Quote: @SFVikingFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
Just become an atheist or agnostic and live by the golden rule. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to bend the words of a 2000 year old book this way or that way to fit your beliefs. 
wonder where that "golden rule" came from?
Well it dates back to at least early Confucian times (~500 BC). 
Well, it appeared before that- in the Book of Leviticus- which was written around 1400 BC.
Maroon: simple question (since you seem hesitant to discuss my longer diatribes): if God wanted "nations" to be responsible for caring for the poor (and- again- this is ignoring all other things that God desired or commanded), don't you think you'd find more than just one example of it? Very few theologians would agree that Matt. 25 has anything to do with a government's responsibility to care for their poor... but- for the sake of argument- let's say that it could be interpreted that way. Considering how often- throughout the Old and New Testament- God proclaims that the poor, widows, orphans, etc... are to be cared for: why would their only be 1 time when He gave the "how" as to how it is supposed to be done? If Jesus really did want people to give their money to the gov't (Rome, in this case), so that Rome could use it to provide for those less fortunate, why doesn't He just say so? He does make it clear that people are supposed to pay taxes- but that was a direct answer to the question of whether the Israelites should give their money to Rome or not.
Paul also makes it clear that Christians are supposed to respect and obey their leaders- as long as the leaders didn't demand something contrary to God's Word (even though those same leaders were out to kill Christians). And he was VERY active in collecting money for the impoverished Christians living in Jerusalem (as well as a general concern for all the poor, widowed, etc). Yet he never mentioned anything about giving to the gov't, either. He DID make it clear that the churches were a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate: so he did implore Christians to give their money to the church.
Bottom line: there is scant (no) evidence to support your theory that God wants Christians to use the gov't as the means to care for the poor, widowed, etc. But there is plenty of evidence that shows it is each Christians' individual duty to do so. But I also recognize that- when a person's theology is based on their own feelings (rather than the Word of God) there is no way that their minds can be changed. In essence, they have put themselves in the place of God; and "God" can't be wrong. I just wish those people would base their theologies on what God actually said... rather than what they want to be true. But if they did that... then we wouldn't have all these false prophets out there, leading God's people astray (and- yes- that includes false prophets of all kinds, not just liberal theologians).
Quote: @pumpf said:
Maroon: simple question (since you seem hesitant to discuss my longer diatribes): if God wanted "nations" to be responsible for caring for the poor (and- again- this is ignoring all other things that God desired or commanded), don't you think you'd find more than just one example of it? Very few theologians would agree that Matt. 25 has anything to do with a government's responsibility to care for their poor... but- for the sake of argument- let's say that it could be interpreted that way. Considering how often- throughout the Old and New Testament- God proclaims that the poor, widows, orphans, etc... are to be cared for: why would their only be 1 time when He gave the "how" as to how it is supposed to be done? If Jesus really did want people to give their money to the gov't (Rome, in this case), so that Rome could use it to provide for those less fortunate, why doesn't He just say so? He does make it clear that people are supposed to pay taxes- but that was a direct answer to the question of whether the Israelites should give their money to Rome or not.
Paul also makes it clear that Christians are supposed to respect and obey their leaders- as long as the leaders didn't demand something contrary to God's Word (even though those same leaders were out to kill Christians). And he was VERY active in collecting money for the impoverished Christians living in Jerusalem (as well as a general concern for all the poor, widowed, etc). Yet he never mentioned anything about giving to the gov't, either. He DID make it clear that the churches were a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate: so he did implore Christians to give their money to the church.
Bottom line: there is scant (no) evidence to support your theory that God wants Christians to use the gov't as the means to care for the poor, widowed, etc. But there is plenty of evidence that shows it is each Christians' individual duty to do so. But I also recognize that- when a person's theology is based on their own feelings (rather than the Word of God) there is no way that their minds can be changed. In essence, they have put themselves in the place of God; and "God" can't be wrong. I just wish those people would base their theologies on what God actually said... rather than what they want to be true. But if they did that... then we wouldn't have all these false prophets out there, leading God's people astray (and- yes- that includes false prophets of all kinds, not just liberal theologians).
I think we've not only beaten this topic, but waterboarded it, tortured it, killed it, buried it, exhumed it and beat it again. What's more, I think we're breaking the 11th Commandment. "Thou shalt not talk religion or politics during the NFL combine." And so this is my last comment on it.
The Bible is not a book written by God. It's a series of books written in prose and poetry and allegory by everyone from shepherds to fishermen, doctors to prophets, tentmakers to tax collectors. A bishop in Rome interprets the same Bible differently than a sweaty preacher in a revival tent. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ and yet have killed each other over their disagreements.
There are literally thousands of interpretations. Like mine, yours is just one. Peace.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Maroon: simple question (since you seem hesitant to discuss my longer diatribes): if God wanted "nations" to be responsible for caring for the poor (and- again- this is ignoring all other things that God desired or commanded), don't you think you'd find more than just one example of it? Very few theologians would agree that Matt. 25 has anything to do with a government's responsibility to care for their poor... but- for the sake of argument- let's say that it could be interpreted that way. Considering how often- throughout the Old and New Testament- God proclaims that the poor, widows, orphans, etc... are to be cared for: why would their only be 1 time when He gave the "how" as to how it is supposed to be done? If Jesus really did want people to give their money to the gov't (Rome, in this case), so that Rome could use it to provide for those less fortunate, why doesn't He just say so? He does make it clear that people are supposed to pay taxes- but that was a direct answer to the question of whether the Israelites should give their money to Rome or not.
Paul also makes it clear that Christians are supposed to respect and obey their leaders- as long as the leaders didn't demand something contrary to God's Word (even though those same leaders were out to kill Christians). And he was VERY active in collecting money for the impoverished Christians living in Jerusalem (as well as a general concern for all the poor, widowed, etc). Yet he never mentioned anything about giving to the gov't, either. He DID make it clear that the churches were a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate: so he did implore Christians to give their money to the church.
Bottom line: there is scant (no) evidence to support your theory that God wants Christians to use the gov't as the means to care for the poor, widowed, etc. But there is plenty of evidence that shows it is each Christians' individual duty to do so. But I also recognize that- when a person's theology is based on their own feelings (rather than the Word of God) there is no way that their minds can be changed. In essence, they have put themselves in the place of God; and "God" can't be wrong. I just wish those people would base their theologies on what God actually said... rather than what they want to be true. But if they did that... then we wouldn't have all these false prophets out there, leading God's people astray (and- yes- that includes false prophets of all kinds, not just liberal theologians).
I think we've not only beaten this topic, but waterboarded it, tortured it, killed it, buried it, exhumed it and beat it again. What's more, I think we're breaking the 11th Commandment. "Thou shalt not talk religion or politics during the NFL combine." And so this is my last comment on it.
The Bible is not a book written by God. It's a series of books written in prose and poetry and allegory by everyone from shepherds to fishermen, doctors to prophets, tentmakers to tax collectors. A bishop in Rome interprets the same Bible differently than a sweaty preacher in a revival tent. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ and yet have killed each other over their disagreements.
There are literally thousands of interpretations. Like mine, yours is just one. Peace.
I tend to agree with your thoughts on it being open to our interpretations... but I also think as humans we can make something say what ever we want it to say.... I think God is fine with us following our interpretations of his word as long as we are doing so within his teachings and praying for his guidance on the interpretations and not listening to the little red guy on our shoulder who wispers in our ear his interpretations.... of course this might be my little red shoulder guy telling me that God is ok with this view of his written words.
Sorry, that is a cop-out. Yes there are disagreements, but that isn't what we are discussing.
You accused Pumpf and other conservative Christians of believing some bizarre contrived theory that would in your mind render our beliefs less real than yours. Now you back away and say well, everyone disagrees and I don't wanna talk about it.
How about being real and saying, hmm, that wasn't what I thought it was and sorry for assuming you are a nationalist bastard that doesn't care about the poor.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Maroon: simple question (since you seem hesitant to discuss my longer diatribes): if God wanted "nations" to be responsible for caring for the poor (and- again- this is ignoring all other things that God desired or commanded), don't you think you'd find more than just one example of it? Very few theologians would agree that Matt. 25 has anything to do with a government's responsibility to care for their poor... but- for the sake of argument- let's say that it could be interpreted that way. Considering how often- throughout the Old and New Testament- God proclaims that the poor, widows, orphans, etc... are to be cared for: why would their only be 1 time when He gave the "how" as to how it is supposed to be done? If Jesus really did want people to give their money to the gov't (Rome, in this case), so that Rome could use it to provide for those less fortunate, why doesn't He just say so? He does make it clear that people are supposed to pay taxes- but that was a direct answer to the question of whether the Israelites should give their money to Rome or not.
Paul also makes it clear that Christians are supposed to respect and obey their leaders- as long as the leaders didn't demand something contrary to God's Word (even though those same leaders were out to kill Christians). And he was VERY active in collecting money for the impoverished Christians living in Jerusalem (as well as a general concern for all the poor, widowed, etc). Yet he never mentioned anything about giving to the gov't, either. He DID make it clear that the churches were a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate: so he did implore Christians to give their money to the church.
Bottom line: there is scant (no) evidence to support your theory that God wants Christians to use the gov't as the means to care for the poor, widowed, etc. But there is plenty of evidence that shows it is each Christians' individual duty to do so. But I also recognize that- when a person's theology is based on their own feelings (rather than the Word of God) there is no way that their minds can be changed. In essence, they have put themselves in the place of God; and "God" can't be wrong. I just wish those people would base their theologies on what God actually said... rather than what they want to be true. But if they did that... then we wouldn't have all these false prophets out there, leading God's people astray (and- yes- that includes false prophets of all kinds, not just liberal theologians).
I think we've not only beaten this topic, but waterboarded it, tortured it, killed it, buried it, exhumed it and beat it again. What's more, I think we're breaking the 11th Commandment. "Thou shalt not talk religion or politics during the NFL combine." And so this is my last comment on it.
The Bible is not a book written by God. It's a series of books written in prose and poetry and allegory by everyone from shepherds to fishermen, doctors to prophets, tentmakers to tax collectors. A bishop in Rome interprets the same Bible differently than a sweaty preacher in a revival tent. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ and yet have killed each other over their disagreements.
There are literally thousands of interpretations. Like mine, yours is just one. Peace.
If you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then you forfeit your right to use it as a basis for your "beliefs". I use it, because I believe that it is true. That's why I am obligated to believe it. Liberal "Christians" have freed themselves from that obligation, though. Now they only have to "believe" the parts they like... and are free to disregard what they don't. So, in other words, THEY have made themselves the gods of their "religion".
The dictionary can be interpreted many ways... as can any other document. But that doesn't make any of them correct. The only one who can know for sure what the correct interpretation of a book is... is the one who wrote it. That's the difference between "genuine" Christians... and posers. Genuine Christians do not attempt to interpret the Bible in any way other than the Author wrote it. It is why "we" operate on a simply hermeneutical principle: "Let Scripture Interpret Scripture". In other words, does "my" understanding of a text agree with the rest of the Bible... or does it contradict it? If it contradicts the rest of the Bible... then my interpretation is wrong. Posers take each passage out of it's full context (the rest of the Bible) in order to make it say what they want it to say. You know who else did that? Satan. Of course, if you don't believe that the Bible is God's Word, then that will be a silly thing to say... since Satan doesn't exist. Neither does Hell. For that matter, Jesus never really accomplished much, other than to give people an alternative to the 8-Fold Path to Enlightenment.
The fact that you can't acknowledge that Jesus came to save sinners- first and foremost- reveals which kind of "Christian" you are. And, yes, suncoast: I will be so bold (arrogant) to say that. If you deny the Cross and the salvation that the One who died there came to offer, then you aren't a "real" Christian. Being a "Christian" isn't about how good or sinful we've been (because we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). It's about what Jesus Christ has done for us. And anyone who would deny His role as Savior is not- honestly- able to call themselves a Christian. It'd be like a person calling themselves a Democrat, yet being in favor of gun rights, the pro-life movement, being a "climate-denier", opposing gay marriage and favoring smaller government intervention in our lives. They could call themselves a Democrat; but clearly they are not (as defined by Democrats, themselves). Jesus has told us who are the ones that belong to Him. And- more than the good that they do (which they will do)- it is based on whether they believe in Him or not. If a person doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, then Jesus is nothing more (to them) than a good, wise figure- like Buddha, Confucius or Ghandi. But, clearly He is not- to them- the promised Savior.
Quote: @greediron said:
Sorry, that is a cop-out. Yes there are disagreements, but that isn't what we are discussing.
You accused Pumpf and other conservative Christians of believing some bizarre contrived theory that would in your mind render our beliefs less real than yours. Now you back away and say well, everyone disagrees and I don't wanna talk about it.
How about being real and saying, hmm, that wasn't what I thought it was and sorry for assuming you are a nationalist bastard that doesn't care about the poor.
I have to say this one had me laughing out loud.
Sorry, that is a cop-out. Yes there are disagreements, but that isn't what we are discussing.
We're not discussing disagreements? I disagree.
You accused Pumpf and other conservative Christians of believing some bizarre contrived theory that would in your mind render our beliefs less real than yours. Now you back away and say well, everyone disagrees and I don't wanna talk about it.
"Some bizarre conrtrived theory?" Pretty sure I called it a well-known disagreement between liberal and conservative believers.
How about being real and saying, hmm, that wasn't what I thought it was and sorry for assuming you are a nationalist bastard that doesn't care about the poor.
I didn't call anyone a nationalist bastard or accuse anyone of not caring about the poor (except perhaps my old Pastor). Only that our differing interpretations of Matthew leads to a different understanding on the role of the individual vs. government, the responsibility wealthy nations have to poorer ones. It sounds like what you WANT me to say is your understanding is right and mine is wrong. Knowing what I know about fundamentalism, this does not surprise me.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Maroon: simple question (since you seem hesitant to discuss my longer diatribes): if God wanted "nations" to be responsible for caring for the poor (and- again- this is ignoring all other things that God desired or commanded), don't you think you'd find more than just one example of it? Very few theologians would agree that Matt. 25 has anything to do with a government's responsibility to care for their poor... but- for the sake of argument- let's say that it could be interpreted that way. Considering how often- throughout the Old and New Testament- God proclaims that the poor, widows, orphans, etc... are to be cared for: why would their only be 1 time when He gave the "how" as to how it is supposed to be done? If Jesus really did want people to give their money to the gov't (Rome, in this case), so that Rome could use it to provide for those less fortunate, why doesn't He just say so? He does make it clear that people are supposed to pay taxes- but that was a direct answer to the question of whether the Israelites should give their money to Rome or not.
Paul also makes it clear that Christians are supposed to respect and obey their leaders- as long as the leaders didn't demand something contrary to God's Word (even though those same leaders were out to kill Christians). And he was VERY active in collecting money for the impoverished Christians living in Jerusalem (as well as a general concern for all the poor, widowed, etc). Yet he never mentioned anything about giving to the gov't, either. He DID make it clear that the churches were a way for Christians to provide for those less fortunate: so he did implore Christians to give their money to the church.
Bottom line: there is scant (no) evidence to support your theory that God wants Christians to use the gov't as the means to care for the poor, widowed, etc. But there is plenty of evidence that shows it is each Christians' individual duty to do so. But I also recognize that- when a person's theology is based on their own feelings (rather than the Word of God) there is no way that their minds can be changed. In essence, they have put themselves in the place of God; and "God" can't be wrong. I just wish those people would base their theologies on what God actually said... rather than what they want to be true. But if they did that... then we wouldn't have all these false prophets out there, leading God's people astray (and- yes- that includes false prophets of all kinds, not just liberal theologians).
I think we've not only beaten this topic, but waterboarded it, tortured it, killed it, buried it, exhumed it and beat it again. What's more, I think we're breaking the 11th Commandment. "Thou shalt not talk religion or politics during the NFL combine." And so this is my last comment on it.
The Bible is not a book written by God. It's a series of books written in prose and poetry and allegory by everyone from shepherds to fishermen, doctors to prophets, tentmakers to tax collectors. A bishop in Rome interprets the same Bible differently than a sweaty preacher in a revival tent. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ and yet have killed each other over their disagreements.
There are literally thousands of interpretations. Like mine, yours is just one. Peace.
If you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then you forfeit your right to use it as a basis for your "beliefs". I use it, because I believe that it is true. That's why I am obligated to believe it. Liberal "Christians" have freed themselves from that obligation, though. Now they only have to "believe" the parts they like... and are free to disregard what they don't. So, in other words, THEY have made themselves the gods of their "religion".
The dictionary can be interpreted many ways... as can any other document. But that doesn't make any of them correct. The only one who can know for sure what the correct interpretation of a book is... is the one who wrote it. That's the difference between "genuine" Christians... and posers. Genuine Christians do not attempt to interpret the Bible in any way other than the Author wrote it. It is why "we" operate on a simply hermeneutical principle: "Let Scripture Interpret Scripture". In other words, does "my" understanding of a text agree with the rest of the Bible... or does it contradict it? If it contradicts the rest of the Bible... then my interpretation is wrong. Posers take each passage out of it's full context (the rest of the Bible) in order to make it say what they want it to say. You know who else did that? Satan. Of course, if you don't believe that the Bible is God's Word, then that will be a silly thing to say... since Satan doesn't exist. Neither does Hell. For that matter, Jesus never really accomplished much, other than to give people an alternative to the 8-Fold Path to Enlightenment.
The fact that you can't acknowledge that Jesus came to save sinners- first and foremost- reveals which kind of "Christian" you are. And, yes, suncoast: I will be so bold (arrogant) to say that. If you deny the Cross and the salvation that the One who died there came to offer, then you aren't a "real" Christian. Being a "Christian" isn't about how good or sinful we've been (because we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). It's about what Jesus Christ has done for us. And anyone who would deny His role as Savior is not- honestly- able to call themselves a Christian. It'd be like a person calling themselves a Democrat, yet being in favor of gun rights, the pro-life movement, being a "climate-denier", opposing gay marriage and favoring smaller government intervention in our lives. They could call themselves a Democrat; but clearly they are not (as defined by Democrats, themselves). Jesus has told us who are the ones that belong to Him. And- more than the good that they do (which they will do)- it is based on whether they believe in Him or not. If a person doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, then Jesus is nothing more (to them) than a good, wise figure- like Buddha, Confucius or Ghandi. But, clearly He is not- to them- the promised Savior.
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom."
"When you may come together, each has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification."
But thanks for spelling out what "real" Christians are, Pumpf.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ suncoastvike said:
We started with Jussie and got to Jesus. I didn't see that coming.
Sorry, it's probably my fault. It seems some want to believe that fake hate crime is a bigger problem than hate crime. I mean Jussie's little stunt did more damage the seriousness to real hate crime then most didn't it?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Sorry, that is a cop-out. Yes there are disagreements, but that isn't what we are discussing.
You accused Pumpf and other conservative Christians of believing some bizarre contrived theory that would in your mind render our beliefs less real than yours. Now you back away and say well, everyone disagrees and I don't wanna talk about it.
How about being real and saying, hmm, that wasn't what I thought it was and sorry for assuming you are a nationalist bastard that doesn't care about the poor.
I have to say this one had me laughing out loud.
Sorry, that is a cop-out. Yes there are disagreements, but that isn't what we are discussing.
We're not discussing disagreements? I disagree.
You accused Pumpf and other conservative Christians of believing some bizarre contrived theory that would in your mind render our beliefs less real than yours. Now you back away and say well, everyone disagrees and I don't wanna talk about it.
"Some bizarre conrtrived theory?" Pretty sure I called it a well-known disagreement between liberal and conservative believers.
How about being real and saying, hmm, that wasn't what I thought it was and sorry for assuming you are a nationalist bastard that doesn't care about the poor.
I didn't call anyone a nationalist bastard or accuse anyone of not caring about the poor (except perhaps my old Pastor). Only that our differing interpretations of Matthew leads to a different understanding on the role of the individual vs. government, the responsibility wealthy nations have to poorer ones. It sounds like what you WANT me to say is your understanding is right and mine is wrong. Knowing what I know about fundamentalism, this does not surprise me.
First, I am not a fundamentalist.
Second, we weren't discussing the disagreements between protestants and catholics and different interpretations of scripture. You threw out the pantaloons theory and claimed pumpf and other conservatives subscribed to it. Funny thing, none of the conservative Christians seemed to know of this well know disagreement they supposedly believed.
The nationalistic bastard was a paraphrase. you did insinuate conservative christians were not following the instruction to care for the poor. You basically called them unchristian.
So no, not asking for you to admit we were right, you were wrong, just that your assumption of the reason pumpf doesn't care for the poor was wrong. Or maybe even the assumption he doesn't care for the poor, but that may be asking a bit much at this point.
|
