Quote: @Skodin said:
Anti-Semitism
I was always under the belief that one of the real reasons for it (outside of the Jewish faith being seen as the modern society) was that the Jews had the opportunity to be close to Jesus, to love him, to accept his words, touch the Nazarene and didn’t. They spat on him, rejected him, laughed at him, repudiated him.
The Passion of the Christ depicted this emotional anger clearly.
I can’t think of bigger reason of the history of anti-semitism (From the Christian faith) than this.
Well...that is how Nazis and the KKK characterize it. But Jesus WAS a Jew. It would be like hating all Viking fans because a Viking fan beat up another Viking fan. It's just stupid.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
address)
God's command to care for the poor does not care what we do for a living. Whether we're a poet, a priest or a politician, makes no difference. The command is the same for us all.
And, yes, we've had this debate about who gives more to charity about a hundred times. It's a nebulous and silly argument. You are correct that some polls have indicated that conservatives give more to the poor, but ONLY when you consider tithing "charity." None of this includes volunteer work or activism of any kind. Nor does it factor in the fact that most liberals believe, as i do, that extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments, and so we support leaders who favor aid programs.
You should feel pretty good about this. You can turn away from the diseased and impoverished and know that a man you voted for (W) is credited with saving over 10M lives through his PEPFAR program. Is this something you would support? Would any Trump supporter? Of course not. Trump is a conman who uses the Bible as a prop, but I believe Bush reads the same Bible as you.
Since you didn't actually read the article (written by a liberal, by the way), I'll re-post the part that refutes your position:
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
address)
God's command to care for the poor does not care what we do for a living. Whether we're a poet, a priest or a politician, makes no difference. The command is the same for us all.
And, yes, we've had this debate about who gives more to charity about a hundred times. It's a nebulous and silly argument. You are correct that some polls have indicated that conservatives give more to the poor, but ONLY when you consider tithing "charity." None of this includes volunteer work or activism of any kind. Nor does it factor in the fact that most liberals believe, as i do, that extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments, and so we support leaders who favor aid programs.
You should feel pretty good about this. You can turn away from the diseased and impoverished and know that a man you voted for (W) is credited with saving over 10M lives through his PEPFAR program. Is this something you would support? Would any Trump supporter? Of course not. Trump is a conman who uses the Bible as a prop, but I believe Bush reads the same Bible as you.
Since you didn't actually read the article (written by a liberal, by the way), I'll re-post the part that refutes your position:
Because I'd read it before. It was written by Nicholas Kristof, one of my favorite writers. You should read everything he's written. I think it might help you.
At the risk of spending WAY too much time on what is equivalent to a "my dad can beat up your dad" debate, two truths remain: From your own link: "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." And from my post: "most liberals believe, as i do, that extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments. And so we support leaders who favor aid programs."
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
"Scripture" in that verse is an English translation. The original Greek text uses the word "Graphis" which means "Writings." This means it doesn't have to be scripture that leads you to God. You should read this. I like how he ends it:
"God’s Spirit uses anything, and everything, to communicate Truth to us in everyday our life. This is the Word of God which is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword. It’s not a Book. It’s the living Spirit of Christ. Christ is not bound by any book, or held captive by any religious text. Neither are you."
Regarding contradictions, I find it hard to believe you're not aware of them. There are hundreds. Just Google "Bible contradictions." I expect a counter to all of them by morning.
Why am I not surprised that this guy is a third-rate theologian? First, let's start with the obvious, objective FACT: that "graphis" isn't actually in the Greek NT. The word that Paul used in 2 Tim 3:16 was "γραφη" (pronounced "graph-ay"). That particular word is used 16 times in the NT- and EACH it is translated as "Scripture". Everyone one of those examples, it is used to refer to the "holy writ" (or "Scripture" as Strong defines is- and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is considered to be the foremost authoritative source on the translation of the BIble into English.
Also... "γραφη" is singular, not plural. That's why the definite article that modifies it is always in the singular (such as "η" or "τη", not "των" or "τασ"). So, it's not "writings" as this pseudo-theologian says. And it is ESPECIALLY not a "common" word for "writings". The "common" word for "writings" (which are not considered to be "sacred Writ") is "γραμμασιν" (such as is used in John 5:47). But don't take my word for it, check it out yourself... and then tell me if any of these 16 examples can be understood to mean anything other than "holy Writ": 2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 4:3; James 2:8; James 2:23; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; Gal. 3:8; Gal. 3:22; Gal. 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; John 10:35; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; John 7:38; John 7:42; John 19: 36, 37 and Rom. 11:2.
So, the very premise of this author is wrong. The word used in 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a "common" word for writings. In fact, it is used exactly 16 times in the NT... and each and every time it is a reference to the other inspired words of God's "holy Writ". Now ask yourself: why would this guy lie? Could it be because he had an agenda? Naw...
Speaking of his agenda: what a joke of a theologian! He might as well just call himself Hananiah (the false prophet who opposed Jeremiah and told the king what he wanted to hear, rather than the true message that Jeremiah had come to bring). He so twists and distorts this one passage of Scripture- that it seems like a waste of time to argue with him. The text, literally, says that "γραφη" IS "God-breathed" AND profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. That word "AND" ("και" in Greek) is a conjunction that CLEARLY ties it to "γραφη", which is why every Bible translation renders it as: "Scripture IS God's-breathed AND useful for..." This guy twists the words around- hoping that no one is actually educated enough to catch him- in order to make it say that a "God-breathed writing" is "any writing which is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." So, in other words (which he ACTUALLY agrees with, even though I'm saying it sarcastically) that ANY writing that is "useful" can be categorized as "God-breathed". The Dictionary? God breathed! A cook-book? God-breathed! Oh, Lord, have mercy. This guy is either incredibly ignorant... or incredibly evil. Or both, I suppose.
Speaking only in terms of Greek grammar: this guy is dead wrong. That doesn't even include his heretical interpretation of the text. Thank you for sharing the article, though. It further proves my original point: that the "theologians" (and leaders) of the ELCA are an example of a modern-day antichrist.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
"Scripture" in that verse is an English translation. The original Greek text uses the word "Graphis" which means "Writings." This means it doesn't have to be scripture that leads you to God. You should read this. I like how he ends it:
"God’s Spirit uses anything, and everything, to communicate Truth to us in everyday our life. This is the Word of God which is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword. It’s not a Book. It’s the living Spirit of Christ. Christ is not bound by any book, or held captive by any religious text. Neither are you."
Regarding contradictions, I find it hard to believe you're not aware of them. There are hundreds. Just Google "Bible contradictions." I expect a counter to all of them by morning.
Why am I not surprised that this guy is a third-rate theologian? First, let's start with the obvious, objective FACT: that "graphis" isn't actually in the Greek NT. The word that Paul used in 2 Tim 3:16 was "γραφη" (pronounced "graph-ay"). That particular word is used 16 times in the NT- and EACH it is translated as "Scripture". Everyone one of those examples, it is used to refer to the "holy writ" (or "Scripture" as Strong defines is- and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is considered to be the foremost authoritative source on the translation of the BIble into English.
Also... "γραφη" is singular, not plural. That's why the definite article that modifies it is always in the singular (such as "η" or "τη", not "των" or "τασ"). So, it's not "writings" as this pseudo-theologian says. And it is ESPECIALLY not a "common" word for "writings". The "common" word for "writings" (which are not considered to be "sacred Writ") is "γραμμασιν" (such as is used in John 5:47). But don't take my word for it, check it out yourself... and then tell me if any of these 16 examples can be understood to mean anything other than "holy Writ": 2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 4:3; James 2:8; James 2:23; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; Gal. 3:8; Gal. 3:22; Gal. 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; John 10:35; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; John 7:38; John 7:42; John 19: 36, 37 and Rom. 11:2.
So, the very premise of this author is wrong. The word used in 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a "common" word for writings. In fact, it is used exactly 16 times in the NT... and each and every time it is a reference to the other inspired words of God's "holy Writ". Now ask yourself: why would this guy lie? Could it be because he had an agenda? Naw...
Speaking of his agenda: what a joke of a theologian! He might as well just call himself Hananiah (the false prophet who opposed Jeremiah and told the king what he wanted to hear, rather than the true message that Jeremiah had come to bring). He so twists and distorts this one passage of Scripture- that it seems like a waste of time to argue with him. The text, literally, says that "γραφη" IS "God-breathed" AND profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. That word "AND" ("και" in Greek) is a conjunction that CLEARLY ties it to "γραφη", which is why every Bible translation renders it as: "Scripture IS God's-breathed AND useful for..." This guy twists the words around- hoping that no one is actually educated enough to catch him- in order to make it say that a "God-breathed writing" is "any writing which is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." So, in other words (which he ACTUALLY agrees with, even though I'm saying it sarcastically) that ANY writing that is "useful" can be categorized as "God-breathed". The Dictionary? God breathed! A cook-book? God-breathed! Oh, Lord, have mercy. This guy is either incredibly ignorant... or incredibly evil. Or both, I suppose.
Speaking only in terms of Greek grammar: this guy is dead wrong. That doesn't even include his heretical interpretation of the text. Thank you for sharing the article, though. It further proves my original point: that the "theologians" (and leaders) of the ELCA are an example of a modern-day antichrist.
Oh for Christ's sake, have you ever heard brevity is the soul of wit? Probably not. Make a concise point and I will respond. I promise. I don't have time to read through your sermons.
Though I will say I was amused by "3rd rate theologian." Catty, man! LOL What rate do you rate yourself, Reverend Pumpf? Just curious.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
address)
God's command to care for the poor does not care what we do for a living. Whether we're a poet, a priest or a politician, makes no difference. The command is the same for us all.
And, yes, we've had this debate about who gives more to charity about a hundred times. It's a nebulous and silly argument. You are correct that some polls have indicated that conservatives give more to the poor, but ONLY when you consider tithing "charity." None of this includes volunteer work or activism of any kind. Nor does it factor in the fact that most liberals believe, as i do, that extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments, and so we support leaders who favor aid programs.
You should feel pretty good about this. You can turn away from the diseased and impoverished and know that a man you voted for (W) is credited with saving over 10M lives through his PEPFAR program. Is this something you would support? Would any Trump supporter? Of course not. Trump is a conman who uses the Bible as a prop, but I believe Bush reads the same Bible as you.
Since you didn't actually read the article (written by a liberal, by the way), I'll re-post the part that refutes your position:
Because I'd read it before. It was written by Nicholas Kristof, one of my favorite writers. You should read everything he's written. I think it might help you.
At the risk of spending WAY too much time on what is equivalent to a "my dad can beat up your dad" debate, two truths remain: From your own link: "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." And from my post: "most liberals believe, as i do, that extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments. And so we support leaders who favor aid programs."
I kind of regret getting off track on this non-sequitur... but, since we're here...
You left out a couple of important facts from your quote. The first was "In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Also, you neglected to acknowledge this little nugget: "But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes." If liberals DO give more, overall, wealth away... it is only because they have more to give away. I think Jesus said something about this in Mark 12: "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had..." Hmmmm...
But, getting back to the more important question... I disagree with your assertion that, "extreme poverty and disease is not something that can be impacted in the slightest by individuals or even churches, only by governments." I'm sure that I could dig up some data that would prove my case... but then you'd find a different source of data that would "prove" your side. So I'll just stick to my original point: that Christians are called to help their neighbors- personally. In doing so, they are building one another up in love. When the gov't "helps my neighbor" it does nothing to strengthen the bonds of love that exist between me and my neighbor. One point of view seems to be interested in loving a neighbor and building THEM up... the other seems interested in building the government up- in the hopes that they will "love" my neighbor.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
"Scripture" in that verse is an English translation. The original Greek text uses the word "Graphis" which means "Writings." This means it doesn't have to be scripture that leads you to God. You should read this. I like how he ends it:
"God’s Spirit uses anything, and everything, to communicate Truth to us in everyday our life. This is the Word of God which is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword. It’s not a Book. It’s the living Spirit of Christ. Christ is not bound by any book, or held captive by any religious text. Neither are you."
Regarding contradictions, I find it hard to believe you're not aware of them. There are hundreds. Just Google "Bible contradictions." I expect a counter to all of them by morning.
Why am I not surprised that this guy is a third-rate theologian? First, let's start with the obvious, objective FACT: that "graphis" isn't actually in the Greek NT. The word that Paul used in 2 Tim 3:16 was "γραφη" (pronounced "graph-ay"). That particular word is used 16 times in the NT- and EACH it is translated as "Scripture". Everyone one of those examples, it is used to refer to the "holy writ" (or "Scripture" as Strong defines is- and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is considered to be the foremost authoritative source on the translation of the BIble into English.
Also... "γραφη" is singular, not plural. That's why the definite article that modifies it is always in the singular (such as "η" or "τη", not "των" or "τασ"). So, it's not "writings" as this pseudo-theologian says. And it is ESPECIALLY not a "common" word for "writings". The "common" word for "writings" (which are not considered to be "sacred Writ") is "γραμμασιν" (such as is used in John 5:47). But don't take my word for it, check it out yourself... and then tell me if any of these 16 examples can be understood to mean anything other than "holy Writ": 2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 4:3; James 2:8; James 2:23; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; Gal. 3:8; Gal. 3:22; Gal. 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; John 10:35; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; John 7:38; John 7:42; John 19: 36, 37 and Rom. 11:2.
So, the very premise of this author is wrong. The word used in 2 Tim. 3:16 is not a "common" word for writings. In fact, it is used exactly 16 times in the NT... and each and every time it is a reference to the other inspired words of God's "holy Writ". Now ask yourself: why would this guy lie? Could it be because he had an agenda? Naw...
Speaking of his agenda: what a joke of a theologian! He might as well just call himself Hananiah (the false prophet who opposed Jeremiah and told the king what he wanted to hear, rather than the true message that Jeremiah had come to bring). He so twists and distorts this one passage of Scripture- that it seems like a waste of time to argue with him. The text, literally, says that "γραφη" IS "God-breathed" AND profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. That word "AND" ("και" in Greek) is a conjunction that CLEARLY ties it to "γραφη", which is why every Bible translation renders it as: "Scripture IS God's-breathed AND useful for..." This guy twists the words around- hoping that no one is actually educated enough to catch him- in order to make it say that a "God-breathed writing" is "any writing which is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." So, in other words (which he ACTUALLY agrees with, even though I'm saying it sarcastically) that ANY writing that is "useful" can be categorized as "God-breathed". The Dictionary? God breathed! A cook-book? God-breathed! Oh, Lord, have mercy. This guy is either incredibly ignorant... or incredibly evil. Or both, I suppose.
Speaking only in terms of Greek grammar: this guy is dead wrong. That doesn't even include his heretical interpretation of the text. Thank you for sharing the article, though. It further proves my original point: that the "theologians" (and leaders) of the ELCA are an example of a modern-day antichrist.
Oh for Christ's sake, have you ever heard brevity is the soul of wit? Probably not. Make a concise point and I will respond. I promise. I don't have time to read through your sermons.
Though I will say I was amused by "3rd rate theologian." Catty, man! LOL What rate do you rate yourself, Reverend Pumpf? Just curious.
Fine: the author you quoted is a charlatan. The "sermon" that I posed was nothing more than the proof, which I assumed you'd want- since one of the basic points of discussion has been "how do you know" (what's true/right and what's false/wrong)?
As for my rating... we'll, it must be at least 2nd rate, since I can read the Greek NT (unlike the author you cited). Since that's the language that the NT was written in... that ability is kind of important.
Well now Nick Cannon spoused feelings from the heart and now back-pedaling like a DB @ TC...
Apologies now just dont resonate with me at all.
|
