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.
Pumpf, another time and place and I would have a minor disagreement about the authority to interpret scripture.
But your last line as well, if Jesus wasn't who he said he was (the Son of God come to die for the world) then he wasn't a good and wise figure, he was a lunatic. Cuz he didn't utter good and wise sayings like those other teachers, he uttered radical stuff that was either true or it was blasphemy.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ 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.
Pumpf, another time and place and I would have a minor disagreement about the authority to interpret scripture.
But your last line as well, if Jesus wasn't who he said he was (the Son of God come to die for the world) then he wasn't a good and wise figure, he was a lunatic. Cuz he didn't utter good and wise sayings like those other teachers, he uttered radical stuff that was either true or it was blasphemy.
I would have went with if JC wasnt the savior then he was a looney, because who would have suffered and died the way he did for no reason?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
"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.
My "pride" isn't in myself and my own "goodness". It is the Word of God- and it's power to give salvation to all who believe. Paul got accused of being arrogant, too. Now, I'm no Paul (much closer to Saul than Paul); but at least he would agree with me: that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. How do I know that? Because he said so, in his 2nd letter to the young pastor Timothy: "You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
As for your 2nd quote, it has to do with spiritual gifts; in no way is it saying that each one's interpretation of Scripture is equally valid. It's saying (if you look at the actual context) that everyone has something to offer to build up the church. Therefore, the people of God are not to use their gifts for personal gain / advantage, but rather for the edification of the congregation in which they worship / serve. And- among the MANY texts that show that Paul would never write anything to the effect of "everyone is entitled to their own interpretation": from the opening lines of his letter to the Galatians: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Finally: it's not MY definition. It is that of God, Himself (as He revealed it to us in His Word). THAT is my sword. I don't rely on my gut... or my mind... to determine what is true. Because I am inherently flawed, selfish and sinful. Of course MY interpretations are going to push me in a direction that leads back to my own personal preferences. That's why it's not MY Word that I rely on. I have discussed these theological issues with you from a Biblical viewpoint, not my own. I have cited some passages... and offered to supply others. So, ultimately, you're problem is not with me. It's with God... and what He has said in His Word. But you do not like some of those things... so you deny them as being true... and substitute your "gut" for truth instead.
So I will leave you with this, again from Paul's 2nd Letter to Timothy: "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."
Quote: @greediron said:
@ 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.
Pumpf, another time and place and I would have a minor disagreement about the authority to interpret scripture.
But your last line as well, if Jesus wasn't who he said he was (the Son of God come to die for the world) then he wasn't a good and wise figure, he was a lunatic. Cuz he didn't utter good and wise sayings like those other teachers, he uttered radical stuff that was either true or it was blasphemy.
This reminds me of something I heard Bono say once.... at 1:08
https://youtu.be/kvrz5i96pxg?t=68
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ 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.
Pumpf, another time and place and I would have a minor disagreement about the authority to interpret scripture.
But your last line as well, if Jesus wasn't who he said he was (the Son of God come to die for the world) then he wasn't a good and wise figure, he was a lunatic. Cuz he didn't utter good and wise sayings like those other teachers, he uttered radical stuff that was either true or it was blasphemy.
This reminds me of something I heard Bono say once.... at 1:08
https://youtu.be/kvrz5i96pxg?t=68
hadn't heard it from him, but that is the general gist of it.
Quote: @greediron said:
You threw out the pantaloons theory.....
lol
|
