The problem here is you have preconceived notions and personal bias that you perceive as to what constitutes "godly manner."
"To every thing there is a season, and a time
to every purpose under the heaven."
King Solomon said there is a time for every season under heaven. There is a time for tranquil discussion and fellowship, and their is a time for heated debate. This is a forum primarily for debate. There are sections for fellowship and dialogue if you wish. But, when it comes to debate? Its a form of spiritual warfare. There is a time for every season under heaven. A time for peace, and a time for war.
Acts 9:28-29
"So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely
in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews,
but they tried to kill him.
Paul was not being "ungodly" in his manner of debate. Yet? As you can see? It can produce strong reactions when the truth is being presented.
Believers debate believers on issues that need to be resolved.
Acts 15:1-2
"Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were
teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised,
according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot
be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp
dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
were appointed, along with some other believers, to
go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles
and elders about this question.' "
Being "godly" is not about always being sweetness and light. There is a time for that, and there is a time for debating and dispute amongst believers.
Yet, I admit that some come here claiming to be Christian, but after a few posts they reveal that have no clue as to what constitutes the meaning of being born again. They can be quite nasty and haughty. Yet? Believers debated such ones publicly as well.
.
Pretty much so my point, but when there is no time for patience, no time for kindness, no time for truth, it's pretty hard to be Godly in behavior....
Will I be horrendously off topic, to announce that I will be leaving the forum for this type of venom and the reaction to it? Last night I spent much time in prayer over the issue, and talked to my husband about the issue as well. After being reported and warned for being patient, kind, and/or truthful with people who want to be offended, I was consumed with the concept that we are no longer allowed to reply to posters in a Godly manner. Admittedly, I could be misunderstanding the violations, but when asked for clarity as to what the violation is, the reply is always the same, no reply at all. If we are not allowed to reply with truth, because it might offend....or not allowed to reply with patience, to determine what the motive is....if we are not allowed to reply in kindness to those who are easily offended or who are in violation, what is the point of calling it a "Christian" forum.
Because of these new rules, rules that as best I can determine limit my responses to those things that are politically correct and not those things that are Christ's, I see no option but to leave. I will miss the forum greatly and the friends I have made here. I have been touched, challenged, encouraged, taught, and I thrive partially because of the wonderful friends I have made on this forum. I will miss you all greatly, it will be very difficult to leave, but, I love my Lord more, and it is He that I serve....
I will remain long enough to see the threads I am currently involved in finished, if anyone wants an email address, let me know before that time, in the meantime, thanks to you all, even emotional arguments can be effective and productive. Again thanks, and may God grant you peace wherever He leads you.
Well, even though I understand that there are a few offensive people on here, there are still alot of good and polite people here. Also, I came from CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) to this website. I felt like checking out another forum. Maybe you should try CAF. They do have many non-denominational members on the site, so you won't be alone.
Cardinal Newman
P.S. I'm not trying to discourage you from this site but am trying to provide another option for you.
Pretty much so my point, but when there is no time for patience, no time for kindness, no time for truth, it's pretty hard to be Godly in behavior....
Debate tests the soul. God uses debate to see what kind of life the believer truly possesses. Godly behavior will be revealed with those who walk in it. But, we can not become legalistic and demand that those who walk carnally to feign godliness. For true godliness can not be feigned. That is why God tests us! Some here will not reveal godliness. That is not having a problem with this forum. But, reveals a problem with God.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
"On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God
to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying
to please men but God, who tests our hearts."
Deuteronomy 8:2
"Remember how the LORD your God led you all the
way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart,
whether or not you would keep his commands."
Don't be disappointed with the negative types here. Its God's process of exposing our own hearts to ourselves. How do we react to a negative soul? Its all a part of God's testing!
Romans 8:28
"And we know that inall things God works for the good
of those who love him, who have been called according
to his purpose."
Don't be disappointed with the negative types here. Its God's process of exposing our own hearts to ourselves. How do we react to a negative soul? Its all a part of God's testing!
Well, evidently, you put them on your ignore list - psssht. It's pretty condescending of you Genez to be preaching instruction on proper debate edicate when you have very clearly failed the "test". Your attempt to try and elevate yourself above the very "negative types" you're talking about now is at the very least emarrassing to yourself, and hypocritical at best. Then again, this coming from you doesn't really surprise me considering all of your "because I said so" / "my word only" / "Lo, here is Christ" sermon's a la tirades. While I do not doubt that you are striving to be a good Christian, I fear that you fail to "act your part" when you don't hear or see something that conforms to many of your subjectively held beliefs (i.e. personal interpretations of scripture.) Are you not the very venomous natured type of individual that the OP describes in the opening statement?
Debate tests the soul. God uses debate to see what kind of life the believer truly possesses. Godly behavior will be revealed with those who walk in it. But, we can not become legalistic and demand that those who walk carnally to feign godliness. For true godliness can not be feigned. That is why God tests us! Some here will not reveal godliness. That is not having a problem with this forum. But, reveals a problem with God.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
"On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God
to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying
to please men but God, who tests our hearts."
Deuteronomy 8:2
"Remember how the LORD your God led you all the
way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart,
whether or not you would keep his commands."
Don't be disappointed with the negative types here. Its God's process of exposing our own hearts to ourselves. How do we react to a negative soul? Its all a part of God's testing!
Romans 8:28
"And we know that inall things God works for the good
of those who love him, who have been called according
to his purpose."
Amen.
.
It isnt' the negative "souls" I am leaving for, nor is it because of heated debate, it is because I am no longer allowed (by the rules) to respond with patience (love is patient), Kindness (Love is kind), or in truth. When my right to debate is restricted (on a Christian forum) to worldly rules, it isn't the place for me....
It isnt' the negative "souls" I am leaving for, nor is it because of heated debate, it is because I am no longer allowed (by the rules) to respond with patience (love is patient), Kindness (Love is kind), or in truth. When my right to debate is restricted (on a Christian forum) to worldly rules, it isn't the place for me....
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What are these "worldly" rules you speak of? What you wrote reads like the rules state that you are not to respond with patience, to be without kindness, etc.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What are these "worldly" rules you speak of? What you wrote reads like the rules state that you are not to respond with patience, to be without kindness, etc.
Grace and peace, GeneZ
.
.
I am saying that the rules are written so that I can and have been warned for these things. for example, I had someone get angry and ask me not to post anymore. So I abided by that, next day, I get a PM, 'your good to talk to, can we talk some more?' I "forgave" came back, was reported and warned for not abiding by the request to not post anymore. Now where the rules on CF do not specify that I cannot forgive, when I did forgive, I was warned of improper behavior. And yes they were told about the PM, and it was still available for review.
The same kind of thing has happened with responding in kindness and with patience. There is currently a no tolerance policy on this forum which means that if someone is let's say harrassing another person, but you think, hey maybe they were just misunderstanding and trying to figure it out....so wait to see....you can and I have been reported and warned for not immediately reporting. Thus I can not be patient.
The reverse is true as well, the current rules are set up so that if you don't understand what another poster is saying and ask, or try to word it differently using counciling/listening skills, as in something to the effect of....it sounds like what you are saying is....you can be reported and warned for harrassment or flaming. All because you were kind enough to try to find out what the other person meant before replying.
These types of abuse of the current rules are the problem...the rules themselves don't say...you cannot be kind...you cannot be patient...you cannot be turthful...etc. but the problem is in the way the rules are interpreted and implimented, which is the most common problem with rules from my experience. Bottom line, there is currently a backlash against the violations that were once so prevalent, and that backlash is asking me to not be answering in a biblical manner. Therefore, I have no choice but to leave...I am nothing if I cannot respond in a biblical manner.
=razzelflabben;52193388]we went to a church some time ago, they were struggling, won't go into all the details...we were shown very many acts of kindness...but when the church collapsed, (long story)the only time we hear from someone is when they want something. that is an act of kindness, but does not show love. I guess, when you see the two side by side, the difference in amazing. unkind and appearing unkind are two completely different things.
I do not understand what you are saying here was a kindness that was not an act of love.
if you read I Cor 13, it tells us that Love is.....now we can get into the symantics of whether or not that is a definition or just a list of what is and is not, but the point is, nothing in the passage shows that this list can be taken appart and manipulated at will.
How is saying the love described in 1 Cor 13 is similar tot he love described in Matt 25:31 and following taking anything apart and manipulating it?
It really is a fascinating study.... I did not say it would not being a loving act, I said it may not be biblical love. Big difference....your applying our understanding of love on a biblical concept, very different things. If I say, I love Ice Cream, is that the same love as I have for say my husband? The same love I use when being kind? I bet if you put ice cream in front of me I would eat it, would that be kindness? Kindness to who? Point is this, biblical love does require action, but not all actions that are loving is biblical love.
Bibical love is what I am talking about when I talk about feeding the hungry or visiting the sick or helping people who are in need. It is the same love if a Hindu is talking about helping someone in need or feeding the hungry. There is not a big difference in the meaning of love based on weather a Christian or a Hindu is doing it. Would you describe a loving action that is not Bibical love for me. I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about.
right, and the heart of Jesus teaching is love, that is putting others before ourselves. but biblical love always comes from the Spirit within, that is the point, if all the law and prophets comes down to Love. then the love spoken of is much bigger than we are able to do alone, or we could indeed follow the law...let me see, another way to say it, if the law is all about love and love is possible in all men without God, what is the point of Christ? Who said they weren't acts of love? What I said is that the acts, are not necessarily love...love transcends all acts, all emotions, it changes situations and transforms lives...[
It seems to me Jesus said very clearly it is all about love. He said it is summed up in loving God and loving man. The Gospel of John, Chapters 13, 14, and 15 is an example of what I am saying. Chapter 13--I give you a new command love other. Chapter 14 if you love others you love me and God and if you do not you do not love me and God. Repeated about three times. Chapter 15, the command is about loving others. The point of Christ was to encourage us to obey the command that was written on every human heart that we should love others. I did not say love is possible without God. God created all men with the ability to love. I did not say we could love perfectly and completely as God does. Thus the necessity for grace and forgiveness and the fact that eternal life if we are gifted with it will be a gift and not simply wages paid. How do you arrive at the opinion that God who is love created men without the ability to love others?
__________________ I believe in a loving Creator who created us for the purpose of being capable of receiving and responding to the love of the Creator. Our first gift of life is temporary. If we attempt to fulfill our purpose of loving others, we have the hope of receiving a second gift of eternal life. There is no pain in the after life. If we do not receive the second gift, we are simply left with the first gift and will not exist after we die.
I do not understand what you are saying here was a kindness that was not an act of love.
reaching out, including us, etc. But the reason it was done, was not because they loved us, but rather because they wanted something from us....in this particular case, they wanted to increase in numbers so they could stay open...they also wanted things like prayer when they fell apart for them...
Have you never known someone who was kind and generous because they wanted something from you? It is even joked about on TV programs...the kid who wants a car, is super nice to his parents, doing extra chores, etc. and why? because of love? or because he wants something? Love does not think of it's own, and that idea/concept is throughout scripture, not just in I Cor. 13...
How is saying the love described in 1 Cor 13 is similar tot he love described in Matt 25:31 and following taking anything apart and manipulating it?
Bibical love is what I am talking about when I talk about feeding the hungry or visiting the sick or helping people who are in need. It is the same love if a Hindu is talking about helping someone in need or feeding the hungry. There is not a big difference in the meaning of love based on weather a Christian or a Hindu is doing it. Would you describe a loving action that is not Bibical love for me. I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about.
I have described it for you, well technically, I have shown you where to find the description. I Cor. 13, but let's look further
I can do all the things in Matt. 25 (demonstrations of love without a doubt) but for the reason of getting in return...Let's take, feeding the hungry for example. This example is taken from a real life story, the story is fictional but based on real life and events. A rich man has a child, the child is very poor and rarely eats for lack of resources. Good Samaritan 1 comes along, and feeds the child and his whole family. Caring, loving, giving, expecting nothing in return (thus the good Samaritan who did not expect anything in return...love does not think of itself. Good Samaritan 2 comes along and sees an opportunity to make some money...he sees that the hungry child is the child of a man of great wealth, so much wealth that he could, if spinning the good deed, end up with an awesome job, or even an inheritance of great value. So GS2 (good Samaritan 2) feeds the child as well, but does so with expectations and even manipulation. Who is loving?
Sometimes the good deed is even offered with stipulations. So if I say, I'll help you if you come over every day and be my slave for the rest of your life, is the good Samaritan loving? I will say it again, love is kind but not all acts of kindness are love.
It seems to me Jesus said very clearly it is all about love. He said it is summed up in loving God and loving man. The Gospel of John, Chapters 13, 14, and 15 is an example of what I am saying. Chapter 13--I give you a new command love other. Chapter 14 if you love others you love me and God and if you do not you do not love me and God. Repeated about three times. Chapter 15, the command is about loving others. The point of Christ was to encourage us to obey the command that was written on every human heart that we should love others. I did not say love is possible without God. God created all men with the ability to love. I did not say we could love perfectly and completely as God does. Thus the necessity for grace and forgiveness and the fact that eternal life if we are gifted with it will be a gift and not simply wages paid. How do you arrive at the opinion that God who is love created men without the ability to love others?
It would seem you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that we cannot "love" as in man's understanding of love without the Holy Spirit...I am saying that we cannot "love" with a biblical love without the power of the Holy Spirit within.
In fact, as best I can tell, though I am not 100% sure, I think we are saying the same thing only differently....biblical love, God's love is much more defined and difficult than simply liking something with a great affection. Thus the difference between man's "love" and biblical/God's love.
reaching out, including us, etc. But the reason it was done, was not because they loved us, but rather because they wanted something from us....in this particular case, they wanted to increase in numbers so they could stay open...they also wanted things like prayer when they fell apart for them...
Have you never known someone who was kind and generous because they wanted something from you? It is even joked about on TV programs...the kid who wants a car, is super nice to his parents, doing extra chores, etc. and why? because of love? or because he wants something? Love does not think of it's own, and that idea/concept is throughout scripture, not just in I Cor. 13... I have described it for you, well technically, I have shown you where to find the description. I Cor. 13, but let's look further
I can do all the things in Matt. 25 (demonstrations of love without a doubt) but for the reason of getting in return...Let's take, feeding the hungry for example. This example is taken from a real life story, the story is fictional but based on real life and events. A rich man has a child, the child is very poor and rarely eats for lack of resources. Good Samaritan 1 comes along, and feeds the child and his whole family. Caring, loving, giving, expecting nothing in return (thus the good Samaritan who did not expect anything in return...love does not think of itself. Good Samaritan 2 comes along and sees an opportunity to make some money...he sees that the hungry child is the child of a man of great wealth, so much wealth that he could, if spinning the good deed, end up with an awesome job, or even an inheritance of great value. So GS2 (good Samaritan 2) feeds the child as well, but does so with expectations and even manipulation. Who is loving?
Sometimes the good deed is even offered with stipulations. So if I say, I'll help you if you come over every day and be my slave for the rest of your life, is the good Samaritan loving? I will say it again, love is kind but not all acts of kindness are love. It would seem you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that we cannot "love" as in man's understanding of love without the Holy Spirit...I am saying that we cannot "love" with a biblical love without the power of the Holy Spirit within.
In fact, as best I can tell, though I am not 100% sure, I think we are saying the same thing only differently....biblical love, God's love is much more defined and difficult than simply liking something with a great affection. Thus the difference between man's "love" and biblical/God's love.
The love that every man is capable of doing which is the love described at various places in scripture as I have already made reference is not about simply likeing something with great affection. It is about acting on behalf of another through compassion. I fail to see how one can support from scripture that feeding the hungry is not bibical love as commanded by Jesus. In your examples one can feed the hungry and it not be love if as you point out one is doing it for money and not out of compassion. Samaritan number 2 in your exemple is not only not loving but also not really being kind. Being manipulative and using people is not being kind to them.
__________________ I believe in a loving Creator who created us for the purpose of being capable of receiving and responding to the love of the Creator. Our first gift of life is temporary. If we attempt to fulfill our purpose of loving others, we have the hope of receiving a second gift of eternal life. There is no pain in the after life. If we do not receive the second gift, we are simply left with the first gift and will not exist after we die.
What you wrote reads like the rules state that you are not to respond with patience, to be without kindness, etc. 
Linear Mode
