laws on this interpretation of Scripture.

There you go. Unpopular, but I'm convinced and convicted that it is what Scripture requires.

You can't just change the definition of theocracy after you find out you've been silly this whole time.

Hopefully the laws of Man are based on the Law of God and are not contrary to it.that would be fine, but the Laws of Man is still different than the Laws of God.

Who's forcing non-Christians to participate in the Sacraments?you would... if you got your Theocratic Republic.

I'm talking about the church only right now. When a Minister (a member of the government of the Church) teaches blasphemy, he needs to be excused.Excused as in "we forgive his sins" or Excused as in "He has no right to teach from a pulpit."

No, I do. Just people are so attached to their sins, that if I speak against their sin, they think I am speaking against them. And so I apologize for hurting feelings, not for speaking against the sin.then you just said that your "Full steam ahead. Look at what I say. Edit what I must. Apologize when I need to" is wrong.

Christians have a fellowship which non-Christians could never participate in, but I understand what you are saying and agree with some reservation.and while I agree that there are some Rituals, "Communion" being one of them, that a Non-Faithful, (different than Non-Christian.) should not participate in, they are still invited to observe the ritual. So what rituals do you do that requires you to Turn Non-Christians away from?

Neither. The Bible teaches that the ceremonial law was fulfilled and that the moral Law is still in effect.neither? either the Dietary Restrictions are in place or not? which is it? Can't be "Neither".

I don't have a Bible. All the Prophets command the people to repent, though. I think the people are commanded to repent several times in Revelation.PROPHETS... ok, now what did Jesus say?

Oh, well. That's all I have. so.... you give up on them?

No. It's merely saying "God knows best, so we're following His commands about how a civil government should be run." The people are free to believe what they want.... "His commands about How a Civil Government should be run?" so much for Seperation of Church and State... So much for a willing heart... you've already argued that God will take what we give him... so how much more of God will you belittle?

I can't because the Bible doesn't say that. I didn't say that. What I said was, is that works with no faith is better than no faith with no works. but God requires Faith and belief to access his Kingdom. so you're forcing others to "Go though the motions" for no good reason exept to make you feel like you're doing God's will.

Oh, I no how many will respond. But I'm not told what will happen when I obey. I'm only told to obey.and your methods are mapped out for you? By whom and where did you get your "Lesson Plans"

Examples of what a theocracy can be and can do, not what a theocracy must be or must do.Examples of the power of the Church corrupted by men who proclaim themselves "Faithful to God"

Well, I'm sorry, too, because that's not what I do.not according to your words so far.

My stance on what a theocracy ought to be:

The civil governement and church government are two seperate entities.

The civil government has a constitution which outlines the form of government (very close to presbyterian government) and the basis for interpretation of the Bible (hopefully as broad as possible while still being evangelical). Only people who believe these standards can run for office, though all people of a certain age (18 or 21) can vote. The government bases its laws on this interpretation of Scripture.

There you go. Unpopular, but I'm convinced and convicted that it is what Scripture requires.
That's effectively what the Iranian government is, unless I'm mistaken.

My stance on what a theocracy ought to be:

The civil governement and church government are two seperate entities.

The civil government has a constitution which outlines the form of government (very close to presbyterian government) and the basis for interpretation of the Bible (hopefully as broad as possible while still being evangelical). Only people who believe these standards can run for office, though all people of a certain age (18 or 21) can vote. The government bases its laws on this interpretation of Scripture.

There you go. Unpopular, but I'm convinced and convicted that it is what Scripture requires.

Sounds like a christian version of islamic fundamentalism. It is my sincerest hope that something like that never takes force in America and if it does that all right minded true American patriots will take to the hills in a revolution for our liberty.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that this little discussion between Junii and Edwardis is a perfect example of how the bible is vague and inefficient. Not even the christians, among the christians, can agree on how to be a christian! If god wanted us to follow a specific path, he would not allow things to become this vague and misconstrewed. He would make his will known for sure, no interpretations required.

Again, before you forget what I said before, this would not take away from free will, it would simply make the decision to obey or disobey a much more just and logical one.

Misunderstandings, yes, and disagreeing on interpretations of the bible.

Both of these are results of the inefficiency through which the bible was created.

Thats a misunderstanding on your part, we are not arguing interpretations of the bible, but methods of witnessing.

Jesus said to go forth and preach to all nations. He just never said how. Each person has their own methods and philosophy. Some believe in the Government doing the preaching by Laws and Rules. Others think that witnessing should be done on an individual level, with no government assistance or interferrance.

Some preferre the Fire and Brimstone approach while others are more receptive to a kinder message.

Just like some have a preferred way of making a sandwich, or cooking a meal... everyone has their own methods.

same with the Fundies.

That's effectively what the Iranian government is, unless I'm mistaken.

Caliphates for all!

No, that's not what I meant. S/he thinks I'm talking about theocracy, when I'm talking purely about church government only and stuff like that.

you stated you like a Theocratic Republic. that's a Theocracy. just like a Democratic Republic is still a Democracy. ;)

I really need to study for my linguistics final. Thank you for the discussion.

Good Luck on that Final! :)

Thats a misunderstanding on your part, we are not arguing interpretations of the bible, but methods of witnessing.

Jesus said to go forth and preach to all nations. He just never said how. Each person has their own methods and philosophy. Some believe in the Government doing the preaching by Laws and Rules. Others think that witnessing should be done on an individual level, with no government assistance or interferrance.

Some preferre the Fire and Brimstone approach while others are more receptive to a kinder message.

Just like some have a preferred way of making a sandwich, or cooking a meal... everyone has their own methods.

same with the Fundies.

And Jesus' teachings were in the bible - the bible was vague in description as to how to specifically be a christian. Nobody's going to hell over preferring the wrong way to make a sandwich.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that this little discussion between Junii and Edwardis is a perfect example of how the bible is vague and inefficient. Not even the christians, among the christians, can agree on how to be a christian! If god wanted us to follow a specific path, he would not allow things to become this vague and misconstrewed. He would make his will known for sure, no interpretations required.

Again, before you forget what I said before, this would not take away from free will, it would simply make the decision to obey or disobey a much more just and logical one.

To me, life is a journey to find God, learn about Him, and spread His teachings. It wouldn't be much of a journey if he just told you what to do all the time. Even though Christians don't always agree on certain practices, our core beliefs are in line with each other.

And Jesus' teachings were in the bible - the bible was vague in description as to how to specifically be a christian. Nobody's going to hell over preferring the wrong way to make a sandwich.

No, it wasn't. It says very clearly and many times that the only path to eternal life is by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and savoir. You may want to read the New Testament before talking about it.

EDIT: The Bible may have been vague about how to preach and worship, but these acts are not what get you into Heaven. No number of good deeds can open the path to salvation. Only by embracing Christ can your sins be washed away and the way to Heaven open to you.

No, it wasn't. It says very clearly and many times that the only path to eternal life is by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and savoir. You may want to read the New Testament before talking about it.

EDIT: The Bible may have been vague about how to preach and worship, but these acts are not what get you into Heaven. No number of good deeds can open the path to salvation. Only by embracing Christ can your sins be washed away and the way to Heaven open to you.

Yeah that seems all simple until you go into detail and it's like "If a child curses its parents, it shall surely be put to death" and stuff like that.

A very good bit on CNN today, rather enjoyed it.

Says most of the things I've been wondering, and why I refer to fundies as Xians rather than Christians.

Look at what the Jewish religion had become at the time of Jesus when the leaders were religious conservatives who were more concerned with power and politics than with people. Remember what Jesus said about those religious conservatives?

You can't just change the definition of theocracy after you find out you've been silly this whole time.

That's what my definition has been the entire time I've supported a theocracy.

that would be fine, but the Laws of Man is still different than the Laws of God.

Well, then we have no disagreement.

you would... if you got your Theocratic Republic.

No, just because the civil government bases its civil policy on Scripture does not mean that it is forcing people into partaking in the Sacraments. It's a sin to allow a non-Christian to participate: how much more to force them?

Excused as in "we forgive his sins" or Excused as in "He has no right to teach from a pulpit."

Excused as in "We forgive him, but we can't allow him to preach until he repents."

then you just said that your "Full steam ahead. Look at what I say. Edit what I must. Apologize when I need to" is wrong.

Okay, let me clarify. I go full steam ahead into speaking: I don't hold back simply because someone might be angry. I look at what I say to make sure there is the least possiblity of offending anyone, but not fearing to if I must. I edit what I must when I find that I can be less offensive without compromising the Gospel. I apologize for stepping on people's toes when I have, not for the content, but that I didn't make my intent clear enough.

and while I agree that there are some Rituals, "Communion" being one of them, that a Non-Faithful, (different than Non-Christian.) should not participate in, they are still invited to observe the ritual. So what rituals do you do that requires you to Turn Non-Christians away from?

Baptism, Communion are the only rituals. The other thing which non-Christians should not participate in is church government. That is not to say that the cannot be present or observe. The church is to be transparent in everything it does.

neither? either the Dietary Restrictions are in place or not? which is it? Can't be "Neither".

I'm sorry. The dietary restrictions were part of the ceremonial law and are therefore no longer in effect.

PROPHETS... ok, now what did Jesus say?

Well since Jesus is God and God told the Prophets what to say...

so.... you give up on them?

No. I don't have any other resource which explains how God works. So I say "Oh well" to them not believing in it and keep using it. A lot of prayer and perseverance.

... "His commands about How a Civil Government should be run?" so much for Seperation of Church and State... So much for a willing heart... you've already argued that God will take what we give him... so how much more of God will you belittle?

A separation of the insitutions, not of the Ruler.

but God requires Faith and belief to access his Kingdom. so you're forcing others to "Go though the motions" for no good reason exept to make you feel like you're doing God's will.

No. They are still required to obey God's law. No one is making them "go through the motions" because they are not doing what Christians are supposed to. They are doing what humans are supposed to do. Whether or not they are Christian does not determine whether they are to obey the Law and whether the civil government is to support their obedience to that Law.

and your methods are mapped out for you? By whom and where did you get your "Lesson Plans"

I'm referring to God giving us His Word to tell us how to live and that Word includes the basis for civil policy.

Examples of the power of the Church corrupted by men who proclaim themselves "Faithful to God"

Which is why we need to encourage the common Christian to be involved in thinking about theology instead of saying "He's a pastor/minister/elder/deacon/priest/Pope so he must know what he's talking about."

you stated you like a Theocratic Republic. that's a Theocracy. just like a Democratic Republic is still a Democracy. ;)

Theocracy in basis of policy.

Republic in form.

Good Luck on that Final! :)

Thank you. I think I did well, except for the psycholinguistics section.

Every time I see a thread like this that comes up, I want to write a length and well-thought-out response.

But then I see a lot of blatant ignorance shown on both sides of the board... and I don't mean that in an insulting way, necessarily, just in the definitional way - a lot of people speak in this forum without really having any hard research behind their opinions or anything more than a dislike for something not themselves.

I'd like to debate Christianity and its facets, and talk about what can be done to improve the state of the church... but there are far more people who are deadset that there's nothing wrong with it, and even more who are convinced that anything related to Christianity is foolish and wrong. This seems to me to be a fairly useless medium for debating anything meaningful.

...what can be done to improve the state of the church...

Examples?

Because depending on what you're talking about, I can be totally in favor of your proposed reforms or utterly against.

Well, then we have no disagreement.only when it comes to using the laws of man to enforce the laws of God.

No, just because the civil government bases its civil policy on Scripture does not mean that it is forcing people into partaking in the Sacraments. It's a sin to allow a non-Christian to participate: how much more to force them? if a civil Government bases it's policy on religious tenent, then it is forcing people into obeying their rituals and laws.

Excused as in "We forgive him, but we can't allow him to preach until he repents."but are not Priests and Pastors also "Human" thus prone to sin? by your stance, they cannot preach since they are not perfect.

Okay, let me clarify. I go full steam ahead into speaking: I don't hold back simply because someone might be angry. I look at what I say to make sure there is the least possiblity of offending anyone, but not fearing to if I must. I edit what I must when I find that I can be less offensive without compromising the Gospel. I apologize for stepping on people's toes when I have, not for the content, but that I didn't make my intent clear enough.which is why alot of people get offended by what some christians say and do.

Baptism, Communion are the only rituals. The other thing which non-Christians should not participate in is church government. That is not to say that the cannot be present or observe. The church is to be transparent in everything it does. which doesn't exclude nor excuse forcing people to follow Gods laws by making them part of Man's laws.

I'm sorry. The dietary restrictions were part of the ceremonial law and are therefore no longer in effect.please point to scripture for that. and there are sites to help. this is one I use alot online. (http://www.biblegateway.com/)

Well since Jesus is God and God told the Prophets what to say...and it was translated into various languages...

No. I don't have any other resource which explains how God works. So I say "Oh well" to them not believing in it and keep using it. A lot of prayer and perseverance.the bible isn't your only resourse. ;)

A separation of the insitutions, not of the Ruler.the Ruler can follow his heart and his religious teachings, but he cannot (here in the US anyway) base laws only on religion.

No. They are still required to obey God's law. No one is making them "go through the motions" because they are not doing what Christians are supposed to. They are doing what humans are supposed to do. Whether or not they are Christian does not determine whether they are to obey the Law and whether the civil government is to support their obedience to that Law.what humans are supposed to do. You stated that you would enact laws forcing people to obey Gods Laws, stating that (in your opinion) God would rather someone who at least follows the laws without faith. now you're stating that they are NOT GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS because they are doing what humans are supposed to be doings... did you know that humans are Sinners? what seperates the faithful from the non-faithful is their willingness to follow the laws of their religion. not because they are forced to, but because they want to. You have people calling themselves Christians yet they do Un-Christian like acts seemingly without remorse or repentance, Are they Christians? that's not for me to decide, but God. and when they stand before God with all their deeds laid out before them, then they will face his Judgement.

until then, we are to guide, council, teach and Nurture, all the while being Guided, Councilled, taught and nurtured ourselves.


I'm referring to God giving us His Word to tell us how to live and that Word includes the basis for civil policy.and that is a theocracy.

Which is why we need to encourage the common Christian to be involved in thinking about theology instead of saying "He's a pastor/minister/elder/deacon/priest/Pope so he must know what he's talking about."but you just said that you hold a pastor/minister/elder/deacon/priest/Pope higher than normal Humans.

Theocracy in basis of policy. Republic in form.Which is still a Theocracy and as long as you support putting Religious laws being enforced by man's laws, you are forcing them to do something they should be doing willingly.



Every time I see a thread like this that comes up, I want to write a length and well-thought-out response.

But then I see a lot of blatant ignorance shown on both sides of the board... and I don't mean that in an insulting way, necessarily, just in the definitional way - a lot of people speak in this forum without really having any hard research behind their opinions or anything more than a dislike for something not themselves.

I'd like to debate Christianity and its facets, and talk about what can be done to improve the state of the church... but there are far more people who are deadset that there's nothing wrong with it, and even more who are convinced that anything related to Christianity is foolish and wrong. This seems to me to be a fairly useless medium for debating anything meaningful.

Feel free to try, but remember, there are all types of people in this world. and do not mistake a view of "nothing wrong with..." with "I will not judge them."

Perhaps he should try reading the other things Christ said. How about not coming to end the Law?

And Paul? Paul was the one who told us to not be tolerant of sin, to throw unrepentant sinners out of the Church (excommunication).

The other Apostles? Peter and John warn us of anti-Christs who preach the acceptance of sin. John makes it pretty clear in Revelation that the world is not in God's favor: they are playing the whore.

We need to stop being so concerned with accepting people and start being more concerned with accepting people: you're a sinner, God loves you, proclaim Christ your personal Lord and Savior, and then live (or try to live) according to His Law.

If you throw unrepentant sinners out of church, how will any one come to church to even here about Christ in the first place?

Also, we are to be in the world not of it. Meaning, you don't have to accept the sin, but you shouldn't isolate yourself from those people.

This is getting to long. I'm loosing track of all the arguments.

if a civil Government bases it's policy on religious tenent, then it is forcing people into obeying their rituals and laws.

No, not necessarily. There's a difference between "You must be a Christian. Eat the Bread and drink the Wine!" and "We understand that you are not a Christian, but God gave us a Law for how the civil government is to respond to sin and that Law says that homosexual behavior is a sin, so we're not goint to recognize any of your unions."

but are not Priests and Pastors also "Human" thus prone to sin? by your stance, they cannot preach since they are not perfect.

My stance is that you must say this "I am a sinner and I need God's help to overcome all my sins." Saying "I refuse to repent of this sin" is different and requires church discipline.

which is why alot of people get offended by what some christians say and do.

Yes it is.

which doesn't exclude nor excuse forcing people to follow Gods laws by making them part of Man's laws.

Church and state are two separate institutions. The civil government cannot force people to participate in the Church. Well, it can, but it ought not to.

please point to scripture for that. and there are sites to help. this is one I use alot online. (http://www.biblegateway.com/)

Oh, I feel dumb. I have this site in My Favorites.
Hebrews 7-10: Jesus fulfills the ceremonial Law.

the Ruler can follow his heart and his religious teachings, but he cannot (here in the US anyway) base laws only on religion.

Ruler (God) not ruler.

what humans are supposed to do. You stated that you would enact laws forcing people to obey Gods Laws, stating that (in your opinion) God would rather someone who at least follows the laws without faith.

No, faith is better than works, but no faith is not an excuse for no works.

now you're stating that they are NOT GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS because they are doing what humans are supposed to be doings... did you know that humans are Sinners? what seperates the faithful from the non-faithful is their willingness to follow the laws of their religion.

This does not change that Man is required to obey the Law.

not because they are forced to, but because they want to. You have people calling themselves Christians yet they do Un-Christian like acts seemingly without remorse or repentance, Are they Christians? that's not for me to decide, but God. and when they stand before God with all their deeds laid out before them, then they will face his Judgement.

There is temporal judgement also.

and that is a theocracy.

Which is why I support a theocracy.

but you just said that you hold a pastor/minister/elder/deacon/priest/Pope higher than normal Humans.

No, I said they are held to higher standard than others, not that they are any better. The house of Levi will be judged first (I can't remember where that is): the leaders in the Church will be the first to be judged and "to whom much is given much is required" Leaders in the Church for the simple fact that they are leaders and examples are to be held to a higher standard.

Which is still a Theocracy and as long as you support putting Religious laws being enforced by man's laws, you are forcing them to do something they should be doing willingly.

I think you're confused about which parts of the Law are for the state to implement.

I'll tell you another thing wrong with Christians. They think that only the people of the bible are those with authority. Like people say that Paul is the greatest and such. Where did Christ say that? Why have we made Paul or peter or those of the Bible, into super humans worthy of praise? They are just like you and I, none of us worthy of praise.

If you throw unrepentant sinners out of church, how will any one come to church to even here about Christ in the first place?

Also, we are to be in the world not of it. Meaning, you don't have to accept the sin, but you shouldn't isolate yourself from those people.

What does unrepentant mean? It means "I know I'm sinning, but I don't care, I'm going to keep sinning."

And excommunication is not throwing them out the door and never letting them back in. It's excusing them from church membership and participation in the Sacraments.

And I totally agree with your last part. Which is why when a member of the church refuses to repent (particurally as well as generally) then we are to excuse them so that we are kept separate from the world while still being in it to bring more people to Christ.

Tidus and Yuna would disagree!

Characters in a video game where the bad guy is a huge monster named Sin.

This is getting to long. I'm loosing track of all the arguments.yep... it is...

No, not necessarily. There's a difference between "You must be a Christian. Eat the Bread and drink the Wine!" and "We understand that you are not a Christian, but God gave us a Law for how the civil government is to respond to sin and that Law says that homosexual behavior is a sin, so we're not goint to recognize any of your unions."no there isn't.
"You must be a Christian. Eat the Bread and drink the Wine!" that's forcing them to do a ritual.
We understand that you are not a Christian, but God gave us a Law for how the civil government is to respond to sin and that Law says that homosexual behavior is a sin, so we're not goint to recognize any of your unions.That's forcing them to obey God's Law. you know.. the ones I say should be voluntary... that you agreed should be done willingly... The basis for a Theocratic Society.

My stance is that you must say this "I am a sinner and I need God's help to overcome all my sins." Saying "I refuse to repent of this sin" is different and requires church discipline.like how the Catholic Church keeps the Pedeophillic Priests ordained and just shuffles them from Church to church? they didn't repent (since they kept sinning and sinning and didn't show any signs of regretting their actions...)

Yes it is.yet you still go ahead and do that which will chase them away from God and the Church...

Church and state are two separate institutions. The civil government cannot force people to participate in the Church. Well, it can, but it ought not to.yet you will FORCE them to follow the Christian God's laws...

Oh, I feel dumb. I have this site in My Favorites.
Hebrews 7-10: Jesus fulfills the ceremonial Law.which chapter of Hebrew? if you are talking about the entirety of Hebrews Chapter 7 - 10, that covers the NEW Covenant. and note, it states that God will write the New Covenant in the hearts and minds of his people. no where does it state that those be put to laws of man.

Oh and Hebrews Chapter 3 talks about needing Belief and Faith. something you say isn't needed.


Ruler (God) not ruler. Ruler as in KING or someone who Rules over others. Thats the definition I'm using.

No, faith is better than works, but no faith is not an excuse for no works.But works alone won't do it either.

This does not change that Man is required to obey the Law.Man obeys the Laws of Man. But with God, only those who follow HIM willingly obey his laws.

There is temporal judgement also.and there is Judgement that men met out. sometimes in the name of God.

Which is why I support a theocracy.even tho you admit that forcing one to follow God is wrong...

I think you're confused about which parts of the Law are for the state to implement.and I think you're confused with the term Theocracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theocracy). you constanly say you support it, you want it, but you then turn around and say things that don't meet the standards of Theocracy.

Thank you.

that's forcing them to do a ritual.

And that was an example of what the civil government would not be saying.

That's forcing them to obey God's Law. you know.. the ones I say should be voluntary... that you agreed should be done willingly... The basis for a Theocratic Society.

I just disagree. god is supposed to be in all parts of our life, including our politics and if He gave us His Law, we are to follow it, no matter if it tells us to forbid people to do things which they want to do.

like how the Catholic Church keeps the Pedeophillic Priests ordained and just shuffles them from Church to church? they didn't repent (since they kept sinning and sinning and didn't show any signs of regretting their actions...)

They should have been defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities.

yet you still go ahead and do that which will chase them away from God and the Church...

I have to do what I think God is telling me through the Scriptures to do.

yet you will FORCE them to follow the Christian God's laws...

No one's forcing anyone. No one's forcing you to not murder someone, but there are laws agianst it.

which chapter of Hebrew? if you are talking about the entirety of Hebrews Chapter 7 - 10, that covers the NEW Covenant. and note, it states that God will write the New Covenant in the hearts and minds of his people. no where does it state that those be put to laws of man.

It talks about the New Covenant which is extended salvation to the Gentiles and abrogated the ceremonial law.

Oh and Hebrews Chapter 3 talks about needing Belief and Faith. something you say isn't needed.

I've said several times that faith is needed. But I have also said that no faith is not an excuse for no works. You need both, but one is better than none.

Ruler as in KING or someone who Rules over others. Thats the definition I'm using.

Well that's not the definition I've been using this entire time.

But works alone won't do it either.

I never said they would and it is heretical to think that they would.

Man obeys the Laws of Man. But with God, only those who follow HIM willingly obey his laws.

Yes, and? God has told us what the laws of Man are to be, that is why I support theocracy.

and there is Judgement that men met out. sometimes in the name of God.

Some of which was in agreement with God's Law some of which wasn't.

even tho you admit that forcing one to follow God is wrong...

Forcing behavior is not the came as forcing the heart. And again, no one is forcing anyone. You choose to obey the laws of Man.

and I think you're confused with the term Theocracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theocracy). you constanly say you support it, you want it, but you then turn around and say things that don't meet the standards of Theocracy.

I think that the definition most people use is to narrow.

I have to do what I think God is telling me through the Scriptures to do.

What if God DOESN't want that? What if you are wrong? What then?



No one's forcing anyone. No one's forcing you to not murder someone, but there are laws agianst it.

Well, it might as well be forcing in that case. Or at least extortion.

JuNii, specifically to you, but of course anyone else can read and comment.

These are some quotes I found. I came across this Christian Reconstructionist article and it seems to mesh with what I believe, but I want to examine it more before I associate myself with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

By Rousas John Rushdoony
"In colonial New England the covenantal concept of church and state was applied. Everyone went to church, but only a limited number had voting rights in the church and therefore the state, because there was a coincidence of church membership and citizenship. The others were no less believers, but the belief was that only the responsible must be given responsibility. One faith, one law, and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state, and it has worked towards reducing society to anarchy."

By I don't know who
"There is no doubt that Christianity teaches pluralism, but a very special kind of pluralism: plural institutions under God's single comprehensive law system. It does not teach a pluralism of law structures, or a pluralism of moralities, for this sort of hypothetical legal pluralism (as distinguished from institutional pluralism) is always either polytheistic or humanistic. ..."

By I don't know who
"The Bible does not allow the imposition of some sort of top-down bureaucratic tyranny in the name of Christ. The kingdom of God requires a bottom-up society. The bottom-up Christian society rests ultimately on the doctrine of self-government under God, with God's law as the publicly revealed standard of performance. It is the humanists' view of society that promotes top-down bureaucratic power. ..."

By Gary North
"Let's get this straight: Christian reconstruction depends on majority rule. More than this; it depends on overwhelming acceptance of the biblical covenant, perhaps as high as the 80% range of adult acceptance. In the initial stages of the Constitutional reform movement, such as today, Christians are under the civil rule of the majority. We must work within a covenantally alien system, and we must do so peacefully."

And another by Gary North
"It is not possible to ramrod God's blessings from the top down, unless you are God.... Only humanists believe that man is God. They do indeed believe in social salvation through ramrodding by the state. Christians are simply trying to get the ramrod away from them and melt it down."

I just disagree. god is supposed to be in all parts of our life, including our politics and if He gave us His Law, we are to follow it, no matter if it tells us to forbid people to do things which they want to do.God is going to be apart of our life IF WE ACCEPT HIM INTO OUR LIFE.

if others don't then to force God into their lives is exactly what I am saying you are doing.

They should have been defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities.But they wern't but they were also not given any counciling and help to turn from their path either. so if that didn't work, what makes you thing excommunication would?

I have to do what I think God is telling me through the Scriptures to do.And God is saying to do this? or are you choosing one method of spreading the word and saying "well if it's not working, then it's not my fault..."

No one's forcing anyone. No one's forcing you to not murder someone, but there are laws agianst it.god is supposed to be in all parts of our life, including our politics and if He gave us His Law, we are to follow it, no matter if it tells us to forbid people to do things which they want to do.you're forcing Gods laws on others.

Murder is a law that was written and agreed upon by society a long time ago. Sure you can Lobby to get Murder off the lawbooks. but that is only for the laws of man. infact, Murder, thanks to the lawyers, has been divided into many differeing stations and conditions. again, that is only in reference to the laws of man. what will you do about "Tho Shalt not Covet they neighbors posessions" Covet is a thought, not an action. then there is "Thou shalt put no other gods before me" that's forcing worship on others.

It talks about the New Covenant which is extended salvation to the Gentiles and abrogated the ceremonial law.It's not Fulfilling Cerimonial Law, but creating NEW ones. different from what you posit.

I've said several times that faith is needed. But I have also said that no faith is not an excuse for no works. You need both, but one is better than none.that bolded line means that you are saying Actions without Faith is enough for salvation! Contradicting your earlier statement that you need faith. Forcing someone though the actions without their faith turns the Teachings into mockeries.

Well that's not the definition I've been using this entire time.I know.

I never said they would and it is heretical to think that they would.but you have been saying "Actions without faith is better than no action and no Faith." both are equal, for it lacks the one element needed for salvation... FAITH.

Yes, and? God has told us what the laws of Man are to be, that is why I support theocracy.show where God says what the Laws of Man should be.

Some of which was in agreement with God's Law some of which wasn't.For someone who agreed that it wasn't our place to Judge...

Forcing behavior is not the came as forcing the heart. And again, no one is forcing anyone. You choose to obey the laws of Man.and like choosing to NOT to follow the laws of God, those that CHOOSE not to follow the laws of man take the consiquences.

however by Putting God's laws into man's laws is wrong. want an insight? imagine if Shia laws became written into the US Lawbooks.

I think that the definition most people use is to narrow.and it's not your place to rewrite the dictionary. that is the definition and usage of that word.

JuNii, specifically to you, but of course anyone else can read and comment.So you are saying you are a Christian Reconstructionist.

Here I thought you were Catholic, by some of your references. :headbang:

But they wern't but they were also not given any counciling and help to turn from their path either. so if that didn't work, what makes you thing excommunication would?

I'm getting so confused! They should have been asked to repent, and if they didn't excommunicated. And once they did repent, they should have been welcomed back into the fold, though not as priests. And there should have been Christian counseling the whole way.

you're forcing Gods laws on others.

Even if I agreed with your definition of "to force" I would still have to say "So what?"

Murder is a law that was written and agreed upon by society a long time ago. Sure you can Lobby to get Murder off the lawbooks. but that is only for the laws of man. infact, Murder, thanks to the lawyers, has been divided into many differeing stations and conditions. again, that is only in reference to the laws of man. what will you do about "Tho Shalt not Covet they neighbors posessions" Covet is a thought, not an action. then there is "Thou shalt put no other gods before me" that's forcing worship on others.

I think that you have to much respect for the thoughts of Man. We can't make laws against thoughts, simply because we have no way of knowing if they're there.

that bolded line means that you are saying Actions without Faith is enough for salvation! Contradicting your earlier statement that you need faith. Forcing someone though the actions without their faith turns the Teachings into mockeries.

We are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But works are the natural result. This is good.

No faith and no works is bad
Faith with no works is impossible.
Works with no faith is possible and better than not having either, but it is by no means good, nor can it earn salvation, simply because salvation cannot be earned.

show where God says what the Laws of Man should be.

All through the Old Testament.

however by Putting God's laws into man's laws is wrong. want an insight? imagine if Shia laws became written into the US Lawbooks.

Shia (sp?) law is not God's Law.

So you are saying you are a Christian Reconstructionist.

Well, I just discovered it. I don't know if I am or not. From what I've seen so far, yes, but I want to research it more before I associate myself with the movement.

Here I thought you were Catholic, by some of your references. :headbang:

:p Well, I am catholic, just not Roman Catholic.

I'm getting so confused! They should have been asked to repent, and if they didn't excommunicated. And once they did repent, they should have been welcomed back into the fold, though not as priests. And there should have been Christian counseling the whole way.Total mis handling of the situation. Pride cometh before the fall.

Even if I agreed with your definition of "to force" I would still have to say "So what?"ahem... God only wants the willing...

I think that you have to much respect for the thoughts of Man. We can't make laws against thoughts, simply because we have no way of knowing if they're there.yet God's Laws, the 10 Commandments include Thought.

We are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But works are the natural result. This is good.and you were saying that Work without Faith is Good.

No faith and no works is bad
Faith with no works is impossible.Faith with no works is possible. it's a sin, thus possible.
Works with no faith is possible and better than not having either, but it is by no means good, nor can it earn salvation, simply because salvation cannot be earned.Good Works with no faith is the same as No Good Works with No Faith.

All through the Old Testament.which was voided with the new covenant...

Shia (sp?) law is not God's Law.but if you are forced to follow Shia law, that's the same as you forcing a Muslim or Athiest/Agnostic to follow God's Law.

Well, I just discovered it. I don't know if I am or not. From what I've seen so far, yes, but I want to research it more before I associate myself with the movement.

:p Well, I am catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
Thought so. but research carefully... ;)

Total mis handling of the situation. Pride cometh before the fall.

Where's pride in this situation? The only reason other people haven't become pedophiles is because God preserves them from sin. There's no room for pride in that.

ahem... God only wants the willing...

Yes. That applies to salvation, not civil government.

yet God's Laws, the 10 Commandments include Thought.

Yes, because God knows thoughts. Man cannot. So we cannot institute laws regarding it.

and you were saying that Work without Faith is Good.

No, you just thought I was.

Faith with no works is possible. it's a sin, thus possible.
Good Works with no faith is the same as No Good Works with No Faith.

Uhh, I think James is pretty clear that if there are no works, there is no evidence of faith. So, I guess it's possible, but very sinful.

And I have to disagree. Something's better than nothing, but that doesn't mean it's good.

which was voided with the new covenant...

Yes for the cermonial.
No for the moral.

but if you are forced to follow Shia law, that's the same as you forcing a Muslim or Athiest/Agnostic to follow God's Law.

Yes and no. Are they requiring religious law to be obeyed? Yes.
But it's not God's law, so they are requiring that heresy be obeyed.

There are good points in Shia law, though.

When will you proselytizers realize that the most ethical way to spread religious faith is to use your religion to stregnthen the beliefs of "nonbelievers" rather than imposing your religion on them, especially nowadays when everybody's so SENSITIVE about what their current beliefs are?

Where's pride in this situation? The only reason other people haven't become pedophiles is because God preserves them from sin. There's no room for pride in that.the pride is because they (those priests and the people who "shuffled" them around thought themselves above the laws of man. and also to "hide" the sin from the public.

Yes. That applies to salvation, not civil government.then why promote the church in a theocratic fashion. it won't save more lives, infact, it would loose more people as they rebell against that which they are being forced to do.

Yes, because God knows thoughts. Man cannot. So we cannot institute laws regarding it.Yet you want to set up a Theocratic Republic based on those very laws that govern thought.

No, you just thought I was.
But it's better to obey the Law for the wrong reasons than to not obey at all. If God has to have one or the other, He'll take your heart, but that doesn't change that the heart He does not have is still required to obey Him.

I can't because the Bible doesn't say that. I didn't say that. What I said was, is that works with no faith is better than no faith with no works.
read... you are saying works with no faith is better than no works and no faith. According to the bible, it's not. they are Equal because they lack Faith and Belief. all the Good works with no faith does is suppy an illusion that can and will lead people into thinking "Well, if I'm a good person, then I'll be saved, I don't have to believe."

So NO, Works without Faith is NOT BETTER than No works and No faith.

And I have to disagree. Something's better than nothing, but that doesn't mean it's good.but by saying it's BETTER, you are saying it's Good. You haven't been on long enough to read all the posts that say "I do good deeds, but I don't believe in God... " All you are doing is cementing their reasoning.


Yes for the cermonial.
No for the moral.
LOL! Read it again...

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.It doesn't specify Moral or Cermonial.

and Verse 10
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Yes and no. Are they requiring religious law to be obeyed? Yes.
But it's not God's law, so they are requiring that heresy be obeyed.listen to yourself.

you will force others to commit what they consider Hersay and you claim to stand above it if it were to happen to you? All you are proving is that a Theocracy WON'T work with you, and that you cannot live in a theocracy unless YOU are part of the Ruling Class.

"It's Good to be da King!"

When will you proselytizers realize that the most ethical way to spread religious faith is to use your religion to stregnthen the beliefs of "nonbelievers" rather than imposing your religion on them, especially nowadays when everybody's so SENSITIVE about what their current beliefs are?
*nods in agreement*
that's one of the points I'm trying to convey. thanks. for the words. ;)

the pride is because they (those priests and the people who "shuffled" them around thought themselves above the laws of man. and also to "hide" the sin from the public.

Okay, yes I misunderstood. I thought that you meant there was pride in excommunication.

then why promote the church in a theocratic fashion. it won't save more lives, infact, it would loose more people as they rebell against that which they are being forced to do.

Again, I'm not told what will happen if I obey, only that I must obey.

Yet you want to set up a Theocratic Republic based on those very laws that govern thought.

And?

read... you are saying works with no faith is better than no works and no faith. According to the bible, it's not. they are Equal because they lack Faith and Belief. all the Good works with no faith does is suppy an illusion that can and will lead people into thinking "Well, if I'm a good person, then I'll be saved, I don't have to believe." So NO, Works without Faith is NOT BETTER than No works and No faith.

but by saying it's BETTER, you are saying it's Good. You haven't been on long enough to read all the posts that say "I do good deeds, but I don't believe in God... " All you are doing is cementing their reasoning.

Works without faith promotes God's law. It is the responsibility of the Church to evangelize and spread the meesage that works without faith do not save.

I think we're in agreement, just in disagreement about diction and what "better" means.

LOL! Read it again...

It doesn't specify Moral or Cermonial.

and Verse 10

Then why in other places does Paul talk about the need to keep the Law? In those places he talks about the moral law. Here he talks about the ceremonial law: the law of sacrifices and separation as a nation.

listen to yourself.

you will force others to commit what they consider Hersay and you claim to stand above it if it were to happen to you? All you are proving is that a Theocracy WON'T work with you, and that you cannot live in a theocracy unless YOU are part of the Ruling Class.

I never said that. I would have to live under such a law, obeying everything which did not contradict God's Word. That's why I said that there are good points.

But they are still in sin for putting a law over me that is not totally in line with the Law of God.

Again, I'm not told what will happen if I obey, only that I must obey.You keep saying this... what command are you obeying?

I suggest you read the parable about the servants and the Talent.

And?you said you wanted the laws of God to be made into the laws of man... first stumbling block... well not the first...

Works without faith promotes God's law. It is the responsibility of the Church to evangelize and spread the meesage that works without faith do not save. No it doesn't because works without Faith is Works done not in God's Name. it promotes nothing but a false hope that "Good people" will be saved by Deeds alone.

I think we're in agreement, just in disagreement about diction and what "better" means. as long as you keep saying Good Deeds without faith has some value to God, it's more than dictation we're disagreeing about.

Then why in other places does Paul talk about the need to keep the Law? In those places he talks about the moral law. Here he talks about the ceremonial law: the law of sacrifices and separation as a nation.check em again. Earlier you referred to Ceremonial law to being the Rituals, Baptism, Communion etc... and Moral law being different than Ceremonial Law. Which laws are Paul talking about.

I never said that. I would have to live under such a law, obeying everything which did not contradict God's Word. That's why I said that there are good points. but you called it Herasy. a Sin. so are you now saying you would live under Shia law? even if those laws contradict God's Word?

But they are still in sin for putting a law over me that is not totally in line with the Law of God.yet that's what you want to do with your ideal Theocratic Republic.

You keep saying this... what command are you obeying?

The commands in the Old Testament which outline how the civil government is to respond to sin.

I suggest you read the parable about the servants and the Talent.

And?

No it doesn't because works without Faith is Works done not in God's Name. it promotes nothing but a false hope that "Good people" will be saved by Deeds alone.

as long as you keep saying Good Deeds without faith has some value to God, it's more than dictation we're disagreeing about.

It's better because it's closer to what they're supposed to be doing, not that it is what they are supposed to doing.

check em again. Earlier you referred to Ceremonial law to being the Rituals, Baptism, Communion etc... and Moral law being different than Ceremonial Law. Which laws are Paul talking about.

This is the danger of having so many topics at once. I did not call the Sacraments part of the ceremonial Law.

The ceremonial Law was the sacrifices and the laws separating Israel as a people. These pointed to Jesus and the Church in the New Testament and there is no need for them now.

The moral law, or how Man is to conduct Himself, is still in effect.

but you called it Herasy. a Sin. so are you now saying you would live under Shia law? even if those laws contradict God's Word?

It would be the civil government which I must obey, unless it disobeys God's Law. In which case, I must follow God's Law and refuse to obey Shia law, but only in those cases.

I believe that spreading the Word and the Faith is the job of the church and not the government. Preaching God's Word is about teaching others the ways of the Lord and helping them see God's limitless love and mercy. It isn't good enough to tell someone what they must do and force them to do it because they will not understand why they need to do it or put their heart into doing it. I believe the definition of a good deed in christianity is a deed done to honor and worship the Lord. It is done out of love for God, obedience to God's Law, and fear of God. There is no worldly legislation that can make someone who does not have God in his/her heart do a good deed (if we define it like this).

The commands in the Old Testament which outline how the civil government is to respond to sin.the ones about Stoning, crucifixtion and such?

And?you're wasting your talents.

It's better because it's closer to what they're supposed to be doing, not that it is what they are supposed to doing.which people take as "Good Enough" you're misleading them.

The moral law, or how Man is to conduct Himself, is still in effect.and applies to those who are faithful.

It would be the civil government which I must obey, unless it disobeys God's Law. In which case, I must follow God's Law and refuse to obey Shia law, but only in those cases.so again, you won't live under a Theocratic rule unless it's your Theocratic rule. and you expect everyone to live under your theocratic rule even tho you just admitted you wouldn't.

I believe that spreading the Word and the Faith is the job of the church and not the government. Preaching God's Word is about teaching others the ways of the Lord and helping them see God's limitless love and mercy. It isn't good enough to tell someone what they must do and force them to do it because they will not understand why they need to do it or put their heart into doing it. I believe the definition of a good deed in christianity is a deed done to honor and worship the Lord. It is done out of love for God, obedience to God's Law, and fear of God. There is no worldly legislation that can make someone who does not have God in his/her heart do a good deed (if we define it like this).

Well, really there is not such thing as a good deed because none of our motives our pure and God judges by the heart. Our deeds are as filthy rags. But God counts them as righteous for the sake of His Son, if we are Christian and have the intent to honor and glorify God in that action.

the ones about Stoning, crucifixtion and such?

Well, the principle is excecution, it doesn't need to be stoning, and the Jews didn't use Crucifixion.

which people take as "Good Enough" you're misleading them.

If they take it as good enough, they are ignoring half of what I say (actually probably more than half) just in this conversation alone.

and applies to those who are faithful.

As well as those who are not. Why do you think all the Old Testament laws applied to all the slaves and the foreigners in the land? Because God's Law applies to everyone, there are just a few commands which only believers are capable of obeying.

so again, you won't live under a Theocratic rule unless it's your Theocratic rule. and you expect everyone to live under your theocratic rule even tho you just admitted you wouldn't.

I would live under theocratic rule except for those laws which went against God's law. And I would have to face the consequenses. Just as someone living under a Christian theocracy would have to face the consequeses for not obeying the Law.

Well, really there is not such thing as a good deed because none of our motives our pure and God judges by the heart. Our deeds are as filthy rags. But God counts them as righteous for the sake of His Son, if we are Christian and have the intent to honor and glorify God in that action.

Exactly. So how can you say that forcing someone to so "good deeds" without God in their heart is worth anything in God's eyes? Their deeds will be dirty because they do it without the right motives.

Exactly. So how can you say that forcing someone to so "good deeds" without God in their heart is worth anything in God's eyes? Their deeds will be dirty because they do it without the right motives.

The fact that the civil government would be obeying God with the right motives would be counted righteous.

The fact that the civil government would be obeying God with the right motives would be counted righteous.

You just said that people can only do filthy deeds if they do not do it for God. The purpose of forcing people to do these deeds was so that they would have to obey God. Yet in doing filthy deeds, they have not obeyed God's Law at all because God wants them to do deeds that are good in His eyes. How is this righteous?

The fact that the civil government would be obeying God with the right motives would be counted righteous.

OK....the fact of the matter is, no matter how believers treat others, there will always be rejection, because...even though God will meet people "where they are" (in their lives), He is trying to change/transform people into His image, and there are just waaaay too many people who have no desire to have that happen to them. As far as obedience is concerned, Paul warned about people who sell the Gospel for a profit, but he said he wouldn't stop them because they were advancing the Gospel-people were learning of Redemption, and he wasn't going to rail against it even though someone was profiting. Yes, intention is paramount when individuals are judged by God, however, He will use anyone's efforts to advance his Kingdom.

(how's that, Ed?)

You just said that people can only do filthy deeds if they do not do it for God. The purpose of forcing people to do these deeds was so that they would have to obey God. Yet in doing filthy deeds, they have not obeyed God's Law at all because God wants them to do deeds that are good in His eyes. How is this righteous?

God set up rules in the Old Testament about the policy of the civil government. We are to obey those laws still because they are not part of the ceremonial law.

We are only told to obey, we are not told what will happen if we do.

OK....the fact of the matter is, no matter how believers treat others, there will always be rejection, because...even though God will meet people "where they are" (in their lives), He is trying to change/transform people into His image, and there are just waaaay too many people who have no desire to have that happen to them. As far as obedience is concerned, Paul warned about people who sell the Gospel for a profit, but he said he wouldn't stop them because they were advancing the Gospel-people were learning of Redemption, and he wasn't going to rail against it even though someone was profiting. Yes, intention is paramount when individuals are judged by God, however, He will use anyone's efforts to advance his Kingdom.

(how's that, Ed?)

:) I actually get to see you posting!

And I agree!

OK....the fact of the matter is, no matter how believers treat others, there will always be rejection, because...even though God will meet people "where they are" (in their lives), He is trying to change/transform people into His image, and there are just waaaay too many people who have no desire to have that happen to them. As far as obedience is concerned, Paul warned about people who sell the Gospel for a profit, but he said he wouldn't stop them because they were advancing the Gospel-people were learning of Redemption, and he wasn't going to rail against it even though someone was profiting. Yes, intention is paramount when individuals are judged by God, however, He will use anyone's efforts to advance his Kingdom.

(how's that, Ed?)

Nicely said, /signed.

As far as obedience is concerned, Paul warned about people who sell the Gospel for a profit, but he said he wouldn't stop them because they were advancing the Gospel-people were learning of Redemption, and he wasn't going to rail against it even though someone was profiting. Yes, intention is paramount when individuals are judged by God, however, He will use anyone's efforts to advance his Kingdom.

(how's that, Ed?)

What you stated sounds very different from forcing people by threat of punishment to pretend to be christians. Someone who profits from the Gospel is still spreading the Word to those willing to listen. Trying to force someone to accept christinity will paint a negative image of the church and push people away from it.

I need to go to sleep, but I'll be happy to reply to any of you in the morning.

What you stated sounds very different from forcing people by threat of punishment to pretend to be christians. Someone who profits from the Gospel is still spreading the Word to those willing to listen. Trying to force someone to accept christinity will paint a negative image of the church and push people away from it.

I need to go to sleep, but I'll be happy to reply to any of you in the morning.

If I might interject, that's not what I advocate. I wasn't given an oppurtunity to give a comprehensive manifesto, but, anyway, I don't advocate forcing anyone to act like a Christian.

I need to get some sleep, too. Thanks for the discussion!