- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,160
Millionman, to say that Islam is based on violence and hatred for others is just plain ignorance. How many Muslims do you personally know?
Opinions on Jesus Christ
million,
Preach on brother.
Million made an interesting thread, with the proper title, etc. Pretty good stuff, which brought in a lot of other posts. So what's wrong with that. It just appears to have made several guys uncomfortable. Discomfort can be good.
I actually did not read all of million's Bible sitings. I have read them all before, and know of what he writes. What is interesting to me is that the replies to million are all extremely predictable, given that the Bible lays out each of these 'points of view' in one place or another. IOW, not only does the Bible, especially Jesus' words, show the right way to live, but it also tells how men will twist things to avoid the word, or to ignore it. It has all been predicted. I find that interesting.
Bigger
Preach on brother.
Million made an interesting thread, with the proper title, etc. Pretty good stuff, which brought in a lot of other posts. So what's wrong with that. It just appears to have made several guys uncomfortable. Discomfort can be good.
I actually did not read all of million's Bible sitings. I have read them all before, and know of what he writes. What is interesting to me is that the replies to million are all extremely predictable, given that the Bible lays out each of these 'points of view' in one place or another. IOW, not only does the Bible, especially Jesus' words, show the right way to live, but it also tells how men will twist things to avoid the word, or to ignore it. It has all been predicted. I find that interesting.
Bigger
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
Million...your posts are right on target. Most people who are so against Christ and the things of the Lord confuse "RELIGION" with knowing Christ. Facts about Bible and Truth are different than "Religion." GS
German Stallion
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 832
philadelph said:
Million is correct. Have you read the Koran? Have you read the teaching of Islam? Doesn't matter how many we know, it is what we know about their belief. GS
Hi guys,
Let me preface this by saying that I am not going to mention my faith in this post... I am of a school that believes that your acts, not your words/quotations/affiliations show your true colors.
That being said, sadly, Million does not have an accurate handle on Islam. Why should he? He has a very strong faith in a brand of Christianity that puts a strong emphasis on conversion and testimony. By definition, genuine investigation into other faiths is prohibited. Very often, in our own spirituality, we have to choose to follow one path or another. Once you make that choice, HUMAN nature is to defend your position and to dismiss others. When you couple that with the directive to preach and "save" others, you end up with what we are seeing here. I applaud Million for his fervor...
That being said, Through my profession and exposure in life, I have met many people in my life. More Christians than Muslim... and those who followed Islam, as an aggregate group, were more "Christian" than the Christians I knew. (By Christian I mean Loving, kind, forgiving, pious, giving etc. They had great respect for Mary. (BTW: Mary is mentioned more times in the Koran as the Mother of Christ than in the Bible...))
Note that I am not defining Christian as those who believe in Jesus as son of god or are evangelic about Christanity. That would be a sili definition, because then, all you would need to do to be a good Christian is Believe in Christ and talk alot about him. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that there is much more to ALL forms of Christianity than that. (Unless they choose to ignore much of what is written in the new testament.)
Thankfully, this thread has chosen to ignore the multitude of other faiths
And, before it comes up. Yes, I have read the Koran, the Old Testament, The New Testament, the Torah, Buddhist Sutra, The Bhagvad Gita... etc. :cool:
Let me preface this by saying that I am not going to mention my faith in this post... I am of a school that believes that your acts, not your words/quotations/affiliations show your true colors.
That being said, sadly, Million does not have an accurate handle on Islam. Why should he? He has a very strong faith in a brand of Christianity that puts a strong emphasis on conversion and testimony. By definition, genuine investigation into other faiths is prohibited. Very often, in our own spirituality, we have to choose to follow one path or another. Once you make that choice, HUMAN nature is to defend your position and to dismiss others. When you couple that with the directive to preach and "save" others, you end up with what we are seeing here. I applaud Million for his fervor...
That being said, Through my profession and exposure in life, I have met many people in my life. More Christians than Muslim... and those who followed Islam, as an aggregate group, were more "Christian" than the Christians I knew. (By Christian I mean Loving, kind, forgiving, pious, giving etc. They had great respect for Mary. (BTW: Mary is mentioned more times in the Koran as the Mother of Christ than in the Bible...))
Note that I am not defining Christian as those who believe in Jesus as son of god or are evangelic about Christanity. That would be a sili definition, because then, all you would need to do to be a good Christian is Believe in Christ and talk alot about him. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that there is much more to ALL forms of Christianity than that. (Unless they choose to ignore much of what is written in the new testament.)
Thankfully, this thread has chosen to ignore the multitude of other faiths
And, before it comes up. Yes, I have read the Koran, the Old Testament, The New Testament, the Torah, Buddhist Sutra, The Bhagvad Gita... etc. :cool:
The historical Jesus?
I was also raised a Unitarian but was sent to Catholic school from grades three through eight. Weird combo I know.
I like Jesus. Took a lot of balls to stand up for his beliefs and I think his messages of love and the Golden Rule are worth attention. He was a good man who loved children, the poor, the sick, and gave these people hope when they had none before. He certainly practiced what he preached and died for it.
The Jesus we know in the New Testament is rather different from the Jesus described by contemporary sources. We know that Jesus lived not only from the Bible but from Josephus, a contemporary historian. If you read the Gnostic gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Philip, you get a picture of Jesus as a radical who really did threaten the rule of Rome and, particularly, Herod. You also find some extremely strong hints that Jesus was indeed married to the Magdalene who was not a whore but from a prominent family of priests. Jesus came from the house of David and though poor he was an aristocrat of sorts. In America it's hard to imagine that someone poor would have high status but in the rest of the world birth counts for nearly everything. Take a look at the Gnostic gospels. They were written at the time of Jesus and Thomas in particular seems to quote Jesus as a biographer would quote his subject.
Some of the more intense things:
Clearly, this Jesus wasn't the pastoral, sanitized Jesus we get in the New Testament. Jesus was a rabble rouser, speaking sometimes in riddles and sometimes in highly abstract concepts. He appears to have been openly hostile to both the religious and secular governments and preached blasphemous teachings. I would very much have liked to know him and see how the history compares with the reality.
I was also raised a Unitarian but was sent to Catholic school from grades three through eight. Weird combo I know.
I like Jesus. Took a lot of balls to stand up for his beliefs and I think his messages of love and the Golden Rule are worth attention. He was a good man who loved children, the poor, the sick, and gave these people hope when they had none before. He certainly practiced what he preached and died for it.
The Jesus we know in the New Testament is rather different from the Jesus described by contemporary sources. We know that Jesus lived not only from the Bible but from Josephus, a contemporary historian. If you read the Gnostic gospels of Mary, Thomas, and Philip, you get a picture of Jesus as a radical who really did threaten the rule of Rome and, particularly, Herod. You also find some extremely strong hints that Jesus was indeed married to the Magdalene who was not a whore but from a prominent family of priests. Jesus came from the house of David and though poor he was an aristocrat of sorts. In America it's hard to imagine that someone poor would have high status but in the rest of the world birth counts for nearly everything. Take a look at the Gnostic gospels. They were written at the time of Jesus and Thomas in particular seems to quote Jesus as a biographer would quote his subject.
Some of the more intense things:
Clearly, this Jesus wasn't the pastoral, sanitized Jesus we get in the New Testament. Jesus was a rabble rouser, speaking sometimes in riddles and sometimes in highly abstract concepts. He appears to have been openly hostile to both the religious and secular governments and preached blasphemous teachings. I would very much have liked to know him and see how the history compares with the reality.
As to the Koran...
Most non-Muslims are conflicted about just what Islam believes. I know Muslims and I don't believe any of them follow the Koran literally despite what it says. In fact I know a Sufi who would be persecuted in his homeland for his adherence to Sufism. What gives non-Muslims pause are the lines that are quoted from the Koran and, apparently, the words of Mohammed. It's difficult to understand when the headlines are full of radical Muslims promoting terrorism and using the Koran to justify it. Similarly, Muslims aren't speaking out loud enough against terrorism. American Muslim leaders should know they need to get out there and tell America, and the rest of the world, that they do not support Muslim extremism.
Here are some quotes from the Koran that need pondering:
This is, uh, disturbing. Now I know full well that there are quotes from the Old Testament equally as awful but Christians will state that their god is that of the New Testament and, in any event, you haven't seen Christians running around blowing themselves to bits or making holy war in quite a few centuries. We don't see images of people from other faiths dressing their children in little "human bomb" uniforms or mothers saying they hope their child grows up to be a suicide bomber. We don't see non-Muslims flying planes into buildings, chanting "Death to America" in the streets, or cheering at the collapse of the WTC.
Mohammed led armies in war. The idea that a religious leader would lead a war is antithetical to the other large world religions where peace and the Golden Rule are the overriding philosophies.
Non-Mulsims, and in particular the people of the nations targeted by Muslim terrorists, need answers to these outstanding issues lest the divide between Islam and the rest of the world become so great that Islam itself becomes a byword for hate, murder, zealotry, and terrorism.
Most non-Muslims are conflicted about just what Islam believes. I know Muslims and I don't believe any of them follow the Koran literally despite what it says. In fact I know a Sufi who would be persecuted in his homeland for his adherence to Sufism. What gives non-Muslims pause are the lines that are quoted from the Koran and, apparently, the words of Mohammed. It's difficult to understand when the headlines are full of radical Muslims promoting terrorism and using the Koran to justify it. Similarly, Muslims aren't speaking out loud enough against terrorism. American Muslim leaders should know they need to get out there and tell America, and the rest of the world, that they do not support Muslim extremism.
Here are some quotes from the Koran that need pondering:
This is, uh, disturbing. Now I know full well that there are quotes from the Old Testament equally as awful but Christians will state that their god is that of the New Testament and, in any event, you haven't seen Christians running around blowing themselves to bits or making holy war in quite a few centuries. We don't see images of people from other faiths dressing their children in little "human bomb" uniforms or mothers saying they hope their child grows up to be a suicide bomber. We don't see non-Muslims flying planes into buildings, chanting "Death to America" in the streets, or cheering at the collapse of the WTC.
Mohammed led armies in war. The idea that a religious leader would lead a war is antithetical to the other large world religions where peace and the Golden Rule are the overriding philosophies.
Non-Mulsims, and in particular the people of the nations targeted by Muslim terrorists, need answers to these outstanding issues lest the divide between Islam and the rest of the world become so great that Islam itself becomes a byword for hate, murder, zealotry, and terrorism.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,160
German Stallion said:
Sure, a literal reading of either the Koran or the Bible could be construed as violent. To say it is based on this, and pull a few war-like scriptures means nothing. And yes, I have studied the Koran, and written a short paper examining these issues.
I do believe that the Koran, when read by extremist militant groups, could be dangerous, but the Bible can be used for evil as well.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
I'm posting an article about the Anti-Israel protests lead over in LONDON which is supposedly a peaceful place similar to America in regards to "friendly" muslims. If you do a study of Islam you will clearly see that it was used as a means of control over the nations that were conquered by the Arab armies, and can be traced directly back to the sun god. Check this link and read a bit on the history of Islam: http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/allah.asp
Calls for Israel's destruction in London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Lappin, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 22, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A central London rally organized by the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Saturday heard Respect Party MP George Galloway advocate a general boycott of Israel, as well as other speeches calling for Israel's destruction.
Dark gray clouds poured heavy rain on London's Trafalgar Square, as a crowd waving Palestine flags and anti-Israel banners filled the square to hear speakers shout vitriolic anti-Israel speeches. Demonstrators chanted Islamic slogans and flags calling for "victory to the intifada" were waved. Leading figures in Britain's anti-Israel coalition also lined up to attack Israel.
Andrew Birgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, urged the destruction of the State of Israel. "Israel is a racist state! It is an apartheid state! With its Apache helicopters and its F-16 fighter jets! The South African apartheid state never inflicted the sort of repression that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians," he said to loud applause. "When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Birgin said he was referring to Israel "in the sense that it exists now," and said he wanted to see a "democratic secular state in which peace can move forward."
The Palestinian representative to the UK, Husam Zomlot, also addressed the rally.
"As we speak today, the Israelis are continuing the ethnic cleansing campaign they started in 1948," he said. "To the Israelis, I say that there will absolutely be no peace without the right of return." "The right of return is non-negotiable! Apartheid no more!" exclaimed Zomlot.
"We urge our government to cease all trade with Israel," said Jeremy Corbyn, a backbench Labor MP, who went on to express support for nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu.
Former Labor MP Tony Benn said that "the apartheid wall should be removed," referring to the security fence built by Israel to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities.
Calling American president George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the "two most dangerous men in the world," Benn condemned America's military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel's anti-terrorism measures.
"My dear friends, if this process continues, there will be possibly some sort of a world war," said Benn. "We are talking about respect for international law," he added.
Paul Mackney, president of Britain's second largest university teachers' union, NATPHE, also spoke to the rally. "We stand in solidarity with our Palestinian brothers and sisters. Palestinian refugee camps are like open air prisons," said Mackney. "The Israeli army frequently invades them. There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is justice for the Palestinian people.
"We are calling on all unions to join us," he added. There has been speculation that NATPHE may hold a vote in its upcoming meeting to join the AUT's boycott of Israeli universities.
Galloway, the newly elected MP for the anti-Iraq war Respect Party, used the rally as an attempt to launch an international boycott of Israel.
"It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration," said Galloway. "Instead, Tony Blair said that Israel has no better friend than the British government. We say to Mr. Blair: You should be ashamed by that.
"The Palestinian people are like the 300 Spartans holding the pass of Thermopylae, until the others can arrive and come to their side. We will join them, by boycotting Israel. By boycotting Israeli goods. By picketing the stores that are selling Israeli goods," he said to cheers and applause.
Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, delivered an Islamist speech, guided by an ideology that rejects nation states in favor of a global Islamic state. "There are 22 stupid Arab states, why have another stupid Palestinian state?" he asked. "I don't want another Palestinian state, I want Jaffa free, I want Haifa free, I want every inch of Palestine free!
"I don't want to see any form of racist nationalism. And the most racist form of nationalism is Zionism. The problem is with a nationalist ideology that is the most racist on the face of the earth."
Stuart Pexley, a former Catholic bishop, and a member of Pax Christi, said: "Jesus Christ attempted to create a new humanity without divisions. As a Christian I am opposed to the apartheid wall."
"This morning we've had a message from the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, saying they support the AUT boycott, and call for the May 26 AUT conference to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan University," said Corbyn, before introducing Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham lecturer who presented anti-Israel boycott motions passed by the Association of University Teachers last month.
Blackwell attacked opponents to the boycott of Israeli universities, listing the Board of Deputies, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress.
"We can't expel anyone from the union for breaking the boycott, so why is it that the whole world has gone completely hysterical?" she asked.
She bitterly criticized the upcoming emergency May 26 AUT meeting which will vote on a motion to overturn the boycotts. "When the issue is Israel, suddenly the procedures of the union are undemocratic, and a special meeting of the council has to be called, in over to overturn the motion. Comrades, it's not us who are making a special case for Israel, it's the people who lost the vote who are," said Blackwell.
"I'm not very optimistic about the outcome," she added "We are up against a backlash, being promoted by a well-organized, well-funded pro-Israeli lobby." Blackwell also attacked the University of Haifa, and accused it of holding a "racist conference on Arab demographics."
"I stand absolutely by every word in the motion. What we said about Haifa is an understatement. This is a university, which just hosted a conference, two days after the anniversary of the Nakba, entitled 'The demographic problem.' Brothers and sisters, a university which organizes a racist conference as Haifa has just done deserves every bit of trouble it gets from trade unionists in the UK."
"We did not defame Haifa, but what is defamatory is attacks in the press calling us anti-Semitic," said Blackwell.
Speaking to the Post about links on her personal homepage to neo-Nazi Web sites, she described as "defamatory rubbish" the article that exposed them. Blackwell promised to "make a statement" to the Post about the links, which she has since removed, in the near future.
The rally was also attended by members of the fringe anti-Zionist haredi Natorei Karta sect, who held signs which read: "Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea." "We are abiding by the Torah," said one member. "They [the Israelis] have no right to exist. Israel will fail. Before Israel, Jews were living well in Arab countries," he added.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116642367186
anti-semitism is growing exponentially these days.
In regards to my own personal studies, I have read the Book of Mormon. I've spent time reading a bit of Buddhist teachings back when I was a bit younger and exploring, as well as looking into Confuscian ideals. I had to findout for myself, and by experiencing God first hand, baring witness to things that can not be explained such as blind seeing, the crippled walking, things of this nature still exist in our current day. My Faith in Yahweh has only been increased because of these things, but I had come to Faith in him before this. These things have only occurred recently, and I have stood amazed at what He has done, and I look forward to seeing even greater things than this.
The gnostic "gospels" were not authored by the people that they are named for, and this my friend is fact. Written over 100 years after Christ death and some not authenticated until 300 years after can not stand in the same arena with the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These four are accepted as being written between a period between 31 ad - 65 ad. The number of copies of these gospels is so numerous that they outnumber the closest competitor (Alexander the Great's biography) by more than 100,000. You do not have to take my word for this but search out for the info, and if you want a good resource for it check out The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel who's desire for this book was to completely undeify Christ but also to prove He never existed, good read as Mr. Strobel interviews men who have spent years on the subjects adressed in this book.
I also would like to point out that it was not Jesus who was thought to have been a political radical but Josephus mentions Christ because of the rabble rouser John the Baptist who was known for his direct speech and also for living out in the wilderness as the wild prophet of God. John the Baptist was the man who cleaned the way for Jesus Christ, and they were indeed cousins. God is awesome in all ways may we bless His name before all men, and proclaim the Kingdom of God.
Calls for Israel's destruction in London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Lappin, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 22, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A central London rally organized by the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Saturday heard Respect Party MP George Galloway advocate a general boycott of Israel, as well as other speeches calling for Israel's destruction.
Dark gray clouds poured heavy rain on London's Trafalgar Square, as a crowd waving Palestine flags and anti-Israel banners filled the square to hear speakers shout vitriolic anti-Israel speeches. Demonstrators chanted Islamic slogans and flags calling for "victory to the intifada" were waved. Leading figures in Britain's anti-Israel coalition also lined up to attack Israel.
Andrew Birgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, urged the destruction of the State of Israel. "Israel is a racist state! It is an apartheid state! With its Apache helicopters and its F-16 fighter jets! The South African apartheid state never inflicted the sort of repression that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians," he said to loud applause. "When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Birgin said he was referring to Israel "in the sense that it exists now," and said he wanted to see a "democratic secular state in which peace can move forward."
The Palestinian representative to the UK, Husam Zomlot, also addressed the rally.
"As we speak today, the Israelis are continuing the ethnic cleansing campaign they started in 1948," he said. "To the Israelis, I say that there will absolutely be no peace without the right of return." "The right of return is non-negotiable! Apartheid no more!" exclaimed Zomlot.
"We urge our government to cease all trade with Israel," said Jeremy Corbyn, a backbench Labor MP, who went on to express support for nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu.
Former Labor MP Tony Benn said that "the apartheid wall should be removed," referring to the security fence built by Israel to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities.
Calling American president George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the "two most dangerous men in the world," Benn condemned America's military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel's anti-terrorism measures.
"My dear friends, if this process continues, there will be possibly some sort of a world war," said Benn. "We are talking about respect for international law," he added.
Paul Mackney, president of Britain's second largest university teachers' union, NATPHE, also spoke to the rally. "We stand in solidarity with our Palestinian brothers and sisters. Palestinian refugee camps are like open air prisons," said Mackney. "The Israeli army frequently invades them. There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is justice for the Palestinian people.
"We are calling on all unions to join us," he added. There has been speculation that NATPHE may hold a vote in its upcoming meeting to join the AUT's boycott of Israeli universities.
Galloway, the newly elected MP for the anti-Iraq war Respect Party, used the rally as an attempt to launch an international boycott of Israel.
"It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration," said Galloway. "Instead, Tony Blair said that Israel has no better friend than the British government. We say to Mr. Blair: You should be ashamed by that.
"The Palestinian people are like the 300 Spartans holding the pass of Thermopylae, until the others can arrive and come to their side. We will join them, by boycotting Israel. By boycotting Israeli goods. By picketing the stores that are selling Israeli goods," he said to cheers and applause.
Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, delivered an Islamist speech, guided by an ideology that rejects nation states in favor of a global Islamic state. "There are 22 stupid Arab states, why have another stupid Palestinian state?" he asked. "I don't want another Palestinian state, I want Jaffa free, I want Haifa free, I want every inch of Palestine free!
"I don't want to see any form of racist nationalism. And the most racist form of nationalism is Zionism. The problem is with a nationalist ideology that is the most racist on the face of the earth."
Stuart Pexley, a former Catholic bishop, and a member of Pax Christi, said: "Jesus Christ attempted to create a new humanity without divisions. As a Christian I am opposed to the apartheid wall."
"This morning we've had a message from the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, saying they support the AUT boycott, and call for the May 26 AUT conference to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan University," said Corbyn, before introducing Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham lecturer who presented anti-Israel boycott motions passed by the Association of University Teachers last month.
Blackwell attacked opponents to the boycott of Israeli universities, listing the Board of Deputies, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress.
"We can't expel anyone from the union for breaking the boycott, so why is it that the whole world has gone completely hysterical?" she asked.
She bitterly criticized the upcoming emergency May 26 AUT meeting which will vote on a motion to overturn the boycotts. "When the issue is Israel, suddenly the procedures of the union are undemocratic, and a special meeting of the council has to be called, in over to overturn the motion. Comrades, it's not us who are making a special case for Israel, it's the people who lost the vote who are," said Blackwell.
"I'm not very optimistic about the outcome," she added "We are up against a backlash, being promoted by a well-organized, well-funded pro-Israeli lobby." Blackwell also attacked the University of Haifa, and accused it of holding a "racist conference on Arab demographics."
"I stand absolutely by every word in the motion. What we said about Haifa is an understatement. This is a university, which just hosted a conference, two days after the anniversary of the Nakba, entitled 'The demographic problem.' Brothers and sisters, a university which organizes a racist conference as Haifa has just done deserves every bit of trouble it gets from trade unionists in the UK."
"We did not defame Haifa, but what is defamatory is attacks in the press calling us anti-Semitic," said Blackwell.
Speaking to the Post about links on her personal homepage to neo-Nazi Web sites, she described as "defamatory rubbish" the article that exposed them. Blackwell promised to "make a statement" to the Post about the links, which she has since removed, in the near future.
The rally was also attended by members of the fringe anti-Zionist haredi Natorei Karta sect, who held signs which read: "Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea." "We are abiding by the Torah," said one member. "They [the Israelis] have no right to exist. Israel will fail. Before Israel, Jews were living well in Arab countries," he added.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116642367186
anti-semitism is growing exponentially these days.
In regards to my own personal studies, I have read the Book of Mormon. I've spent time reading a bit of Buddhist teachings back when I was a bit younger and exploring, as well as looking into Confuscian ideals. I had to findout for myself, and by experiencing God first hand, baring witness to things that can not be explained such as blind seeing, the crippled walking, things of this nature still exist in our current day. My Faith in Yahweh has only been increased because of these things, but I had come to Faith in him before this. These things have only occurred recently, and I have stood amazed at what He has done, and I look forward to seeing even greater things than this.
The gnostic "gospels" were not authored by the people that they are named for, and this my friend is fact. Written over 100 years after Christ death and some not authenticated until 300 years after can not stand in the same arena with the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These four are accepted as being written between a period between 31 ad - 65 ad. The number of copies of these gospels is so numerous that they outnumber the closest competitor (Alexander the Great's biography) by more than 100,000. You do not have to take my word for this but search out for the info, and if you want a good resource for it check out The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel who's desire for this book was to completely undeify Christ but also to prove He never existed, good read as Mr. Strobel interviews men who have spent years on the subjects adressed in this book.
I also would like to point out that it was not Jesus who was thought to have been a political radical but Josephus mentions Christ because of the rabble rouser John the Baptist who was known for his direct speech and also for living out in the wilderness as the wild prophet of God. John the Baptist was the man who cleaned the way for Jesus Christ, and they were indeed cousins. God is awesome in all ways may we bless His name before all men, and proclaim the Kingdom of God.
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 515
Jesus was 1 of 3 things...
1) Son of God - What he claimed to be
2) Crazy - Whacko for claiming such things
3) Liar - Like the guy in Waco, TX who ran the cult
You cant "respect" Jesus if you dont agree with what he said. Its illogical. I know I am going to get bashed because I wont join the relativist of whatever someone believes is right to them and whatever I believe is right to me, but anyway, I think he is the Son of God.
BTW, the Bible is the most accurately translated text to date, more accurate than many of Shakespearre's (sp?) works...
1) Son of God - What he claimed to be
2) Crazy - Whacko for claiming such things
3) Liar - Like the guy in Waco, TX who ran the cult
You cant "respect" Jesus if you dont agree with what he said. Its illogical. I know I am going to get bashed because I wont join the relativist of whatever someone believes is right to them and whatever I believe is right to me, but anyway, I think he is the Son of God.
BTW, the Bible is the most accurately translated text to date, more accurate than many of Shakespearre's (sp?) works...
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 240
What is even more interesting is the fact "people of god" spread like a fucking plague, have caused millions of deaths, and they call me ignorant. I am an Odinist, and practice what my ancestors of nordic and celtic europe practiced. No christian can tell me to practice otherwise. I am just thankful you christians arent killing us pagans anymore.Bib said:
Brother will kill brother, spilling blood across the land, killing for religion, something I don't understand.
Dave Mustaine, 1990
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
ACES, you're ignorant as to what true men and women of GOD are like. We aren't the ones who did all the killing and blood spilling. The Catholic Church was and is a huge part of the Apostate church which may include Christ but has nothing to do with what He taught and who He really was. Look into some of these issues, Mary, Crown Vicar of Christ (POPenis Enlargement), infant baptism, Confession, priests and nuns, apostolic sucession, and these are just a few of the things that you could research. The Catholic Church is leading millions of people to the depths because of what they teach, such as the seven necessities of salvation, but Christ said believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that I am LORD and ye shall be saved, and that is all that is required. So they are teaching directly agains what Jesus said, and Christ also said if ye abide in my WORD then ye are my disciple. If abiding in His word is necessary to be a disciple then teaching contrary to it must mean that you are not truly His disciple, and in you shall not listen to such a man or pay his teaching any heed at all, so says the Lord. I know you're not interested in this as you have told me before when I PMed you, but this in all actuality would clear up some of what you think has transpired throughout history but this just is not so. Blessings to you Aces....
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
A pioneer of Christian happy-talk
Posted: April 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
To attract the largest followings possible and because they have bought the lie of the new tolerance, many of America's churches, Christian publishers and Christian radio stations – whether they know it or not – have rejected biblical Christianity and adopted the more popular but bogus gospel of Christian happy-talk. As a result, churches brim with converts committed only to their personal self-actualization, publishers lavish feel-good pabulum on their readers, and the airwaves ring with an emotive rendering of Christianity that would fit nicely alongside the corruptions of faith Jesus chides in the second and third chapters of Revelation.
More than 30 years ago, Vance Havner, in his book "Playing Marbles with Diamonds," offered the following insightful:
The devil is not fighting religion; he is too smart for that. He is producing a counterfeit Christianity so much like the real one that good Christians are afraid to speak out against it. … We are plainly told in the Scriptures that in the last days men will not endure sound doctrine and will depart from the truth and heap to themselves teachers to tickle their ears. We live in an epidemic of this itch, and popular preachers have developed ear-tickling to a fine art. Today, the angle is to avoid "negative" preaching and accentuate only the positive.
Havner wrote at a time when the work of one of America's most influential pioneers of Christian happy-talk was fomenting what is still a powerful factor in the happy-talk world. A follower of Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller has become the face and voice of today's "Christian" self-esteem movement. Of course, there is nothing Christian or biblical about Schuller's self-idolatry message. It is clearly more akin to New Age thinking.
Nevertheless, Schuller is one of America's most well-known TV preachers and authors, and is pastor of arguably the most famous mega-church of all time. In fact, as pastor of The Crystal Cathedral, Schuller claims to be the father of the mega-church movement. In the April 10, 2002, issue of The Christian Century, Schuller claims, "I launched the mega-church movement through the Institute for Successful Church Leadership in 1970."
Many look to Schuller and his church as the model for achieving mega-church status. Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Bruce Wilkinson and scores of America's best-selling authors and most well-known pastors have either spoken at Schuller's Institute for Successful Church Leadership or attended the conference. Perhaps this explains why so many of these authors avoid in-depth discussions of man's total depravity, the biblical doctrine of repentance, the moral law, or the need to die to self and reject the lie of self-love.
Mega-churches and many "Christian" books today conspire to make people feel good – to be comfortable with themselves. Preaching the cross and our need to die to self does not meet acceptable Christian happy-talk standards. In an interview with Christianity Today, published on Oct. 5, 1984, Robert Schuller noted:
I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise, than the often crude, uncouth and un-Christian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.
In his book "Self-Esteem, the New Reformation," Schuller argues that we now have a far more enlightened understanding of what is really going on in our souls: "Lack of self-love or self-esteem, here is a scientific, scriptural doctrine of original sin."
What Bible is he reading from? According to mine, the original sin of Adam and Eve was a choice of desiring what they – the self – wanted over what God desired for them. Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan's lie of human supremacy, which is to love self to the extent of seeing yourself as god. They also believed the favorite falsehood of humanism that they could be the ones to determine truth and to control their destinies. It was the desire to serve "self," not God, that led to disobedience and the original sin.
Later in his book, Schuller reveals the core of happy-talk teaching: "Let us start with a theology of salvation that addresses itself at the outset to man's deepest need, the 'will to self worth.'" But the truth is, man's deepest need is not "self worth" but forgiveness of sins through repentance and belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unless we die to our own will and the desires of self-love and become alive to Christ and His will, there is no salvation.
When describing salvation, Jesus' words never sounded remotely like those of Robert Schuller. That belies the fact that the messages of Robert Schuller and Jesus Christ are in direct conflict. Jesus spoke about self-denial and dying to self, while Schuller promotes self-worship.
In Luke 14, Jesus describes the actions of a true believer and not once does He commend the need to love one's self. To the contrary, He even calls us to hate our own lives:
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 9:23-26 is even unhappier in its talk. Jesus enumerates the requirements of His followers, including the need to reject the love of self:
And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."
Elsewhere, the Bible variously calls the works of self "filthy rags," notes that apart from Christ "I am as a little worm," describes people as "children of wrath" before trusting in Jesus Christ, and claims "we were dead in trespasses and sins." The Bible clearly is not high on the virtues of mankind. It says there is "no one good, no not one." Only God and His Son Christ Jesus are without sin.
To teach self-esteem or man's basic goodness is to say that mankind really was not 100 percent in need of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. The self-esteem movement says people are perhaps good enough to pass through judgment on their own merit. Even if mankind is bad, we're not all that bad – certainly not totally depraved – only in need of a bit of work on the cross to make up for a few little failings, shortcomings and flaws.
To justify their self-love theology, many cite the biblical admonition that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. They point to Leviticus 19:18 (which Jesus Himself quoted): "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." How, they argue, are we to love our neighbors as ourselves if we do not fully love ourselves? But if you look at Leviticus 19:9-18, the entire list of things God is telling us that we must and must not do falls in the context of how we should treat each other in our daily conduct. The list of requirements never moves from the physical and emotional realm into adjectives or descriptions that involve an inner worship of one another, the affirmation of one another as good, or even as being lovely, lovable or worthy of love. When the admonition is read in context, it is clear that we are to look out for the best interest of others and not simply think only of our own best interests – contrary to the natural, sinful, reflex of every human being.
Robert Schuller, like many of today's liberal pastors, have a strong desire to avoid using the "S" word. In "Self-Esteem, The New Reformation," Schuller writes: "Salvation is defined as rescue from shame to glory. It is salvation from guilt to pride, from fear to love, from distrust to faith, from hypocrisy to honesty." Schuller never uses the word "sin" and says nothing about repentance. This kind of misleading verbiage actually leads people away from salvation, for without acknowledging sin and repenting of that sin, there can be no salvation.
This is quite clear in I John 1:8-10: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."
Actually, I should acknowledge that Schuller doesn't' forsake the "S" word entirely. He offers a rather creative re-invention that still shields us from the dark reality of our needs when he writes, "So lack of trust or a lack of self-worth is the central core of sin."
Uh … no. The central core of sin is disobedience toward God and our being in rebellion against His character and nature. The more we focus on self and self-worth, self-importance or our rights, the deeper our offending sin.
Schuller also writes, "Jesus Christ employed a strategy of evangelism where he never called a person a 'sinner.' They were sinners, of course, but he never told them they were."
I repeat: What Bible is that? Jesus not only told His audience He was calling sinners to repentance, but He called some of them names even less flattering than "sinner." How would today's happy-talk audience like to be addressed as "vipers," "serpents" or "tombs"?
In II Timothy 4:3-4, Paul predicted that we would see false teachers like the happy-talk crowd and that many in the audience would eagerly accept their false teachings:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Jesus soundly warns us of the punisHydromaxent that awaits those who add or take away from the Scriptures. He notes that we would be better off to tie a millstone around our necks and jump in a lake rather than to doctrinally deceive children or those that are new to the faith.
Alas, Christian happy-talk has become very profitable. But then what will it really profit anyone to gain the world and lose the soul?
Posted: April 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
To attract the largest followings possible and because they have bought the lie of the new tolerance, many of America's churches, Christian publishers and Christian radio stations – whether they know it or not – have rejected biblical Christianity and adopted the more popular but bogus gospel of Christian happy-talk. As a result, churches brim with converts committed only to their personal self-actualization, publishers lavish feel-good pabulum on their readers, and the airwaves ring with an emotive rendering of Christianity that would fit nicely alongside the corruptions of faith Jesus chides in the second and third chapters of Revelation.
More than 30 years ago, Vance Havner, in his book "Playing Marbles with Diamonds," offered the following insightful:
The devil is not fighting religion; he is too smart for that. He is producing a counterfeit Christianity so much like the real one that good Christians are afraid to speak out against it. … We are plainly told in the Scriptures that in the last days men will not endure sound doctrine and will depart from the truth and heap to themselves teachers to tickle their ears. We live in an epidemic of this itch, and popular preachers have developed ear-tickling to a fine art. Today, the angle is to avoid "negative" preaching and accentuate only the positive.
Havner wrote at a time when the work of one of America's most influential pioneers of Christian happy-talk was fomenting what is still a powerful factor in the happy-talk world. A follower of Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller has become the face and voice of today's "Christian" self-esteem movement. Of course, there is nothing Christian or biblical about Schuller's self-idolatry message. It is clearly more akin to New Age thinking.
Nevertheless, Schuller is one of America's most well-known TV preachers and authors, and is pastor of arguably the most famous mega-church of all time. In fact, as pastor of The Crystal Cathedral, Schuller claims to be the father of the mega-church movement. In the April 10, 2002, issue of The Christian Century, Schuller claims, "I launched the mega-church movement through the Institute for Successful Church Leadership in 1970."
Many look to Schuller and his church as the model for achieving mega-church status. Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Bruce Wilkinson and scores of America's best-selling authors and most well-known pastors have either spoken at Schuller's Institute for Successful Church Leadership or attended the conference. Perhaps this explains why so many of these authors avoid in-depth discussions of man's total depravity, the biblical doctrine of repentance, the moral law, or the need to die to self and reject the lie of self-love.
Mega-churches and many "Christian" books today conspire to make people feel good – to be comfortable with themselves. Preaching the cross and our need to die to self does not meet acceptable Christian happy-talk standards. In an interview with Christianity Today, published on Oct. 5, 1984, Robert Schuller noted:
I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise, than the often crude, uncouth and un-Christian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.
In his book "Self-Esteem, the New Reformation," Schuller argues that we now have a far more enlightened understanding of what is really going on in our souls: "Lack of self-love or self-esteem, here is a scientific, scriptural doctrine of original sin."
What Bible is he reading from? According to mine, the original sin of Adam and Eve was a choice of desiring what they – the self – wanted over what God desired for them. Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan's lie of human supremacy, which is to love self to the extent of seeing yourself as god. They also believed the favorite falsehood of humanism that they could be the ones to determine truth and to control their destinies. It was the desire to serve "self," not God, that led to disobedience and the original sin.
Later in his book, Schuller reveals the core of happy-talk teaching: "Let us start with a theology of salvation that addresses itself at the outset to man's deepest need, the 'will to self worth.'" But the truth is, man's deepest need is not "self worth" but forgiveness of sins through repentance and belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unless we die to our own will and the desires of self-love and become alive to Christ and His will, there is no salvation.
When describing salvation, Jesus' words never sounded remotely like those of Robert Schuller. That belies the fact that the messages of Robert Schuller and Jesus Christ are in direct conflict. Jesus spoke about self-denial and dying to self, while Schuller promotes self-worship.
In Luke 14, Jesus describes the actions of a true believer and not once does He commend the need to love one's self. To the contrary, He even calls us to hate our own lives:
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 9:23-26 is even unhappier in its talk. Jesus enumerates the requirements of His followers, including the need to reject the love of self:
And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."
Elsewhere, the Bible variously calls the works of self "filthy rags," notes that apart from Christ "I am as a little worm," describes people as "children of wrath" before trusting in Jesus Christ, and claims "we were dead in trespasses and sins." The Bible clearly is not high on the virtues of mankind. It says there is "no one good, no not one." Only God and His Son Christ Jesus are without sin.
To teach self-esteem or man's basic goodness is to say that mankind really was not 100 percent in need of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. The self-esteem movement says people are perhaps good enough to pass through judgment on their own merit. Even if mankind is bad, we're not all that bad – certainly not totally depraved – only in need of a bit of work on the cross to make up for a few little failings, shortcomings and flaws.
To justify their self-love theology, many cite the biblical admonition that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. They point to Leviticus 19:18 (which Jesus Himself quoted): "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." How, they argue, are we to love our neighbors as ourselves if we do not fully love ourselves? But if you look at Leviticus 19:9-18, the entire list of things God is telling us that we must and must not do falls in the context of how we should treat each other in our daily conduct. The list of requirements never moves from the physical and emotional realm into adjectives or descriptions that involve an inner worship of one another, the affirmation of one another as good, or even as being lovely, lovable or worthy of love. When the admonition is read in context, it is clear that we are to look out for the best interest of others and not simply think only of our own best interests – contrary to the natural, sinful, reflex of every human being.
Robert Schuller, like many of today's liberal pastors, have a strong desire to avoid using the "S" word. In "Self-Esteem, The New Reformation," Schuller writes: "Salvation is defined as rescue from shame to glory. It is salvation from guilt to pride, from fear to love, from distrust to faith, from hypocrisy to honesty." Schuller never uses the word "sin" and says nothing about repentance. This kind of misleading verbiage actually leads people away from salvation, for without acknowledging sin and repenting of that sin, there can be no salvation.
This is quite clear in I John 1:8-10: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."
Actually, I should acknowledge that Schuller doesn't' forsake the "S" word entirely. He offers a rather creative re-invention that still shields us from the dark reality of our needs when he writes, "So lack of trust or a lack of self-worth is the central core of sin."
Uh … no. The central core of sin is disobedience toward God and our being in rebellion against His character and nature. The more we focus on self and self-worth, self-importance or our rights, the deeper our offending sin.
Schuller also writes, "Jesus Christ employed a strategy of evangelism where he never called a person a 'sinner.' They were sinners, of course, but he never told them they were."
I repeat: What Bible is that? Jesus not only told His audience He was calling sinners to repentance, but He called some of them names even less flattering than "sinner." How would today's happy-talk audience like to be addressed as "vipers," "serpents" or "tombs"?
In II Timothy 4:3-4, Paul predicted that we would see false teachers like the happy-talk crowd and that many in the audience would eagerly accept their false teachings:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Jesus soundly warns us of the punisHydromaxent that awaits those who add or take away from the Scriptures. He notes that we would be better off to tie a millstone around our necks and jump in a lake rather than to doctrinally deceive children or those that are new to the faith.
Alas, Christian happy-talk has become very profitable. But then what will it really profit anyone to gain the world and lose the soul?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking, and envying each other.
Matthew 7
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Mea culpa
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking, and envying each other.
Matthew 7
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Mea culpa
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
Hey Priap, could you possibly expand on what you are trying to get across by posting those two scriptures? I can interpret the intent, and in their meaning according to the context of the Word, but what is your intent with them?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
millionman said:
Look at the two words at the end of my post.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
me·a cul·pa (mā'ə kŭl'pə, mē'ə pronunciation
n.
An acknowledgment of a personal error or fault.
What would you be apologizing for?
pronunciationn.
An acknowledgment of a personal error or fault.
What would you be apologizing for?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
millionman said:me·a cul·pa (mā'ə kŭl'pə, mē'ə
n.
An acknowledgment of a personal error or fault.
What would you be apologizing for?
Millionman, you have my pity.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,623
Why would you pity me?
In the verses you posted the letter to the Galatians is written by the Apostle Paul to a body of believers. They word you have highlghted does not pretain to non-believers. Paul is pointing out that as men of the Spirit we do not live according to the world and we should not act as the world does, and we should treat one another according to the Spirit of the Lord.
In your second posting this is not a chastisement as we are not able to judge, or that we should not judge as you are obviously pointing out. It is the reality that we are called to discernment and honesty in dealing with each other as believers but also as non-believers. Christ's emphasis here is that we would judge according to LOVE and not according to opinion or where you are currently, but there is necessity to judge but to judge according to the Love of Christ as that we would meet them where they are currently, not as a means to discard them and do away with them. It's not about harsh treatment of the individual, this ties in with Christ also saying if you do not forgive men their transgressions I will not forgive yours to the Father. It's all part of Christ command to love the Father with your whole heart, mind, body, and soul and to LOVE as He has loved.
So am I deserving of pity Priap or are you attempting to make these words fit into your own agenda? If it is the latter then my friend I love you and pray that you will see this grievous error, as what you are stating in no way fits into the context of the books as a whole nor is the meaning implied fit into these verses as you have presented them. Christ spoke directly to the sins of the people, to the Samaritan woman He told her that she had lain with many men and that her position was not virtuous or Holy one but that she was forgiven. Is that a judgement, yes but He did so that she might come into relationship with Him. He convicts us of our sins not by harsh judgement as that which God utilized during the Flood but a different judgement that we would be convicted of the sin in our life and walk away from it toward him, not to our own destruction but to eternal life in Him.
In the verses you posted the letter to the Galatians is written by the Apostle Paul to a body of believers. They word you have highlghted does not pretain to non-believers. Paul is pointing out that as men of the Spirit we do not live according to the world and we should not act as the world does, and we should treat one another according to the Spirit of the Lord.
In your second posting this is not a chastisement as we are not able to judge, or that we should not judge as you are obviously pointing out. It is the reality that we are called to discernment and honesty in dealing with each other as believers but also as non-believers. Christ's emphasis here is that we would judge according to LOVE and not according to opinion or where you are currently, but there is necessity to judge but to judge according to the Love of Christ as that we would meet them where they are currently, not as a means to discard them and do away with them. It's not about harsh treatment of the individual, this ties in with Christ also saying if you do not forgive men their transgressions I will not forgive yours to the Father. It's all part of Christ command to love the Father with your whole heart, mind, body, and soul and to LOVE as He has loved.
So am I deserving of pity Priap or are you attempting to make these words fit into your own agenda? If it is the latter then my friend I love you and pray that you will see this grievous error, as what you are stating in no way fits into the context of the books as a whole nor is the meaning implied fit into these verses as you have presented them. Christ spoke directly to the sins of the people, to the Samaritan woman He told her that she had lain with many men and that her position was not virtuous or Holy one but that she was forgiven. Is that a judgement, yes but He did so that she might come into relationship with Him. He convicts us of our sins not by harsh judgement as that which God utilized during the Flood but a different judgement that we would be convicted of the sin in our life and walk away from it toward him, not to our own destruction but to eternal life in Him.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Drop it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
