a question of respect.

[SnakeLord]

It is well worth noting that jesus himself set out to cause strife and obviously eternal torment to people:

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father yada yada yada"

Given this, it seems the very purpose of christians, (to fulfill jesus duty), is to argue with, (and perhaps kill) others.

"convert"

"no"

"convert"

"NO"

etc.. From a biblical stance this is what jesus was after, this was his plan - and as such it would seem that preaching in order to convert isn't to convert but simply to make enemies in accordance with jesus' master plan.

So, when a christian starts preaching to you, argue with him. That way you are instantly doing what jesus planned for you to do.

 

[Gordon]

I have always felt that if you define "Christian" as "a follower and adherent of the techings of Jesus" then I have yet to meet a "real" Christian in my lifetime.

However, if you define "Christian" as "a follower and adherent of the doctrines of the early Christian fathers as codified at the Council of Nicea" then I don't think Jesus would be a Christian.

One Raven - You seem to have got the correct answer out of a muddle of confusion or at least nearly!

A christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. As such he believes in the the life as detailed in the Gospels and thus that He was both Son of God and Son of Man (which is why Aryan beliefs as exemplified by JW's and others make them outside of christian doctrine).

If they are truly christian, they do try to follow what He did whilst acknowledging that He was perfect and they are not and so accepting that they will fail. This is what Jesus Himself said. No one is actually capable of following the Law (basically the Ten Commandments) and thus no one can ever make themselves worthy.

The Council of Nicea is not the basis of true christianity. This was established by the apostles and the early believers long before that event and of course the principles of belief and behaviour are those contained in the New Testament (and indeed connected with much of the Old Testament). This had all been recorded long before the Council of Nicea.

To come back to the original question. A true christian must respect the beliefs of others. That does not mean that he can believe their beliefs are correct if they are opposite to christian ones. That would be illogical.

I have no problem with respecting people with other political opinions to mine and am happy to discuss politics with them (and frequently do). We of course normally agree to differ! Likewise I have no problem with respecting the beliefs and being friends with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists (I don't actually know any Muslims that well). Again we have many good theological discussions and often agree but often disagree too!

As far as evangelising is concerned, many christians do seem to have the wrong idea about this and so it's not surprising that non-christians do!

What Jesus did was to show practical love to people by supplying a their particular needs, physical healing, comforting, providing spiritual guidance, whatever. Although his message was primarily to the Jews (others were planned to extend the message to Gentiles), Jesus never discriminated in giving help even to people that other Jews despised (e.g. the Samaritan woman at the well, the various Roman soldiers etc.).

The parable of the Good Samaritan is especially poignant because the Jews hated the Samaritans but it is the Samaritan who is the hero rather than the priest or the religious leader. Note that the Samaritan's religious beliefs are not even discussed in the parable!

Especially in a modern western society, you can not really convert people by telling them that if they do not repent and become christians, they are going to burn in hell! This is an absurd notion! So if you spend your time doing this, you are not really evangelising in any true sense at all. As above this was not what Jesus did.

You can only convince people you have the right answer by them seeing you doing the right things - by loving them in a practical manner. It does not matter what their religious beliefs are, or what their morality is or anything else. Sometimes you have to be very pragmatic. A christian charity I am part of has spent a lot of time, money and effort distributing free condoms in various African countries. This is not because it approves of lots of casual sex but because it wants to reduce the devastation caused by HIV/Aids when people do have lots of casual sex.

It is not for christians to decide what will happen to people when they die. That decision belongs to God alone and He will decide justly. An interesting view of 'Hell' is that of C.S. Lewis - 'a prison where the door is locked on the inside'.

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, there was no doubt that the Rich Man believed in scripture but he condemned himself by having no love for one of his fellow men (the beggar Lazarus).

Likewise when Jesus was asked by a rich man what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, the man lied and said that he had always obeyed the law (as already indicated an impossibility for any human and so a form of hypocritical pseudo holiness). Jesus saw through him and told him to give his money to the poor because he knew that the man's real god was money not God himself.

Scripture makes it quite clear that God will not recognise people as truly His people just because they say so themselves.

I am sure that in eternity, there will be many surprises in regard to who is part of God's eternal kingdom and who is not, but I for one am not going to speculate on that.


kind regards to all,


Gordon.

 

[Jenyar]

It is well worth noting that jesus himself set out to cause strife and obviously eternal torment to people:

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father yada yada yada"

Given this, it seems the very purpose of christians, (to fulfill jesus duty), is to argue with, (and perhaps kill) others.

"convert"

"no"

"convert"

"NO"

etc.. From a biblical stance this is what jesus was after, this was his plan - and as such it would seem that preaching in order to convert isn't to convert but simply to make enemies in accordance with jesus' master plan.

So, when a christian starts preaching to you, argue with him. That way you are instantly doing what jesus planned for you to do.

And the world is probably a better place because you aren't a Christian. But despite your questionable interpretation of the "Biblical stance" (which I don't doubt many misguided Christians share with you), arguing should get you nowhere:

2 Tim. 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...​

 

[SnakeLord]

And the world is probably a better place because you aren't a Christian

The world is always a better place when someone isn't christian.

But despite your questionable interpretation of the "Biblical stance" (which I don't doubt many misguided Christians share with you)

Well un-question it for me.

The majority of christians, (undoubtedly 'fake' christians as opposed to you 'true' christians (tm)), tell me that the 'sword' does not represent a physical sword, but words - that jesus came with the goal of bringing descension between believers and non-believers.

If that is the case, as the majority of believers I have spoken to concur with, then it can't really be disputed that the goal is for believers and non-believers to not get along - to fight with verbal swords as it were. As a result of that it would appear that the very purpose of trying to convert is simply to piss off non-believers, (jesus' plan), and actually serve no purpose other than that.

But still Jenyar, unquestion it.

2 Tim. 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...

Such is the problem with the bible. One sentence says don't drink, the other says drink. One says don't kill, the other says kill. One says faith alone, the other says works and faith.

Of course the passage you cite doesn't really serve to explain the issue. What it says is that a believer must not argue. It says nothing about the plan - (to cause descension between believers and non-believers). Us non-believers can do all the verbal sword fighting if we must, but as your above passage shows, the only way to stop that is if god wants it:

'in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...'

Which only goes to show how even more worthless your attempts at converting would actually be. Your entire discourse would be utterly futile unless god wants them to know, in which case you had nothing whatsoever to do with it, but god did.

Of course because jesus came to ensure that we argue with you, we will argue with you. And we will only not argue with you if god decides he doesn't want us to. Either way you look at it, trying to convert is pointless.

P.S

One more thing: 'And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.'

And the world is probably a better place because you aren't a Christian

Would you not say those two kind of go against each other? Out of interest, what would jesus say if, once I'm dead, I tell him that I didn't become christian because Jenyar said the world is a better place without me being christian?

You're not much of a "lord's servant" now are you?

 

[Jenyar]

Well un-question it for me.

The majority of christians, (undoubtedly 'fake' christians as opposed to you 'true' christians (tm)), tell me that the 'sword' does not represent a physical sword, but words - that jesus came with the goal of bringing descension between believers and non-believers.

If that is the case, as the majority of believers I have spoken to concur with, then it can't really be disputed that the goal is for believers and non-believers to not get along - to fight with verbal swords as it were. As a result of that it would appear that the very purpose of trying to convert is simply to piss off non-believers, (jesus' plan), and actually serve no purpose other than that.

Besides the "double-edged sword" which is the law, the sword could represent the conflict that would inevitably follow in Jesus' wake: the persecution of the Christians - and perhaps later persecutions by Christians. To deduce that Jesus welcomed the idea is a bit of a stretch, though, considering that he condemned the use of swords at least twice to his disciples, and violent retaliation in many more instances.

Such is the problem with the bible. One sentence says don't drink, the other says drink. One says don't kill, the other says kill. One says faith alone, the other says works and faith.

Of course the passage you cite doesn't really serve to explain the issue. What it says is that a believer must not argue. It says nothing about the plan - (to cause descension between believers and non-believers). Us non-believers can do all the verbal sword fighting if we must, but as your above passage shows, the only way to stop that is if god wants it:

'in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...'

Which only goes to show how even more worthless your attempts at converting would actually be. Your entire discourse would be utterly futile unless god wants them to know, in which case you had nothing whatsoever to do with it, but god did.

Of course because jesus came to ensure that we argue with you, we will argue with you. And we will only not argue with you if god decides he doesn't want us to. Either way you look at it, trying to convert is pointless.

And nobody is forcing you to convert. What exactly are you complaining about?

P.S

One more thing: 'And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.'

And the world is probably a better place because you aren't a Christian

Would you not say those two kind of go against each other? Out of interest, what would jesus say if, once I'm dead, I tell him that I didn't become christian because Jenyar said the world is a better place without me being christian?

You're not much of a "lord's servant" now are you?

You invite explanation and then complain about it? You're very good at describing the kind of Christian that even Christians fear. We all wish there were less of them around. You're definitely better off not being one of them.

The world is always a better place when someone isn't christian.

According to your definition of what a Christian should be, we're not quarelling, we're agreeing.

PS. We both know that I'm not what keeps you from becoming a Christian. You seem to be blaming God for something, and this is how you're dealing with it, for better or for worse.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

here's something i've always wondered about:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

since being a christian means that you accept christ as your saviour and necessarily hold the view that anyone who does not do this is going to hell, isn't it your duty to try to convince everyone you love and care for to try to accept jesus so that they won't go to hell? isn't it true that if you actually believe in god and jesus, you must be deeply concerned that your friends will go to hell if they don't convert? if that is true, and you attempt to convert them, then how can you possibly maintain any type of respect for their belief? if you don't attempt to convert them, then aren't you doing them a grave and terrible disservice by allowing their foolish beliefs in a false god (or worse yet, no god) to relegate them to the "lake of eternal fire"? so how does that work exactly - do you not really believe that people go to hell for not accepting god and jesus, or do you just not care about your friends and family or fellow man enough to save them from hell? i would actually go so far as to say that if you are a christian and you are not actively trying to convert every single person you meet over to the way of the lord, then you are violating some rules laid out in the bible about loving thy neighbor and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you...etc. so, christians, my question is - if you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't accept your god is going to burn in hell, why don't you do more to help them? in addition, how could you ever claim to have respect for a system of beliefs other than your own if you know that the person labouring under these illusions will be sent to a place of eternal torment?

i've always been curious about that.

Interesting discussion between you and Baumgarten. Maybe some christians do (stupidly) believe that all non-christians are going to hell, but it is definitely not in the definition of a christian.

Diversity is good, if it means people start thinking for themselves, and challenging their own and others beliefs. Isn't that what we gained from the "Enlightenment". It's not dissolving into chaos - the traditional communities and churches still exist. It might mean people start to listen to other beliefs and honestly evaluating them, rather than seeking to silence or suppress them.

To be a christian is to be reaching out for God through Jesus. What you believe in addition to that is up to you. For my money, the most convincing christians are those with the least doctrinal baggage!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It is well worth noting that jesus himself set out to cause strife and obviously eternal torment to people:
"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father yada yada yada"
Given this, it seems the very purpose of christians, (to fulfill jesus duty), is to argue with, (and perhaps kill) others.

"convert"
"no"
"convert"
"NO"

etc.. From a biblical stance this is what jesus was after, this was his plan - and as such it would seem that preaching in order to convert isn't to convert but simply to make enemies in accordance with jesus' master plan. So, when a christian starts preaching to you, argue with him. That way you are instantly doing what jesus planned for you to do.

You ARE a Christian then SL!
(No I'm not)
You had us all fooled for a minute.
(No I didn't)

By the way - why did JC go "Yada yada yada", was he on a motorbike?
(No he wasn't)
Was it his Dad's name?
(No)
He dropped his sword!
(No he didn't) etc...

 

[Phasmid]

A good question.

Being a Christian I try my best to live by Christ's teachings though I sometimes fall short since I'm not perfect. By living the way Christ directed I behave in a certain way and talk to people in a certain way. I respect people's beliefs at the same time. Obviously I disagree with them as no doubt many people will disagree with my post but I have enough respect for anyone simply to hear their opinion and disagree.

By living/behaving as a Christian I send out a message of what being a Christian is. This is how I preach. I of course use words when people ask but for the most part I believe it's better to show people what being a Christian is about and not simply spouting scripture.

Also I don't believe Hell is an eternal BBQ. I believe it to be a place where the soul is destroyed. I've only been a Christian for 4 years and in that time I've learned a lot and had my ideas changed completely.

One of these changes in perspective came about from a religious discussion forum. After having lived a sinful life for 14 years I assumed I was destined for Hell. So I inquired into the nature of Hell on that religious discussion forum. One reply described how Jesus taught that Hell was like a place called Gehenna. Gehenna was this place outside of Jerusalem where they incinerated waste. The fires of Gehenna were always alight to keep up with the city’s needs. Brimstone was used to keep it hot at all times.

By now you should be getting the idea of where we get our idea of Hell being a place of fire and pain. This seems to paint the classical idea of Hell as being fire and brimstone but it's been taken out of its historical context. Bear with me a moment this is going somewhere I assure you.

Anyway if there were a criminal who had committed a particularly terrible crime then, after execution, they would be thrown into Gehenna. This then destroyed the body of the criminal completely.

So by putting the idea of Hell in it's historical context it shows that Hell is a place of eternal destruction and not of pain. In this way then atheists, such as most of my friends and family, will not suffer for eternity if they go to Hell. They will die the death they believe they'll die as atheists. Hence why Jesus said sin leads to death while following him leads to life. In other words if you're atheist you probably believe that when you die you just cease to exist much like it was before you were born. This is actually what happens to atheists if they don't follow Christ's teachings.

So it is possible for Christian's to respect other people's beliefs while still maintaining our own. It's my personal belief that Christians should try to encourage a Christian life by living well and doing good to others and getting our point across in actions and to a lesser extend in our words as well.

I believe the way I live leads to life everlasting and the way of the atheist leads to death everlasting. I don't believe an omni-benevolent God would make his creations suffer for an eternity. Therefore if a non-believer holds fast to their convictions I can respect that since I know they wont suffer. They will merely die. All I can do is live the best I can and hopefully people will take an interest in the Christian life. If not then I can respect their wishes.

 

[spiritual_spy]

A good question.

Being a Christian I try my best to live by Christ's teachings though I sometimes fall short since I'm not perfect. By living the way Christ directed I behave in a certain way and talk to people in a certain way. I respect people's beliefs at the same time. Obviously I disagree with them as no doubt many people will disagree with my post but I have enough respect for anyone simply to hear their opinion and disagree.

By living/behaving as a Christian I send out a message of what being a Christian is. This is how I preach. I of course use words when people ask but for the most part I believe it's better to show people what being a Christian is about and not simply spouting scripture.

Also I don't believe Hell is an eternal BBQ. I believe it to be a place where the soul is destroyed. I've only been a Christian for 4 years and in that time I've learned a lot and had my ideas changed completely.

One of these changes in perspective came about from a religious discussion forum. After having lived a sinful life for 14 years I assumed I was destined for Hell. So I inquired into the nature of Hell on that religious discussion forum. One reply described how Jesus taught that Hell was like a place called Gehenna. Gehenna was this place outside of Jerusalem where they incinerated waste. The fires of Gehenna were always alight to keep up with the city’s needs. Brimstone was used to keep it hot at all times.

By now you should be getting the idea of where we get our idea of Hell being a place of fire and pain. This seems to paint the classical idea of Hell as being fire and brimstone but it's been taken out of its historical context. Bear with me a moment this is going somewhere I assure you.

Anyway if there were a criminal who had committed a particularly terrible crime then, after execution, they would be thrown into Gehenna. This then destroyed the body of the criminal completely.

So by putting the idea of Hell in it's historical context it shows that Hell is a place of eternal destruction and not of pain. In this way then atheists, such as most of my friends and family, will not suffer for eternity if they go to Hell. They will die the death they believe they'll die as atheists. Hence why Jesus said sin leads to death while following him leads to life. In other words if you're atheist you probably believe that when you die you just cease to exist much like it was before you were born. This is actually what happens to atheists if they don't follow Christ's teachings.

So it is possible for Christian's to respect other people's beliefs while still maintaining our own. It's my personal belief that Christians should try to encourage a Christian life by living well and doing good to others and getting our point across in actions and to a lesser extend in our words as well.

I believe the way I live leads to life everlasting and the way of the atheist leads to death everlasting. I don't believe an omni-benevolent God would make his creations suffer for an eternity. Therefore if a non-believer holds fast to their convictions I can respect that since I know they wont suffer. They will merely die. All I can do is live the best I can and hopefully people will take an interest in the Christian life. If not then I can respect their wishes.

i have an argument against this but thats a place for another thread.

 

[one_raven]

One Raven - You seem to have got the correct answer out of a muddle of confusion or at least nearly!

A christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. As such he believes in the the life as detailed in the Gospels and thus that He was both Son of God and Son of Man (which is why Aryan beliefs as exemplified by JW's and others make them outside of christian doctrine).

If they are truly christian, they do try to follow what He did whilst acknowledging that He was perfect and they are not and so accepting that they will fail. This is what Jesus Himself said. No one is actually capable of following the Law (basically the Ten Commandments) and thus no one can ever make themselves worthy.

Being a Christian I try my best to live by Christ's teachings though I sometimes fall short since I'm not perfect. By living the way Christ directed I behave in a certain way and talk to people in a certain way. I respect people's beliefs at the same time. Obviously I disagree with them as no doubt many people will disagree with my post but I have enough respect for anyone simply to hear their opinion and disagree.

I have a problem with the "Well, Jesus was perfect, and we couldn't possibly expect to live up to his ideal example".

I am not saying that to be a "good" Christian, you have to be a perfect little Jesus clone, but frankly, I have yet to met someone who seems to even be trying.

Where are the teachings of Jesus found?
First of all, if you are discussing the teachings of Jesus, all the Bible, New and Old Testaments, can be completely discarded, except the four gospels.
Do you agree?
Everything beyond the four gospels in the New Testament, is the apologetic explanations of the founding fathers attemtping to codify, explain, explore and justify the teachings of Jesus.

The Old Testament, obviously, came before him. Except for some of his direct references to the Old Testament, regardless of how valuable you may think it is, it should be set aside when concerning yourself with Jesus' teachings.

I also reject the Gospel of John for several reasons, so I won't focus on them, but if you have a problem with that, I can understand and we can throw him into teh mix as well.

The Gnostic gospels? I think they have some real and qualifiable value, but I can certainly understand why a Chrsitian would reject them as well, and since I rejected John, we can leave them aside.

So we have the only accepted words of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Can we agree on this as a starting point of discussing what the actual words and teachings of Jesus was?


What did Jesus teach?
What he taught about living a virtuous life was not a whole lot different than what the Buddha taught.
Have integrity.
Love your neighbor.
Give to those who do not have.
Do not horde belongings or money.
Don't cheat on your spouse, nor have an affair with someone else's spouse.

They are all basic, simple rules regarding personal conduct in a cooperative community and a healthy, positive outlook.
Some of my favorite quotes (all from NIV)...

Matthew 6:1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.


Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18 "Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


Matthew 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."


Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39 He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41 "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? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

That's enough quotes for now.


Everyone who has ever condemned anyone to Hell for not being a Christian, is not a following Jesus.
Anyone who has not been wholly frugal, and has spent any more than necessary (for, say, a 42 inch flat screen TV, that luxury car, the extravagant home, the fourth video game system) rather than giving that money to the needy, is not following Jesus.
Anyone who lacks mercy for the afflicted, or does not act according to that mercy, is not following Jesus.
Anyone who has held a grudge, is not following Jesus.
Anyone who has saved money in the bank and ammassed more than he needs to live, rather than giving it to charity, is not following Jesus.
Anyone who wears their religion or piety on their sleeve, acts in a proud manner, holds their purity and chastity over someone else, makes it known the work they do or money they give to the needy, are not following Jesus.
Anyone who has used the words of Jesus to judge ANYONE but themselves, is not following Jesus.

No, no one is perfect and any good religion recognizes that fact and sets itself up as a path of self improvement.
However, to be on a path of self improvement you have to be taking steps towards your ideals.

There is quite a significant difference between finding it difficult to live up to the more stringent rules and codes of conduct in a religion and simply ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for your life and lifestyle.
If there is no work, no effort, no striving to reach the ideal, then they are not your ideals and you are just posturing, lying and hypocritical.

The VAST majority of self-professed "Christians" I have met do not read the Bible searching for truth or answers.
They already have their answers, they look to the Bible looking for verses and loopholes that will justify their already set points of view.
They don't read the Bible like believers and followers, they read the Bible like lawyers.

Claiming to be a Christian does not make you one.
I think actions and integrity rather than words and ideals define a person.

So, where is the line?
When do you cross the line from being an imperfect follower of Jesus to being a Hypo-Christian?
When you stop going to church? When you stop being repentant? When you steal on a regular basis? When you beat your children? When you commit your first murder? When you break all Ten Commandments?

Where do you draw that line?

There is a difference between expecting perfection and expecting a real and tangible effort and hard work towards your ideal.
Don't you think?

 

[SnakeLord]

Besides the "double-edged sword" which is the law, the sword could represent the conflict that would inevitably follow in Jesus' wake: the persecution of the Christians - and perhaps later persecutions by Christians.

Well, anything in the bible "could represent" anything you want it to. You can see it all over this forum, and with every single religious person you speak to. Where one person reads unicorn, you read cow and so on - which only goes to highlight my point about the sword even more - descension, not only between believers and non believers, but between believers and believers as well. If what I brought up, (and have been told many times by many christians), is the accurate stance then it would seem jesus' plan worked perfectly.

How many times I have seen protestants fighting catholics, or mormons, jehovahs and so on let alone us non believers.

"..to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother.."

The plan was a serious success. He could have prevented it of course - by not bringing the sword, but peace. Alas he didn't want peace, but descension and he's got it.

And nobody is forcing you to convert. What exactly are you complaining about?

A strange sentence. I wasn't complaining about anything, I was discussing. Is that honestly the only retort you have to offer?

You invite explanation and then complain about it?

Who's complaining? I asked you a couple of questions that you failed to answer, little more - and I only asked those questions because you quoted some biblical text and then in the very next sentence showed beyond any doubt that you pay no attention to the text you quoted.

You're very good at describing the kind of Christian that even Christians fear.

Well, every type of christian will find other types of christians he 'fears', disagrees with, or considers as hellbound. That's the sword right there.

According to your definition of what a Christian should be

I didn't define what a christian "should be", I simply pointed out the purpose of jesus' visit to our little planet in accordance with what he supposedly said.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..."

As mentioned earlier, his plan worked perfectly.. even you christians can't get along with each other.

PS. We both know that I'm not what keeps you from becoming a Christian. You seem to be blaming God for something, and this is how you're dealing with it, for better or for worse.

And what an amusing way to end a post, (alas you don't win any points for originality). It's that naive little christian view that rears it's ugly head quite frequently. Non believers must really be believers that are 'blaming god' for something. Personally I thought you would be beyond such glaring idiocy.

 

[Jenyar]

And what an amusing way to end a post, (alas you don't win any points for originality). It's that naive little christian view that rears it's ugly head quite frequently. Non believers must really be believers that are 'blaming god' for something. Personally I thought you would be beyond such glaring idiocy.

Actually, then it should bother you that your posts about Christianity are indistinguishable from people who are looking for reasons that don't exist, and blames God when they don't find them. Quoting only one sentence from the Bible over and over, because they seem to support your conclusions, is one example. It's obviously my mistake if I'm wrong, but the impression was quite convincing.

 

[charles cure]

Actually, then it should bother you that your posts about Christianity are indistinguishable from people who are looking for reasons that don't exist, and blames God when they don't find them. Quoting only one sentence from the Bible over and over, because they seem to support your conclusions, is one example. It's obviously my mistake if I'm wrong, but the impression was quite convincing.

well, christians use one or two lines from scripture all the time to support their agenda against gays, stem cell research, abortion, birth control...whatever issue you want. if christians can point to one or two lines in the story of sodom and gammorah and claim that homosexuality is anathema, how come atheists can't point to the passage that snakelord did, or the passages in books like deuteronomy and leviticus where god exhorts followers to kill or do material damage to non-believers, completely contradicting the notion the either jesus or god were peace-loving stewards of the human race that just wanted everyone to live in harmony? it is my personal opinion that quotations from scripture are completely fucking meaningless since their veracity cannot be determined, and any one line is invariably met with a contradictory pronouncement somewhere else. however, i guess if it's good for the goose, it should be good for the gander. dont get mad at snakelord because he has an opposite, but equally valid interpretation of scripture from what you think is acceptable.

something tells me it should be pretty obvious that atheists by definition can't "blame god" for anything. that would be like blaming the tooth fairy for something.

 

[SnakeLord]

Jenyar:

I must admit I actually found it quite interesting that you declined comment on the actual discussion itself and instead concentrated solely on the naive belief you had posted in the first place - while taking the time to tell me the utter worthlessness of quoting one specific line of biblical text, (while having done just that very thing, and having done that thing continually throughout the time you've been here). Such hypocricy generally bothers me, but I shall ignore it for now.

The issue I have brought up is about a line of text that specifically points at a reason for jesus' existence - for his being here. All the "Don't stone prostitutes" becomes pretty meaningless when faced with the quote: "I have not come to bring peace but a sword". To then go on and say that your purpose, that the reason for you to be here is to cause strife and descension between family members is something that I feel can and should be addressed without the naivety of dragging an argument down to such level whereby anyone that even asks a question instantly becomes a god hater. Even more so given that you are talking to an atheist. It's like saying you really do believe in leprechauns but hate them. It is nonsensical.

So lets, (if it's possible), actually look at the issue. You cannot, and clearly do not, deny that jesus came to cause descension and strife - to set family members against each other. If you think you can debate against this, please do.

Actually, then it should bother you that your posts about Christianity are indistinguishable from people who are looking for reasons that don't exist, and blames God when they don't find them

1) Worth clarifying that I am an atheist. Try to remember that

2) Debate it then. You claim it doesn't exist - so get to it.

If we judge jesus and his disciples we come up with a gang of guys that you wouldn't want to be near. The leader's purpose is to cause descension between family members, (in his own words) and his disciples are clearly the bottom of the moral barrel. An example of this can be seen here, (again in jesus' words):

"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."

By this statement we can come to the clear conclusion that jesus' disciples hate their parents - otherwise they wouldn't have been jesus' disciples. These people, (that you guys generally consider as "wonderful"), are the scum of the universe to everyone elses standards. To hate your own children, your mother, your brothers?

And that, given the earlier statement, is clearly what jesus wanted most. People that hated and fought their own family: "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother"

Do note that this has nothing to do with god or god hatred. Right now god isn't even a part of the discussion. What we have are a dozen people that hate their own family, (and themselves), and a leader telling them to hate their own family and themselves. What a super gang that must have been.

Of course you have no argument to any of this. The best you can muster is to say: "you're not allowed to quote the bible", when that's all you people have done for millennia - quoting one sentence and considering it a moral absolute. As mentioned by another poster - one sentence is sufficient enough to condemn homosexuals, one sentence is sufficient enough for a gang of christians to believe god gives them golden teeth and so on. You claim it unacceptable for me to do something you have always done - including in your very last post.

Quite frankly I find it sickening, and I hope this time you can actually concern yourself with the discussion, and not pathetic escape tactics.

 

[one_raven]

I admittedly haven't given it a great deal of time to research the translation of those verses (any links to the details would be appreciated), but, for what it's worth, I always likened Jesus' "cause disention" and "hate your parents" statements to the Buddha's "kill your parents, kill your god, kill your teacher".

I would very much like to see what "hate" was translated from, however.
Taking the rest of the Luke 14 passage in context, he seems to be saying that you have to be prepared to reject the whole of your life and everything you have learned and dedicate yourself completely to the cause or you shouldn't bother.

 

[one_raven]

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

It would seem that the Aramaic word (sone') has three possible meanings:
1. to put aside
2. to hate
3. to have an aversion to

A few references

That seems to align with what I said about being ready to sacrifice the life you have to follow him and be his disciple.


As far as Matthew 10:34 is concerned:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

It seems quite believable that he was referring to the strife that would certinly be caused by a member of a Jewish household deciding to follow a man who claims to be the fulfillment of the Jewish prophesy and the savior of mankind.
"Sword", is obviously not supposed to be taken literally, and any detractor who claims differently is obviously full of shit.

One problem I have with many Atheists is that they are the first to complain about Christians picking and choosing which passages should be taken literally and which are allegory, but many of those same atheists -who claim the Bible is purely allegorical- will also jump on a Bible quote and treat it as literal truth. "See? See? Jesus was advocating violence against family members!!" As they entirely ignore the fact that Jesus' message was overwhelmingly one of peace and pacifism.

The "sword" is the one that will cleave families (not much more important to Judaism than family and community) apart due to some Jews believing in him and some not.

Many of you know that I am not a Christian, but that does not mean I am an anti-Christian apologist like so many others.
I prefer to argue honestly over trying to "win".
This is clearly such a case for many anti-Christian apologists.

 

[Jenyar]

One_Raven, thanks for trying to be a little more objective about the subject.

I'm glad you mentioned Buddha's words; This might also shed some light on the question of "hate" in this context: Biblical Hebrew and its New Testament application. Hebrew idioms buried in overly literal Greek. 'Hate your parents', Matthew 10:37.

 

[one_raven]

Wasn't Matthew originally written in Aramaic and translated to Latin?
Perhaps not, but that was my understanding.
If that's so, what does the Hebrew delineation of love and hate have to do with it?

 

[Jenyar]

Of course you have no argument to any of this. The best you can muster is to say: "you're not allowed to quote the bible", when that's all you people have done for millennia - quoting one sentence and considering it a moral absolute. As mentioned by another poster - one sentence is sufficient enough to condemn homosexuals, one sentence is sufficient enough for a gang of christians to believe god gives them golden teeth and so on. You claim it unacceptable for me to do something you have always done - including in your very last post.

It's not unacceptable to quote the Bible, it's just unacceptible to use a single quote to justify a conclusion that contradicts other (more clear) passages. The contradiction is the issue for me, not the quote. I have the same issue with Christians who do it, so using their wrong as justification for yours doesn't impress. By your own argument, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" becomes pretty meaningless when faced with all the "Don't stone prostitutes" quotes.

Usually these type of arguments come down to the person with something invested in the contradiction, who will then claim the contradiction is inherent in the text. The implicit argument is, if my case fails, then so must the case of the text itself. Convinced that it is a "win-win" situation can make someone completely confident and dogmatic about what they're saying, because the argument is self-aupporting. In such an argument, any explanation longer and more complicated than theirs only appear defensive and like "escape tactics".

Your case relies on a) reading Matt. 10:34 in isolation and b) the interpretation of its use of "sword" without any context, and no argument can be made against it under those terms. You claimed "To hate your own children, your mother, your brothers... is clearly what jesus wanted most", without any proof for that outside Matt. 10:34 (which is in reference to a prophecy in Micah 7:6). You have not explained how you reconcile it with "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52), "my kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), or "honour your father and your mother" (Luke 18:20).

 

[LeeDa]

Reconciliation

and


Did jesus even exist?

huh did he.

honestly did he?

noone can prove that.