|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Dec 7, 2010 9:45:04 GMT -5
Here's my question to you OOA.........
Do we really need to do more than believe, repent, and live a good life in service to others? Do we overcomplicate the requirements to be considered worthy of being called a "good" Christian? You all get into Biblical debates here that clearly establish that there are religious scholars on the board but really, doyou feel people must know the Bible word for word to truly live as Christians?
Slow day....work with me....
|
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on Dec 7, 2010 13:22:03 GMT -5
I like this thread!
No, I don't think you need to know the Bible word for word to be a good Christian. IMO all it takes is trying, REALLY trying, to live as Christ lived. I think the problem we as Christians are having today is that too many people aren't trying - they just think they can repent if they mess up and call it a day - you have to actually put in effort to do better.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Dec 7, 2010 23:15:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure about the word for word thing BUT how can you follow something you know nothing about? Not that it's a requirement but there's something to be said about being knowledgeable about your beliefs. People tend to lean on the "He's working on me" shield a bit much. Then again then occurs when people don't truly understand the meaning of their beliefs. The thing that immediately comes to mind is repentance. Apologizing and repenting are not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Dec 8, 2010 8:59:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses guys. My point is that a lot of the Bible is subject to someone's interpretation. Ask 10 people what defiling the temple means and you'll get at least 6 different answers, even if you ask the question of religious scholars. All I'm saying is that having read the Bible and being able to quickly reference scripture does not necessarily (IMO) make you a better person in God's eyes.
Are you saying you cannot live your life in a manner that God would approve of without knowing the entire contents of the Bible? Sorry, I honestly think that many of the expectations that God has of us are inherent in what most of us define as living a "good life" and many Bible thumpers have the same skeletons popping out of their closets and the unread. I don't really think St Peter is going to give bonus points for being able to win Bible jeopardy when a review of your life's actions offset that.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 8, 2010 10:54:38 GMT -5
Are you saying you cannot live your life in a manner that God would approve of without knowing the entire contents of the Bible? In short, no. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Dec 8, 2010 11:12:42 GMT -5
I have a different view on "skeletons" popping out. Many people view it as hypocritical, but if it's in someone's past, how is that hypocritical? People are hypersensitive to correction nowadays. Everything is taken as "judging." There was a time when you would respect the advice of someone who had been there. Now it's like "you were in my shoes, how can you tell me anything?" What kind of logic is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Dec 8, 2010 11:17:18 GMT -5
Often it isn't a past thing though Pep. You're preaching about the abomination of being gay but have a ticket stub from your weekend with 'Twan in your computer bag as we speak. I think there's always room to have made mistakes and learn from them and try to instruct others but often that's not what's really going on.
It's hypocritical to be currently engaging in something and maybe even half heatedly repenting when you know full well you're not done with the offense. It's even worse to try and cover it up by being overly effusive about your faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Dec 8, 2010 11:28:24 GMT -5
Gotcha. Why 'Twan though lol
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Dec 8, 2010 11:38:53 GMT -5
Isn't that the established gay dude name? Maybe it's an ATL thing...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Dec 8, 2010 11:53:32 GMT -5
I like Reggie
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 8, 2010 14:29:17 GMT -5
Often it isn't a past thing though Pep. You're preaching about the abomination of being gay but have a ticket stub from your weekend with 'Twan in your computer bag as we speak. I think there's always room to have made mistakes and learn from them and try to instruct others but often that's not what's really going on. It's hypocritical to be currently engaging in something and maybe even half heatedly repenting when you know full well you're not done with the offense. It's even worse to try and cover it up by being overly effusive about your faith. Do you imagine that most people who are "effusive" with their faith are doing so in an effort to cover up some hypocrisy? |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on Dec 8, 2010 16:48:06 GMT -5
^^ yes. the best christians are the ones who dont force it on you. if every five minutes when you're talking to someone they are all "praise god" and pretending they have never sinned in their lives - this is a person who is overcompensating to make up for some secret wrong. the worse ones with this are the judgmental ones - they go out of their way to condemn everyone else and prob have the most skeletons in their closet themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Dec 9, 2010 11:21:32 GMT -5
Godfirst summed that up pretty well. I'll also add that I tend to be suspicious of those who condemn a certain behavior loudly and consistently (see Eddie's Long's constant rants against homosexuality). I have certain older friends who have been through some hurricanes and tend to be a little more exhuberant in demonstrating their faith but the average joe? "I think thou doth protest too much."
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 21, 2010 14:52:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses guys. My point is that a lot of the Bible is subject to someone's interpretation. Ask 10 people what defiling the temple means and you'll get at least 6 different answers, even if you ask the question of religious scholars. All I'm saying is that having read the Bible and being able to quickly reference scripture does not necessarily (IMO) make you a better person in God's eyes. Are you saying you cannot live your life in a manner that God would approve of without knowing the entire contents of the Bible? Sorry, I honestly think that many of the expectations that God has of us are inherent in what most of us define as living a "good life" and many Bible thumpers have the same skeletons popping out of their closets and the unread. I don't really think St Peter is going to give bonus points for being able to win Bible jeopardy when a review of your life's actions offset that. to add: That's rather like saying that it is fully possible to live a law-abiding lifestyle without having read the entire criminal and civil code. While there is a measure of truth to the underlying premise (that one can be a generally good person even if they are not well-versed in the applicable governing documents), ignorance of the "law" is no excuse for shortcoming in either case. I don't believe in the whole St. Peter/Pearly Gates imagery, but God has promised that each of us (especially those of us claiming to be Christians) will most assuredly be judged as to the extent to which our deeds measured up to God's commandments. When you're pulled over for speeding, a cop will not be impressed by the fact that you didn't see the speed limit sign (but rather, that you try, by your own definition, to operate your car at a safe speed) any more than a reply of "well I didn't know I was breaking your law, because, well, I never actually read the bible..but I was a good person, though" will not save anyone. 91's point isn't at all lost on me, however. People who know the Bible but refuse to live by it are actually judged MORE harshly by God than those who "know not what they do". |
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Dec 29, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -5
Godfirst summed that up pretty well. I'll also add that I tend to be suspicious of those who condemn a certain behavior loudly and consistently (see Eddie's Long's constant rants against homosexuality). I have certain older friends who have been through some hurricanes and tend to be a little more exhuberant in demonstrating their faith but the average joe? "I think thou doth protest too much." People who have been delivered from a particular sin or lifestyle also tend to be very vociferous in their stance against it. What effects us the most has a tendency to draw our ire/advocacy the most. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jan 2, 2011 1:58:34 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus?
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Jan 2, 2011 9:22:00 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? We agree about something in the religion section? *blink, blink* |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on Jan 3, 2011 21:31:06 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? not necessarily if they are firm in their belief...because a judgmental Christian who puts on a show of holiness for others is obviously is not firm in his belief in the WHOLE Bible. There are parts in the Bible that say, don't judge, lest you be judged, don't put on a show of fasting and praying for other people, but do things in secret for only the Father's eyes. and Jesus was neither judgmental nor put on a show - he corrected in love and did miracles in the name of God |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jan 4, 2011 9:28:39 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? not necessarily if they are firm in their belief...because a judgmental Christian who puts on a show of holiness for others is obviously is not firm in his belief in the WHOLE Bible. There are parts in the Bible that say, don't judge, lest you be judged, don't put on a show of fasting and praying for other people, but do things in secret for only the Father's eyes. and Jesus was neither judgmental nor put on a show - he corrected in love and did miracles in the name of God [/quote The WHOLE bible is a contradiction. Any verse you can show Jesus states not to judge I can show where not only he judges but also states others will be in concert with him during this action. Sounds to me yall wanna be pc or in other words Lukewarm... Of course we know what happens to those whom are lukewarm in your bible right? Either you are or you're not. Either you stand firm for or against. Either you speak out or be quiet. There isn't a middle ground. If you're seeking one then go try Buddhism. Lots of lukewarm muthajumpers over there with the middle path seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by godfirstmelast on Jan 4, 2011 14:09:12 GMT -5
^ not sure its a matter of being lukewarm pr pc...its just remembering that being a Christian means offering love and acceptance as well as offering correction and guidance.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Jan 4, 2011 20:59:57 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? not necessarily if they are firm in their belief...because a judgmental Christian who puts on a show of holiness for others is obviously is not firm in his belief in the WHOLE Bible. There are parts in the Bible that say, don't judge, lest you be judged, don't put on a show of fasting and praying for other people, but do things in secret for only the Father's eyes. and Jesus was neither judgmental nor put on a show - he corrected in love and did miracles in the name of God [/quote The WHOLE bible is a contradiction. Any verse you can show Jesus states not to judge I can show where not only he judges but also states others will be in concert with him during this action. Sounds to me yall wanna be pc or in other words Lukewarm... Of course we know what happens to those whom are lukewarm in your bible right? Either you are or you're not. Either you stand firm for or against. Either you speak out or be quiet. There isn't a middle ground. If you're seeking one then go try Buddhism. Lots of lukewarm muthajumpers over there with the middle path seekers. I saw this coming. Again, I'm shocked that we are actually in agreement. People are quick to say don't judge without realizing Jesus did indeed judge. In fact He name called! He displayed physical aggression when He saw something He felt was wrong. No where in the Bible does it talk about accepting people's sin. It talks about the reprobated mind for those who truly believe their wrongs are rights. What is saddening me about this is the demonstration that a non-believer has shown that he has actually paid attention to the various aspects of the Bible while believers are gungho about fixating on 2 or 3 verses. |
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Jan 6, 2011 14:16:48 GMT -5
^^ I agree with this. People are so fixed on certain portions but do not look at it in the entirety. No one can live completely holy that would make them almost as perfect as GOD or Jesus. I do not think a person needs to know the Bible word for word but they do need to study it so they can apply the teaching. Funny thing is the people in the church that claim they are so righteous and no everything about everything pertaining to Christainity and the Bible are sometimes the biggest sinners and hypocrites. Some people try so hard to get a message our point across they take things out of context and make them fit their message.
|
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Jan 12, 2011 20:21:44 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? My point here was in reference to people like St. Augustine (a former libertine) who instituted Monasticism, Ex-Greeks and Masons who feel the need to "expose" these orgs so vehemently. Jesus was not over-compensating, He was speaking His Truth (the Word of God). He is the author of that Truth, not an interpreter of it or one with ulterior motives. |
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Jan 12, 2011 20:30:34 GMT -5
I saw this coming. Again, I'm shocked that we are actually in agreement. People are quick to say don't judge without realizing Jesus did indeed judge. In fact He name called! He displayed physical aggression when He saw something He felt was wrong. No where in the Bible does it talk about accepting people's sin. It talks about the reprobated mind for those who truly believe their wrongs are rights. What is saddening me about this is the demonstration that a non-believer has shown that he has actually paid attention to the various aspects of the Bible while believers are gungho about fixating on 2 or 3 verses. I wholeheartedly concur with you PMint. I think many Christians take this "judgement" verse as a buffer against their own sins. As if "If I don't point out anybody elses sins, God won't hold mine against me". They deliberately leave out the rest of Jesus' statement on Judgement as if it does not exist. Its like this whole movement against "homophobia in the Black Church" campaign. That is making right wrong. If the Church is Homophobic, then God/Jesus is homophobic since they wrote the rules. Eddie Long is a hypocrit because he preached a Truth that he was not living, not because what he was preaching was in biblical error. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jan 13, 2011 9:49:49 GMT -5
damn so if someone is firm in their belief for or against something then they are over- compensating? Of course yall know whats coming next right...? What say about Jesus? My point here was in reference to people like St. Augustine (a former libertine) who instituted Monasticism, Ex-Greeks and Masons who feel the need to "expose" these orgs so vehemently. Jesus was not over-compensating, He was speaking His Truth (the Word of God). He is the author of that Truth, not an interpreter of it or one with ulterior motives. Okay.... again what is the difference between Jesus and Ex-greeks and Masons? Was not Jesus born to Jewish parents? Was he not raised as a jew? Did he not as man vehemently speak out against the practices of Judaism as truth? Did he not speak out against the Rabbi's? The Priest? Even the very laws that Moses instituted but then contradict himself several times by stating he was not going against them?  |
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Jan 13, 2011 22:22:09 GMT -5
My point here was in reference to people like St. Augustine (a former libertine) who instituted Monasticism, Ex-Greeks and Masons who feel the need to "expose" these orgs so vehemently. Jesus was not over-compensating, He was speaking His Truth (the Word of God). He is the author of that Truth, not an interpreter of it or one with ulterior motives. Okay.... again what is the difference between Jesus and Ex-greeks and Masons? Was not Jesus born to Jewish parents? Was he not raised as a jew? Did he not as man vehemently speak out against the practices of Judaism as truth? Did he not speak out against the Rabbi's? The Priest? Even the very laws that Moses instituted but then contradict himself several times by stating he was not going against them? VuDu, you are taking my words to places unintended and answering arguments not posited by myself. There was no intended juxtaposition between the behavior of Jesus and what I was commenting on. My comments focused on people who are vehemently against something that they once took part in or are still doing so undercover. As far as Jesus contradicting himself, if that is your critique, have at it. I seek to understand, rather than critique. Not being a literalist affords me the opportunity for discernment. I know that the Jesus Story (the New Testament) has 10 different authors, addressing issues, concerns, and questions from/to different audiences with different needs. The story and its documents (texts) are neither completely linear, historical, biographical, or written in a static coherence. Granted, this proves troublesome for believers and critics such as yourself. But the great thing about the Holy Spirit, is that, as with Paul, it removes scales from the the eyes of the soul, which allows the Truth to unfurl. The Church fathers, Constantine, Eusebius, King James, Martin Luther, etc could have surely seen to edit the New Testament in such a way to answer the questions of those far more learned than you. It could have been a biography. It could have been a book of laws or sayings if they so chose. They surely saw the same (seeming) inconsistencies or contradictions, yet they let them stay. Why? The 2nd and 3rd Century Church fathers were the most learned men of their time, knowlegeable in Astronomy, Calculus, other World Religions, and Mythology. They certainly could have created a more perfect Christ story for the naysayers over 20 centuries. The answer is so obvious as to prove vexing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jan 14, 2011 0:37:48 GMT -5
Okay.... again what is the difference between Jesus and Ex-greeks and Masons? Was not Jesus born to Jewish parents? Was he not raised as a jew? Did he not as man vehemently speak out against the practices of Judaism as truth? Did he not speak out against the Rabbi's? The Priest? Even the very laws that Moses instituted but then contradict himself several times by stating he was not going against them?
As far as Jesus contradicting himself, if that is your critique, have at it. I seek to understand, rather than critique. Not being a literalist affords me the opportunity for discernment. I know that the Jesus Story (the New Testament) has 10 different authors, addressing issues, concerns, and questions from/to different audiences with different needs. The story and its documents (texts) are neither completely linear, historical, biographical, or written in a static coherence. Granted, this proves troublesome for believers and critics such as yourself. But the great thing about the Holy Spirit, is that, as with Paul, it removes scales from the the eyes of the soul, which allows the Truth to unfurl. The Church fathers, Constantine, Eusebius, King James, Martin Luther, etc could have surely seen to edit the New Testament in such a way to answer the questions of those far more learned than you. It could have been a biography. It could have been a book of laws or sayings if they so chose. They surely saw the same (seeming) inconsistencies or contradictions, yet they let them stay. Why? The 2nd and 3rd Century Church fathers were the most learned men of their time, knowlegeable in Astronomy, Calculus, other World Religions, and Mythology. They certainly could have created a more perfect Christ story for the naysayers over 20 centuries. The answer is so obvious as to prove vexing. Okay I didn't read past the bolded.. Again Jesus was raised in a jewish household. Took part in Jewish customs as a child and pre-teen and spoke out against them as a man while at the same time superimposing himself with characters from within that tradition. Son of God to some. Son of David to others. Those are the facts. A hypocrite is not synonymous with being steadfast in your belief. Just because some hypocrites try to style themselves as steadfast doesn't bring the true steadfast thinkers unto question. Every argument you can make for Jesus, I could logically make for ex-"greeks", masons and false prophets as well. Your thoughts on Jesus hold no more credence than those who follow Hatchette, Water and G Craig Lewis. I guess we must examine the true duties of being a christian. This wayward oh God will handle them I'm just worried about me is NOT Christianity. Even as a non-follower and believer of your faith I know being Lukewarm has no place in Christianity. Basically what I'm hearing is since so many hypocrites are everywhere and "doing the most", I'm gonna play the backside and just work on my relationship with "God" and I'll be alright..... No Dice. No Dice at all. |
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Jan 14, 2011 18:39:20 GMT -5
Bruh, I wholeheartedly agree with this part. You speak the truth:
I guess we must examine the true duties of being a christian. This wayward oh God will handle them I'm just worried about me is NOT Christianity. Even as a non-follower and believer of your faith I know being Lukewarm has no place in Christianity. Basically what I'm hearing is since so many hypocrites are everywhere and "doing the most", I'm gonna play the backside and just work on my relationship with "God" and I'll be alright..... No Dice. No Dice at all
Again, my point about Hatchet, Water et al was not that they don't have the right to critique or attack things that they were formerly a part ofor that they were hypocrites for doing so. My statement was that those who took part in such activities with vigor (like St. Augustine) then condemn them with the same vigor. I never mentioned hypocrisy.
As for Jesus, he never stopped being a Jew, he came to perfect Yahwism, which had strayed from what Abraham experienced, to the legalism of Moses 601 Mosaic Laws to the corruption of the Sadducees and the hypocrasy of the Pharisees. It is a Messiahs duty to break with empty Tradition and make it purposeful again. Jesus was a Reformer, not a Hypocrit. Another thing, I don't begrudge you for your style of stridently challenging others or the Denounced Crew for challenging what they consider idolatry. Iron sharpens iron and vigorous debate increases mental dexterity and often times enlightens.
|
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Jan 14, 2011 18:45:06 GMT -5
Bruh, I wholeheartedly agree with this part. You speak the truth: I guess we must examine the true duties of being a christian. This wayward oh God will handle them I'm just worried about me is NOT Christianity. Even as a non-follower and believer of your faith I know being Lukewarm has no place in Christianity. Basically what I'm hearing is since so many hypocrites are everywhere and "doing the most", I'm gonna play the backside and just work on my relationship with "God" and I'll be alright..... No Dice. No Dice at all Again, my point about Hatchet, Water et al was not that they don't have the right to critique or attack things that they were formerly a part ofor that they were hypocrites for doing so. My statement was that those who took part in such activities with vigor (like St. Augustine) then condemn them with the same vigor. I never mentioned hypocrisy.
As for Jesus, he never stopped being a Jew, he came to perfect Yahwism, which had strayed from what Abraham experienced, to the legalism of Moses 601 Mosaic Laws to the corruption of the Sadducees and the hypocrasy of the Pharisees. He discarded the vain and empty parts of a religion that was not being practiced as his Father intended. He challenged the priests at the young age of 12 on their teachings. It is a Messiahs duty to break with empty Tradition and make it purposeful again. Jesus was a Reformer, not a Hypocrit.
Another thing, I don't begrudge you for your style of stridently challenging others or the Denounced Crew for challenging what they consider idolatry. Iron sharpens iron and vigorous debate increases mental dexterity and often times enlightens. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jan 16, 2011 20:39:12 GMT -5
Bruh, I wholeheartedly agree with this part. You speak the truth: Again, my point about Hatchet, Water et al was not that they don't have the right to critique or attack things that they were formerly a part ofor that they were hypocrites for doing so. My statement was that those who took part in such activities with vigor (like St. Augustine) then condemn them with the same vigor. I never mentioned hypocrisy. Okay I'm not clear here. Are we talking about taking part in something and then turning around to condemn after you have stopped? Or Are we talking about those who condemn an activity and are secretly partaking in it. [/color].[/quote] Jesus isn't a Jew no more than Muhammad. Christianity and Islam both used Judaism as a platform and both deviated from it. When you deviate from tenets like circumcision and working on the Sabbath just because you "say" everyone must come through me and you deviate because "some" priest are chitting on the sabbath is not an excuse nor is it Judaism. That's the religious part. Now lets look at the word and where it came from. The term Jew was originally derived for a person who lived in Judea. Judaism was the name later coined for the religion that people practice who resided in Judea. That religion in biblical times was indeed led by the Pharisees. So in so many words the Pharisees are and were the actual "Jews" of the bible and Jesus spoke out against them as you have pointed out. There is no difference between Christianity nor Islam when it comes to "Judaism" as they both attempt to do the same thing. |
|
