I don't care what they agree or disagree with, nor their 'rights'. They have no claim to being a Judaic sect of any kind, period. What they think or don't think has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. they can all agree that 1+1=3 if they want, doesn't obligate a single person anywhere to kiss their asses and go along with their idiotic lie. It has nothing to do with my 'beliefs', it's just an immediately obvious fact.
4. Why was Paul such a slacker when it came to following Yeshua's commands? In Matthew 28:19 (CEV) = "19 Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," In 1 Corinthians 1:15-17 (CEV) Paul comes across an an idiot = "15 Not one of you can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 I did baptize the family of Stephanas, but I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else. 17 Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the good news without using big words that would make the cross of Christ lose its power." He claimed to have been an Apostle but he exempted himself from doing the grunt work of performing baptisms. He wasn't supposed to baptize people in his name; he was supposed to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Fake news??? Clearly you have NO idea of the variety of interpretations given by major world wide groups of those who base their religious beliefs squarely on the Bible.
The problem here is that you are both broad brushing a large group of people who are rather diverse in their thinking and actions. It doesn't help that many of the sub groups claim that other sub groups are not part of the overall.
I realize that, which is why these folks irritate me as they give Christians and Christianity a bad name. Second they are an anathema to the principles of Jesus as they seek to force their personal religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). One activist on the field is worth a whole lot of folks sitting on the bench. These people get things done.
You agreed with me earlier that if Christians submit in a spirit of humility, they would be lead by the Holy Spirit in unity. Jesus said that would happen. So among the "tares" you're saying those people do not exist? The Body of Christ is diverse in it's basic precepts? That is no different than the "world".
It's very simple. When not given to a "spirit of humility" human nature likes to "major in the minors". That is not the plan of the Gospel. That brings about division. At the same time, there is the god of this world that would like us to "throw the baby out with the bath water".....forget the works of Jesus Christ altogether. In the book of Timothy, I believe, it is stated that the Word of God is of no "private interpretation". In other words, there is not a variety of ways to interpret. Folks do put out different emphasis however. That is all well and good. But what it says, it says.
Sorry, You may be late to the game. It was stated earlier thatthe teachings of the Bible was made by a herd mentality. Implying we have "evolved in our thinking and philosophy". I maintain that our thinking and philosophy has changed back and forth over time but our nature has not changed. It was stated we have evolved and the example given slavery no longer exists. I merely stated it does but by another name...."SOCIALISM".
What I would state here regarding WillReadmore's statement is that he believes Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves and not let their voices be heard through the system of government. All the while they must put themselves at the mercy of an unbelieving world while they remain silent in their beliefs.He has shown that is his motive through his posts. I for one will never put my faith under a bushel, but will place it on a lampstand as Jesus mentioned in the parable. As long as we have a Bible to read, that thinking will NEVER silence us all.
Broad brush means something else. My point is that those who base their religious beliefs on the Bible have significantly different interpretations even on critical issues, such as salvation. So, we should NOT use broad brush techniques, which would suggest the opposite - that bible believers are a homogeneous group. My point is that this fact strongly suggests we not take government action to enforce absolutist positions that are based on the bible alone. Let's remember, for example, that biblical schollars of various schools of thought support same sex unions. Why should the government choose to oppose them when biblical interpretation is the only issue? (Ignoring for the moment the growing community of citizens who see themselves as being independent of the bible, and the fact that the US government was created to be neutral on religion, not an enforcement branch of some church.)
There clearly are multiple interpretations today, including among serious biblical schollars who do not agree even on some very serious issues. You can say that all but one school of thought are wrong, but it is not up to our government to choose which is correct.
5. Yeshua said that if anyone called his brother a fool that the person would be in danger of hell fire. Paul was always calling his faith brothers foolish or fools. So whose example should you follow, Yeshua's or Paul's? Yeshua says in Matthew 5:22 (CEB) = "22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with their brother or sister will be in danger of judgment. If they say to their brother or sister, ‘You idiot,’ they will be in danger of being condemned by the governing council. And if they say, ‘You fool,’ they will be in danger of fiery hell." Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:36 (CEB) = "36 Look, fool! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t come back to life unless it dies." BTW, do seeds really die when they are planted and then sprout? Did Paul have a clue about botany?
Well first off, then, we probably need to define unity. Given this post, I almost wonder if you think we should be in lockstep with each other. If we use a business as an example, there are many people doing different things under different rules, towards different specific goals, all in the unity of the company's overall goal. And while, yes there will be a few rules that cover everyone, there will be so much more that are targeted. For example, within the example, dress code. The executives will have a different dress code than the warehouse workers, which is different from the drivers, school is different from the office workers...etc. There are "tares" out that that honestly think they are wheat, and call the wheat, tares, not to mention the other plants. Ultimately only the sower, God, will know the difference. While, unlike the metaphorical base, the tares can become wheat (and vice versa), there will be those that are convinced that they are the wheat and will deride any who say otherwise. Also, one of the problems we are up against, is word usage and translations issues. Take the word gay for example. Right now it means homosexual. Now imagine what those in the future will be thinking as they figure out from context how we are using the word now, and then stumble upon the lyrics to Deck the Halls? Now there will be arguments on what homosexual clothing was/is. Even looking at differences between regions, finding text about smoking a *** in England, might make them thing the Brits burned their homosexuals. Yes, I do believe that we will be moved towards a unity, the unity of returning Home. That is the ultimate goal. All else is the details of the journey.
That seems to be your interpretation, but that is not what I read from it. Letting your voice be heard through the government and using said government to enforce your beliefs upon others are two different things. Sadly, there are those who claim Christian, who would indeed use government to enforce principles that are solely Christian in nature. There are those out there who want the return of the laws that makes it illegal to open a business on Sundays. Thankfully they are the smallest of the groups. But look at the whole SSM issue. Marriage via the government is not nor ever has been the same as a marriage before God. For that matter, it can be argued that a pagan couple who are married before the Goddess, are not married before God. But in a country that is based upon religious freedom, then no one religion's principles should be forced upon others. There is a major difference between expresssing your faith, and forcing it through law.
I agree with you here, but your last statement that I quoted would seem to imply that you view all Christians condemn others. Even a couple of words can greatly change the meaning of a statement. "There are those Christians who DO condemn others..." I agree with you on all this. My only point was that you were seeming to, by your word usage, lumping all Christians together.
Sure, but here in the US the government is to enforce Yes, I think there are Christians who do condemn others, including other Christians and certainly that condemn others who believe in the Bible, but not as they do. I'm just saying that Christianity is not homogeneous, differing on important issues. And, the larger community that believes in the Bible is even less homogeneous, disagreeing even on such issues as how to get to heaven, who Jesus was, etc. OK, I'm actually arguing to NOT lump all Christians together. They differ - not even just because they are all individuals, but because their are a good number of divisions of Christianity. For example, some Christian divisions marry same sex couples. Others do not. Not even Christian theologians agree on same sex marriage. Asking the government to impose one view on same sex marriage is ridiculous given our constitution - and even more so given the fact that not even Christians can agree. There are several issues that are like this.
Are you denying that Socialism takes from those who produce and redistributes to those that don't? If you do......you lie.
You are the one that brings government into the issue. You just don't want Christians voting. That's your problem.
