Find the enemy...

[DomainRider]

Then why mention it?

Because it was similar and similarly evasive.

Not the case with Christianity. We not only have a true standard we have an absolute standard. One that will completely point out the actions of a "true christian."

So any self-styled Christian that doesn't live up to this absolute standard isn't a true Christian?

(We are getting closer to the shoreline)

So it would seem...

Ever heard of a pun? this was kinda meant to be along the same lines. I was playing to your ego alittle to see if you would be one to sacrifice the continuity of the conversation for an opportunity to flash and preen yourself over a statement you could have taken one of take two ways.

Thanks for giving me the chance.

Thus invalidating your usage of cop-out in this discussion. Because no matter if one is in the minority in his thinking or not, if that person aligns his thoughts or actions with an absolute standard then by the standard he represents all of his thoughts actions are indeed valid.

My use of cop-out was referring to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Whether your argument was close to it or not, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is a cop-out.

allowing the freedom for you to assume that I thought you were indeed speaking about cops.

Some kind of non-sequitur.

By your decision, and your response. It shows me some of the goals you have for this discussion.

Seeking a biblically based response to the OP's questions or the question you spun off our original dialog is not a high priority.

No indeed, the logic of current arguments is a higher priority.

You seem to be fixated in simply "winning" the conversation much like the professor and the student in the OP, any way you can. Even if it means to attack someone's intelligence rather than the actual Merritt of the argument you are presenting.

There are no winners or losers in this kind of discussion. If someone makes an argument or statement that seems illogical or contradictory, I will generally respond.

This behavior also tells me that if you have to stoop to that level "we" are at the limits of your understandings of such matters. Why else would one who fancied himself an "educated man" default to a personal attack when he could flourish all of the knowledge he has obtained?

I'm sorry you see it that way. I tend to respond in kind - although I didn't make puns in an attempt to play to someone's ego... why would you do that?

If that is the case then I might have to simply let you have the argument.

Meh. Your choice.

In this case "quotes" would indicate an actual quote from scripture

If you really thought the quotes meant actual quotation from scripture, then it was a genuine miscommunication. The meaning was "Golden Rule-like admonition" where the single quotes indicated not being literal. It's not an uncommon usage of quotes in my experience, plus I'm not a biblical scholar, but even I wouldn't expect the Golden Rule to be mentioned as such in the bible. Such is life.

I prefer Jack hammer, but if you'd like to dumb it down for me anyway, It would make life easier to come up with the sarcasm in which you speak.

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Fill yer boots.

After all "I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.."
-Forrest, Forrest Gump.

(see, quotes means a quote)

Double quotes mean a quote. Also, context is important.

 

[drich0150]

Because it was similar and similarly evasive.

That was Not an evasive statement. The statement in question points to the mechanics that allows one to rightly inspect "Spiritual Fruit." Only one not willing to take a different perspective into consideration would label this effort in a dismissive manner.

So any self-styled Christian that doesn't live up to this absolute standard isn't a true Christian?

Which standard do you speak?
(Specifically)

I'm sorry you see it that way. I tend to respond in kind - although I didn't make puns in an attempt to play to someone's ego...

No but as i have pointed out you did take the opportunity to change the direction of the discussion. from point out "statements that seems illogical or contradictory" to taking the opportunity (when it seemed to present itself) to personally attacking what you thought to be an uneducated fool.

This is why I did not even attempt to directly respond to the lie of Noble intent that you claimed governed your responses. Or your characterization as to the nature of your desire to "win" an argument.

If purity of the discussion was your intended goal, then you would have done a better job preserving the sanity of what you claim your true goal to be.

Instead you take the first opportunity presented to you to show me and all who care to read your work, your true intent. (The verbal lashing of what or who you deem to be a sledge hammer.) which to me is a bit ironic. Don't ya think?

that why would you do that?

To discern the true nature of your intent. (to expose the wolf in sheep's clothing)

Some like the OP are looking for answers, and some simply look to beat Christians hiding behind a fallacy of honor. There is no point in throwing pearls of wisdom before swine.

This is an on going process, it does not end with one baited question, nor does one baited question determine your status. there are many factors that go into helping me build a character profile.

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Fill yer boots.

That is why I prefer Jack hammer.
It is a loud precision tool used to isolate and destroy very dense and or stubborn materials without destroying everything around it.

As you have pointed out we are far from the point of building anything (Hammer and nails are not needed yet) we must break down and remove all the prevent us from laying a new foundation, and then we can build on that foundation we lay together.

 

[DomainRider]

That was Not an evasive statement. The statement in question points to the mechanics that allows one to rightly inspect "Spiritual Fruit." Only one not willing to take a different perspective into consideration would label this effort in a dismissive manner.

OK. It appeared evasive in the context by not directly addressing the claim.

Which standard do you speak?
(Specifically)

The 'true' and 'absolute' standard you have, that 'will completely point out the actions of a true christian' - i.e. the one you asserted previously. You didn't describe or explain it, so that's all I have to go on.

you did take the opportunity to change the direction of the discussion. from point out "statements that seems illogical or contradictory" to taking the opportunity (when it seemed to present itself) to personally attacking what you thought to be an uneducated fool.

You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. I may question your posts, but I have no interest in attacking you personally - I don't know you. I have no idea of your educational level beyond your posts here, which suggest at least a good basic knowledge of English. For the rest, if a post appears foolish I will question it. That doesn't necessarily make the poster a fool.

This is why I did not even attempt to directly respond to the lie of Noble intent that you claimed governed your responses. Or your characterization as to the nature of your desire to "win" an argument.

You appear to be creating a fictional bogeyman - I simply questioned your statements and assertions. If you take such things as personal attacks, and attribute malign intents and desires to the poster, discussions are likely to be unproductive.

If purity of the discussion was your intended goal, then you would have done a better job preserving the sanity of what you claim your true goal to be.

Perhaps, but as I said, I tend to respond in kind.

Instead you take the first opportunity presented to you to show me and all who care to read your work, your true intent. (The verbal lashing of what or who you deem to be a sledge hammer.) which to me is a bit ironic. Don't ya think?

You seem to interpret everything I say as a personal attack on you, yet form my perspective it is you who have been most aggressive in this exchange. Go figure.

To discern the true nature of your intent. (to expose the wolf in sheep's clothing)

Sounds a bit melodramatic - what sort of wolf were you expecting?

Some like the OP are looking for answers, and some simply look to beat Christians hiding behind a fallacy of honor. There is no point in throwing pearls of wisdom before swine.

Indeed.

This is an on going process, it does not end with one baited question, nor does one baited question determine your status. there are many factors that go into helping me build a character profile.

You appear to have already decided that I'm a dismissive liar who wants to personally attack and 'verbally lash' you to 'win' an argument. To me it seems a massively over-defensive reaction - and I can't help seeing a touch of persecution complex or paranoia in that, although no doubt, it will be held up as another plank of my 'personal attack'.

That is why I prefer Jack hammer.
It is a loud precision tool used to isolate and destroy very dense and or stubborn materials without destroying everything around it.

Yes, yes it is.

As you have pointed out we are far from the point of building anything (Hammer and nails are not needed yet) we must break down and remove all the prevent us from laying a new foundation, and then we can build on that foundation we lay together.

I don't believe I pointed out anything of the sort, but never mind.

 

[drich0150]

The 'true' and 'absolute' standard you have, that 'will completely point out the actions of a true christian' - i.e. the one you asserted previously. You didn't describe or explain it, so that's all I have to go on.

My explanation was complete in that if one's actions do not align themselves with the actions of Christ (found in the absolute standard of the bible) there are probably not "Christian."
As it relates to the OP the "course joking" at the expense of a non believer is not a recorded action of Christ. Thus allowing one to discern a non Christian act.

You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. I may question your posts, but I have no interest in attacking you personally - I don't know you. I have no idea of your educational level beyond your posts here, which suggest at least a good basic knowledge of English. For the rest, if a post appears foolish I will question it. That doesn't necessarily make the poster a fool.

But calling one's ability for basic comprehension is indeed a personal attack. Especially given my first response to you.

I apologize for not spelling these things out for you in simpler language. Your previous posts gave me the impression you would be able to grasp the meaning.

If I misread the note of sarcasm here or the need you felt to write to me as a one would for a child in that post I do apologize.

You appear to be creating a fictional bogeyman - I simply questioned your statements and assertions.

Actually no, as stated in your quote above. you question my basic comprehension skills. This does not relate to the topic at hand it is a slight on my ability to understand the complexity of the term "Cop-out" among other simple concepts.

If one takes on the role, then the boo-gey man ceases to be fictional.

If you take such things as personal attacks, and attribute malign intents and desires to the poster, discussions are likely to be unproductive.

I didn't seem to have this problem with any of the other posters questions.
Then again no one else suggested that i was unable to correctly process their posts.

Sounds a bit melodramatic - what sort of wolf were you expecting?

i Wasn't. I assume everyone who approaches is a sheep. after all this is a forum for lost sheep, Not for wolves. i hear there is an atheist forum somewhere that promotes and educates one one who wants to be a wolf. However you do need to understand this is not that place.

You appear to have already decided that I'm a dismissive liar who wants to personally attack and 'verbally lash' you to 'win' an argument. To me it seems a massively over-defensive reaction - and I can't help seeing a touch of persecution complex or paranoia in that, although no doubt, it will be held up as another plank of my 'personal attack'.

What you fail to acknowledge here is the only personal attack i have ever pointed out was the fact that you challenged my ability to follow your posts. You seem bent on trying to dilute the truth in your effort to change the tempo and subject matter when you took the opportunity I presented to you. Simply labeling my actions as paranoid or at the least overly sensitive does not change your recorded actions that set this new discussion in motion.

That said, once you pushed past the boundary of a potential student this simply became an argument, like any point counter point argument the objective is to win. You elected to take this discussion away from God and focused on a win.. to this point I am willing to oblige your efforts. If and when this discussion begins to push the boundaries or limits that my faith will allow I will leave you with your thoughts. As of yet I do not believe that we have crossed that boundary yet.

 

[DomainRider]

My explanation was complete in that if one's actions do not align themselves with the actions of Christ (found in the absolute standard of the bible) there are probably not "Christian."
As it relates to the OP the "course joking" at the expense of a non believer is not a recorded action of Christ. Thus allowing one to discern a non Christian act.

So it would seem to follow that an act that is not a recorded action of Christ (found in the absolute standard of the bible) is a non-Christian act; and a non-Christian act is clearly not aligned with the actions of Christ, so the perpetrator of such an act is probably not Christian? Really?

If so, unless one's Christianity comes and goes moment by moment according to one's actions, it must be exceedingly hard to be Christian. What modern Christian can truthfully claim not to have done an action that is not a recorded action of Christ? (facetiously, those criteria would disqualify Christians from driving a car )

But calling one's ability for basic comprehension is indeed a personal attack. Especially given my first response to you.

If a post suggests a lack of basic comprehension, I think it's worth pointing that out. If it was deliberately misread, or just careless, the point is made just the same.

If I misread the note of sarcasm here or the need you felt to write to me as a one would for a child in that post I do apologize.

Accepted - I responded to what appeared a childish, petulant tone by taking a parental tone; action & reaction.

Actually no, as stated in your quote above. you question my basic comprehension skills. This does not relate to the topic at hand it is a slight on my ability to understand the complexity of the term "Cop-out" among other simple concepts.

Whether you actually comprehend it or not, if your posts suggest incomprehension, what do you expect?

If one takes on the role, then the boo-gey man ceases to be fictional.

True, nevertheless in this context it is a fiction.

I didn't seem to have this problem with any of the other posters questions.
Then again no one else suggested that i was unable to correctly process their posts.

Every discussion is different.

i Wasn't. I assume everyone who approaches is a sheep. after all this is a forum for lost sheep, Not for wolves.

So why be deliberately provocative to "expose the wolf in sheep's clothing" if you're not expecting such a wolf?

What you fail to acknowledge here is the only personal attack i have ever pointed out was the fact that you challenged my ability to follow your posts.

You don't think calling me dismissive, a liar, accusing me of wanting to personally attack you by making you out to be an uneducated fool, and having a hidden 'true intent' are personal attacks?

You seem bent on trying to dilute the truth in your effort to change the tempo and subject matter when you took the opportunity I presented to you. Simply labeling my actions as paranoid or at the least overly sensitive does not change your recorded actions that set this new discussion in motion.

Empty rhetoric - I'd be wasting my time 'trying to dilute the truth', the posts are all in the thread for anyone to see.

That said, once you pushed past the boundary of a potential student this simply became an argument, like any point counter point argument the objective is to win.

When did I ever claim to be a 'potential student'? You seem fixated on the idea of winning arguments - what do you think we're arguing about, and what would constitute a 'win'?

You elected to take this discussion away from God and focused on a win.. to this point I am willing to oblige your efforts.

Never mind about winning or losing, I'm currently only interested in clarifying when someone who believes or calls themselves Christian can be considered truly Christian or not. I understand there will be a strongly personal element between the individual and their beliefs, but as you suggest, their actions are potentially revealing.

I'm curious to know if you really mean that someone who takes an action that is not a recorded action of Christ is probably not Christian, or whether someone who does any non-Christian act is probably not Christian, or if not so, just what your opinion, or consensus Christian opinion, is.

If and when this discussion begins to push the boundaries or limits that my faith will allow I will leave you with your thoughts. As of yet I do not believe that we have crossed that boundary yet.

Thank you.

 

[drich0150]

So it would seem to follow that an act that is not a recorded action of Christ (found in the absolute standard of the bible) is a non-Christian act; and a non-Christian act is clearly not aligned with the actions of Christ, so the perpetrator of such an act is probably not Christian? Really?

only if you believe one must acts as Christ did all of the time to maintain their Christianity.
I simply pointed out a non-christian act. That is why I said it was important to inspect fruit. The OP and you evidently believe that all who call themselves Christians are always or need to be Christ like. If we were, then Christ would not have had to die for our sins.

If so, unless one's Christianity comes and goes moment by moment according to one's actions, it must be exceedingly hard to be Christian.

Actually no it is not. "We" are susceptible to all manner of foolishness and sin such as the rest of you. The only difference is we have accepted atonement for our sins.

What modern Christian can truthfully claim not to have done an action that is not a recorded action of Christ? (facetiously, those criteria would disqualify Christians from driving a car )

Only if you believe driving a car specifically provides a moral dilemma. But as it is We do have record of Christ using means of transportation other than His own two feet. (Boat and donkey) Couple that with God never having commanded that we refrain from using alternative means of transportation then this observation just becomes empty rhetoric in of itself.

My example specifically outlines a contrast in the behavior of Christ in relation to the rest of scripture concerning our 'moral' obligation.
Which has nothing to do with Christ taking advantage of modern comforts.

Never mind about winning or losing, I'm currently only interested in clarifying when someone who believes or calls themselves Christian can be considered truly Christian or not. I understand there will be a strongly personal element between the individual and their beliefs, but as you suggest, their actions are potentially revealing.

Then lets proceed.

I'm curious to know if you really mean that someone who takes an action that is not a recorded action of Christ is probably not Christian, or whether someone who does any non-Christian act is probably not Christian, or if not so, just what your opinion, or consensus Christian opinion, is.

As I pointed to earlier, Following the foot steps of Christ in every aspect of life is not required. That is why we have been given atonement for our sins, for the times we stray from the path.

My observation was directed to what seems to be an atheist idea of hold every and all actions performed by "christians" as Christian doctrine. To remedy this. I originally started the conversation by pointing out a need to use some basic discretion Here. In that not everything a Christian does is indeed Christian or Christ like. this is where my little rule of thumb came in. One can easily judge the fruit of a christian and determine whether or not their actions are representative of themselves or of God.

 

[DomainRider]

only if you believe one must acts as Christ did all of the time to maintain their Christianity.

I'll take that as a 'no' then

The OP and you evidently believe that all who call themselves Christians are always or need to be Christ like.

Quite the opposite - I was questioning the logic of your response (as paraphrased in my last post) which appeared to suggest that was the case.

My original contention was that your questioning (in msg #40) whether those (who claimed to be Christian) disseminating material mocking atheists, actually were Christian, could uncharitably be interpreted as the fallacy of spuriously contingent membership (i.e. 'No True Scotsman'). So I was saying exactly the opposite of believing Christians should be Christ-like by stating that it is fallacious to deny someone's Christianity just because of an un-Christian act. However, you subsequently explained that you did not mean that.

However, if those disseminating material mocking atheists, who claim to be Christian, might not actually be Christian (the thrust of your "Who are you to say any of these are indeed Christian? Just because one labels himself Christian does not make it so"), the question remains - who are they, and what is their motivation? A question for another time, perhaps.

Only if you believe driving a car specifically provides a moral dilemma. But as it is We do have record of Christ using means of transportation other than His own two feet. (Boat and donkey) Couple that with God never having commanded that we refrain from using alternative means of transportation then this observation just becomes empty rhetoric in of itself.

As I said, the example of driving a car was given facetiously to point out that, taken literally, the suggestion that an action that is not 'a recorded action of Christ' might imply the actor is probably not Christian, leads to absurdities. You now say this is only true if a moral dilemma is involved; this makes a significant difference.

My observation was directed to what seems to be an atheist idea of hold every and all actions performed by "christians" as Christian doctrine.

This isn't true of any atheists I know personally - we know from experience that Christians are prone to the same failings as the rest of us because many of us were brought up Christian ourselves (or grew up with Christian friends). Perhaps it's different in the USA.

However, it is true that some atheists will naively counter Christian proselytising by pointing to examples of non-Christian behaviour by Christians. It's usually possible to find examples of hypocrisy in any group; it's just one way that groups criticise each other, particularly where religion or politics are involved. Basically tribal behaviour.

 

[drich0150]

I'll take that as a 'no' then

It's not a yes or no question. Christ tells us "what ever we bind here on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what we loose here on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

This means If there is not a direct command telling us otherwise, what we believe to be the law, will become the "law" we will be judged by.
So when I said, unless you believe that living your life as Christ is paramount to your redemption." I literaly meant that your specific redemption will be found in what you personally bind or loose.

In Christianity Christ's sacrifice separates the believer from obtaining righteousness through the adherence of the law and binds Him to his faith. This includes the faith he puts on the Law, or releases from the law.

However, if those disseminating material mocking atheists, who claim to be Christian, might not actually be Christian (the thrust of your "Who are you to say any of these are indeed Christian? Just because one labels himself Christian does not make it so"), the question remains - who are they, and what is their motivation? A question for another time, perhaps.

That is not for us to judge, that is why I ask who you those you were to judge the heart of another? we can only look at the "fruit" of another's efforts and judge them. If by inspecting fruit we see what we may deem as a pattern of negative behavior, we can assume at the very least that their "version" of Christianity is not suited to how we may be wired to believe, and our way of showing our faith.

 

[sterken7983]

Actually, Jesus died so that we may SHOW our brother His condemnation through God's law so that our brother may be SAVED through repentance and forgiveness of sins through Christ's sacrifice and ressurection.

This is another parable like the one's when the pharisees would tempt Jesus and he REFUSED to answer their questions directly. Answer not a fool according to His folly. And THEN, answer a fool according to His folly.

First, the student simply states His belief but DOES NOT engage the proffessor on his stupid questions because these questions are merely designed to ensnare.

Then, the student turns the tables on the professor, so that the proffessor now becomes entangled in the web he was previously spinning.

This is how Jesus handled the pharisees who did NOT question because they wanted to believe. RATHER they questioned because they wanted to trip Him up in His answer.

To say that this is not what we are supposed to do is DANGEROUS and DECIEIVING because this is EXACTLY how the Bible tells us to handle these people, as a witness to the faith. Christ enacted this same strategy. Therefore, would you condemn Christ for doing this AND for instructing us to do the same?

This generation seeks for a sign and opens its mouth to hear itself talk but on that day, while they will yet profess to know Christ to His face, He will command the, saying "Depart! For I never knew you."

 

[DomainRider]

It's not a yes or no question. Christ tells us "what ever we bind here on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what we loose here on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

This means If there is not a direct command telling us otherwise, what we believe to be the law, will become the "law" we will be judged by.

So if you act in the belief that an action is right and lawful, then it is right and lawful as long as it doesn't contravene a direct command? If so, two individuals might have contradictory beliefs on the rights and wrongs of certain actions, yet the actions of both, in accordance with their personal belief, are considered right and lawful. Doesn't this imply that outside of direct command, right and wrong is a purely matter of personal belief, and so (outside of direct command) morality is subjective?

So when I said, unless you believe that living your life as Christ is paramount to your redemption." I literaly meant that your specific redemption will be found in what you personally bind or loose.

In Christianity Christ's sacrifice separates the believer from obtaining righteousness through the adherence of the law and binds Him to his faith. This includes the faith he puts on the Law, or releases from the law.

That is not for us to judge, that is why I ask who you those you were to judge the heart of another? we can only look at the "fruit" of another's efforts and judge them. If by inspecting fruit we see what we may deem as a pattern of negative behavior, we can assume at the very least that their "version" of Christianity is not suited to how we may be wired to believe, and our way of showing our faith.

So despite the absolute standard of the bible by which one can tell whether actions are Christian (i.e. are aligned with the actions of Christ), it isn't possible to judge that someone is probably not Christian, but we can judge that their version of Christianity is significantly different from what we would expect? (I can't say 'our' version, as I'm not Christian ).

What I'm wondering is at what point someone's un-Christian actions (as judged by the absolute standard of the bible) makes their 'version' of Christianity so different that it bears no relation to what you recognise as Christianity - in other words, is there point at which you are justified in saying "He calls himself Christian, but that is not, or cannot be, Christianity"?

In other words, are Christian actions a necessary determinant of a person's Christianity? Or are they important but not determinant (can a person be Christian despite taking no Christian actions or taking mostly un-Christian actions)?

Or perhaps this kind of analysis is meaningless in the Christian worldview - one judges who one wishes to associate with by their actions, but cannot judge their Christianity?

 

[DomainRider]

...To say that this is not what we are supposed to do is DANGEROUS and DECIEIVING because this is EXACTLY how the Bible tells us to handle these people, as a witness to the faith. Christ enacted this same strategy. Therefore, would you condemn Christ for doing this AND for instructing us to do the same?

That's the best paragraph; almost eloquent.

 

[drich0150]

So if you act in the belief that an action is right and lawful, then it is right and lawful as long as it doesn't contravene a direct command? If so, two individuals might have contradictory beliefs on the rights and wrongs of certain actions, yet the actions of both, in accordance with their personal belief, are considered right and lawful. Doesn't this imply that outside of direct command, right and wrong is a purely matter of personal belief, and so (outside of direct command) morality is subjective?

yes (there is a reason if you are interested)

So despite the absolute standard of the bible by which one can tell whether actions are Christian (i.e. are aligned with the actions of Christ), it isn't possible to judge that someone is probably not Christian, but we can judge that their version of Christianity is significantly different from what we would expect? (I can't say 'our' version, as I'm not Christian ).

Yes, this is also why we have been commanded not to judge a heart/faith of another. We can inspect or judge the fruit of their efforts, and make a determination as to the nature of their work. (whether it falls with in the parameters of the work and words of Christ) But we are not supposed to judge their heart or intent, for if we judge in a legalistic way then that same measure will be used to judge us. We have been told that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This includes those of us who think they have found The true denomination, and strictly live by it.

Because there is no one call (Despite what some may believe) to one specific brand of christianity, that means all brands are flawed in some way. If "we" decide to judge on a very strict interpretation then we too will be judged on a very strict interpretation. Which will doom most efforts to failure.

What I'm wondering is at what point someone's un-Christian actions (as judged by the absolute standard of the bible) makes their 'version' of Christianity so different that it bears no relation to what you recognize as Christianity - in other words, is there point at which you are justified in saying "He calls himself Christian, but that is not, or cannot be, Christianity"?

We can judge another's work at any level we wish, so long as we can stand to the same scrutiny. Peter and Paul spent alot of time making those judgments, but then again they were in a position to do so. It is when those young in the faith or without one decide to take this mantel on themselves, do they lock their potential faith on a destructive or less than productive path. That is why it is better for them/us to simply inspect fruit rather than judge another's heart.

I personally say if the words and actions of a congregation center around Jesus Christ then no matter how weird their beliefs get. (and so long as those people are worshiping God in their religious effort with all of their Hearts mind, spirit and strength.) then who are any of us to say otherwise.. However if one simply claims the mantel of Jesus Christ but the doctrine or the actions tell a completely different story that what is written in the 66 books of the bible then I have absolutely no issue in deeming them a non-Christian. This is a judgment I myself am will to pass through.

In other words, are Christian actions a necessary determinant of a person's Christianity? Or are they important but not determinant (can a person be Christian despite taking no Christian actions or taking mostly un-Christian actions)?

Christianity is not a title nor a membership to be won. It is a condition of one's heart, in relation to Christ. The actions of a Christian are not what defines him or ear marks him for salvation. The deeds of a Christian are the result of his faith.

It's like when dating. Simply giving a random girl flowers and candy and inviting her to dinner does not make her your girlfriend. One gives flowers and candy and takes his girlfriend out to dinner, because they already have an established relationship. The motions that a man in a relationship Goes though does not dictate his relationship status.

Like wise going to church and doing good deeds does not make you a christian. You do those things because you love Christ.

Or perhaps this kind of analysis is meaningless in the Christian worldview - one judges who one wishes to associate with by their actions, but cannot judge their Christianity?

Such was the catalyst for our different denominations. although now their is much judgment between them.

 

[drich0150]

Actually, Jesus died so that we may SHOW our brother His condemnation through God's law so that our brother may be SAVED through repentance and forgiveness of sins through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.

This is another parable like the one's when the pharisees would tempt Jesus and he REFUSED to answer their questions directly. Answer not a fool according to His folly. And THEN, answer a fool according to His folly.

First, the student simply states His belief but DOES NOT engage the professor on his stupid questions because these questions are merely designed to ensnare.

Then, the student turns the tables on the professor, so that the professor now becomes entangled in the web he was previously spinning.

This is how Jesus handled the pharisees who did NOT question because they wanted to believe. RATHER they questioned because they wanted to trip Him up in His answer.

To say that this is not what we are supposed to do is DANGEROUS and DECIEIVING because this is EXACTLY how the Bible tells us to handle these people, as a witness to the faith. Christ enacted this same strategy. Therefore, would you condemn Christ for doing this AND for instructing us to do the same?

This generation seeks for a sign and opens its mouth to hear itself talk but on that day, while they will yet profess to know Christ to His face, He will command the, saying "Depart! For I never knew you."

I do not expect that you read 5 pages of back and fourth, but I would like that you have read enough to make a fair assessment of my work. in that I pointed out that the story as a whole, grossly misrepresented the characters of the christian student and the atheist professor to illustrate an opportunity to simply battle out and win or leave one's opponent dumbstruck.

This might have been the results of Christ's works many times when dealing with the Pharisees, but at no point did a question ever go unanswered. Here in the story The end results were duplicated, but the original query centering around the Goodness or Greatness of God, were never addressed. rather than ever addressing any of the Professor's original questions or concerns. the story ended with an answer that pointed to faith. Which I believe was an answer to a question that was never actually asked.
-or-
Perhaps the author simply has to take on "faith" that God is good. however there is plenty of biblically backed truth to point to the greatness of God in a way that few can deny. Christ in light of simply winning an argument never "refused an answer, and then answer a fool according to his folly" and not answer his original question in a complete way.

This whole story was a complete mess from beginning to end, unless the point was to give permission to the faithful to attack and redirect until they find a way to verbally beat an opponent.
How is God being represented in a christian "win" within a given argument?

How is God being glorified in our showcase of our personal pride?

Again, I say pride because in this story the questions asked were never answered. Instead after a show case a pride, we were shown that it is ok to re-ask questions we do have answers to, rather than give answers to the questions originally asked.

It is my personal belief if one does not have a specific answer to a related question it is better for him to simply remain silent, rather than participate in this style of merry go round of pride.

 

[sterken7983]

"Again, I say pride because in this story the questions asked were never answered. Instead after a show case a pride, we were shown that it is ok to re-ask questions we do have answers to, rather than give answers to the questions originally asked."

Sir, the point of the story IS in fact the parable of Jesus answering the pharisees according to the proverb "Answer not a fool in his FOLLY." Very next verse states: "Answer a fool ACCORDING to his folly."

I will try to teach you, but please bare with me.

The story is DEAD ON and is NOT showcasing ANY type of pride NOR averting any truths ABOUT God. This story is not to convince UNBELIEVERS to know God but to STRENGTHEN believers so that they may be able to stand up to the world and the devil (which is represented by the atheistic proffessor).

Also, forget these silly concerns that the student and professor are not accurately portrayed in the story. This is a worldly cynicism and I REBUKE you for it! Here's why. Jesus said the same thing to the pharisees:

You enter not yourselves into the Kingdom of God and yet worse, you shut the door also in men's faces.

This is a parable! Stop making worldly opinions within your heart and seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God! You are nitpicking and pouring over a PARABLE restating a PRIME lesson of Our Lord Christ Jesus! This is why you do not agree with the story NOR do you see its message. Because God has HIDDEN its meaning from you, lest you IMMEDIATELY find your salvation and suffer nothing in doing so (meaning you do not learn anything because you have not humbled yourself.) Therefore, I pray that you beg the Holy Spirit for understanding (from your writing, I am assuming you are already a Christian. Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted this.)

The REASON the answers are NOT given to the student by His professor is because THEY ARE NOT TO BE REVEALED TO THE PROFESSOR (or pharisees, in the bible, when Jesus has the same arguments with them and the scribes.) Again, because the professor (pharisees) are NOT seeking to find the Kingdom of God but RATHER discredit it, ALL knowledge is denied them.

Why?

Because they have NOT asked for this knowledge with the proper humbled HEART which Jesus and the Father REQUIRE. They are asking in PRIDE AND ARROGANCE. Therefore, Jesus keeps these things hidden to them.

you say, quoted below:

"This might have been the results of Christ's works many times when dealing with the Pharisees, but at no point did a question ever go unanswered."

I will teach you with yet another parable. I pray ye listen.

In another time (instance, conversation) the pharisees sought to catch Christ in His reply concerning by what authority He did all these things. He did not give them His answer but answered them WITH A QUESTION: He said that if they could answer His question, then He would in return answer theirs. They agreed. Christ then asked, the baptism of John the Baptist, was it from heaven or of men?

And the pharisees reasoned with one another, saying, that if we answer one way, we will be rued, and if we answer the other, the same will be also. So they answered, we cannot tell. Therefore Christ answered, Neither will I reveal unto you by whose authority I do these things. MARK 11: 27-33

So here, we now find a POINT where a question DEFENITELY went unanswered.

Also, in other places THROUGHOUT the Gospel, Jesus EXPLAINS to his disciples that he teaches in parables so that the people may LISTEN and NOT HEAR; that they may SEE and not UNDERSTAND so that the Kingdom of God is hidden to them, lest they, at any time, simply lay hold upon their salvation. God has PURPOSEFULLY hidden this kingdom from man and FOR GOOD REASON! It is by His Holy Judgement and Righteousness that He will elect those to recieve the Knowledge of the Kingdom and the Gift of the Holy Spirit, so that it is not done by man but BY GOD HIMSELF. Again, everything God does is to show forth His Glory to mankind.

The story is NOT about answering the questions of the professor, which we know the truth of (that there are MANY facts and pieces of evidence proving the Bible and God.) The story is about answering the spirit of rebellion and PRIDE found in the professor as he accuses a young man of faith.

I pray that you see this point but I fear that you see too much with your own eyes and not with a humbled heart. Forgive me if I offend thee, but I think this lesson from Christ is VERY important and I feel (my opinon; I'm sure these were not your intentions) that you take away from the wonderful lesson of this story and therefore take away glory from Our Lord Christ Jesus. And I feel that is dangerous.

 

[sterken7983]

thank you, Domain Rider.

 

[DomainRider]

thank you, Domain Rider.

You're welcome. It was the best of a bad lot, but even a ridiculous rant can have moments of near-eloquence

 

[DomainRider]

yes (there is a reason if you are interested)

OK, I'll bite - what is the reason why, excluding direct command, morality is subjective?

As for the rest of your explanatory post - thanks. It certainly presents a more coherent and consistent view than they tried to teach us at school. I guess they thought kids wouldn't understand a more nuanced interpretation, so they left it simplistic and full of holes; but that's history now...

Btw, it's good to get past the verbal sparring

 

[drich0150]

OK, I'll bite - what is the reason why, excluding direct command, morality is subjective?

Simply put our greatest command is to love our lord God with all of our Being, (Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength.) From culture to culture or even from person to person this will look differently. Because we are all created a little differently. For instance one who is more charismatic in how they obtain and relay knowledge could not live out our greatest command if they were made to worship in a stale academic setting all of the time. In turn one who mind works best in a sterile academic setting may find it unsuitable to worship in a place were people are jumping up and down and shouting amens during a bible study.
Our Worship should not be an unattainable goal that we must bend our will and gifts to fit. Worship should be the ultimate expression of adoration and love that we can compile out of all that we have to give. Whatever that may look like from person to person.

This is subsequently why we are not to judge, because we have no true idea of what another man's 'best' looks like. Just because another man's best does not look like what you are capable of in a half hearted attempt does not mean that because you may have done more, you are more righteous or more in God's favor. Just the opposite is true.

It is not what you do that is important, it is the reason why and to the degree that you do it that is.

In this one command there is power to be found to decentralize the power of God from one man or group of men (As in the Tribe of Levi/OT Priests) from setting the tone of worship and interpretation of scripture to fit their wants or needs. Christianity fell head long into this during the dark ages seeming only to prove that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are relatively few direct commands that govern the believer (No were near as many as any of our denominations or even non denominations would have us believe.) If we simply speak where the bible speaks and remain silent were the bible is silent then little fault can be found in your personal doctrine.

However if in your "freedom" you need the constraint found in a centralize structure of leadership, then you have the freedom to worship that way if that's what loving God with all of your being looks like to you.
Mt 18: 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As for the rest of your explanatory post - thanks. It certainly presents a more coherent and consistent view than they tried to teach us at school. I guess they thought kids wouldn't understand a more nuanced interpretation, so they left it simplistic and full of holes; but that's history now...

Believe it or not Paul in the book of acts does something similar to the new believers he spoke to. We all have to start some where and then progress. Once we see the holes in the beginners theology the transition begins from you following your fathers faith, to making it your own. This is why am so insistant about answering the questions that were asked rather deflecting and answering something your more comfortable in answering.

I believe that asking questions is an important process in the transition of faith. I also believe that there is an answer to every question we could ask. I also believe that no one person can answer all of those questions. This is why it is important to differ or to research rather than to simply go for the "win' in an argument.

Btw, it's good to get past the verbal sparring

Indeed

 

[drich0150]

The story is DEAD ON and is NOT showcasing ANY type of pride NOR averting any truths ABOUT God.

I disagree. There is no one being glorified here except the one schooling the professor. For the soul sin of cause this student to suffer humiliation infront of his peers. One can only assume this because God was not ever represented in the students rebuke. This makes his actions very personal.

This story is not to convince UNBELIEVERS to know God but to STRENGTHEN believers so that they may be able to stand up to the world and the devil (which is represented by the atheistic professor).

To what end? Are we supposed to obtain a greater knowledge in what the world teaches, so that we may all answer a fool according to His folly? Or do we answer a fool to his folly by providing answers to questions that he believe to be unanswerable, by redirecting and redefining an archaic or elementary Sunday school understanding of what the "fool" professes to know?

If you took time to read my answers you will see I indeed answered a fool according to his folly by simply breaking down the questions to their very foundations exposing what they were based on. The idea or standards in which they were asked were based on the professors morality and not that of the God found in the bible. However because the professors morality was loosely based on the morality of God one has wiggle room to build an acceptable answer on. ( in a sense asking what make your idea of morality and more valid than God's morality, especially when your morality is based on God's morality)

This way one can answer a fool according to his folly, and still remained focused on God, rather than his apparent pride.

Also, forget these silly concerns that the student and professor are not accurately portrayed in the story. This is a worldly cynicism and I REBUKE you for it! Here's why.

Can you point to the post, paragraph and specific line that leads you to believe that I believe these are actual events? If not, know you have a "REBUKE" coming back at cha!! (Bearing false wittiness)

an actualJesus said the same thing to the pharisees:

Do you have book chapter and verse that proves this? or like your misinterpretation of my message above am I just to take your word for it?
(I have found when you have book chapter and verse you proudly post it)

This is a parable! Stop making worldly opinions within your heart and seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God!

How exactly is this accomplished in this instance? It seems here and in your follow up paragraphs you are just dropping catch all phrases that have little to no true meaning here.

If you are truly worried about my soul, and you have identified the problem as being general ignorance due to the lack of True Spirit lead interpretation, then why would you continue to speak/REBUKE in the language of the Spirit, excluding me from any true understanding? If in your opinion the Spirit has denied me understanding in what I assume is the first true God inspired parable since Christ Himself, then why do you also "REBUKE" me a manner that i would not be able to find meaning?

Is this not akin to what Paul said about speaking in tongues in 1Cor 14? IF so, do you not see yourself as the clanging cymbal Paul describes alittle later? If you do not interpret for the unbeliever then who will? How is anyone to "Hear" the word of God if all the self righteous do is point out why they do not see or Hear?

You are nitpicking and pouring over a PARABLE restating a PRIME lesson of Our Lord Christ Jesus! This is why you do not agree with the story NOR do you see its message. Because God has HIDDEN its meaning from you, lest you IMMEDIATELY find your salvation and suffer nothing in doing so (meaning you do not learn anything because you have not humbled yourself.) Therefore, I pray that you beg the Holy Spirit for understanding (from your writing, I am assuming you are already a Christian. Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted this.)

Again you have identified what you perceive to be the problem but take absolutely no initiative in helping the potential wayward soul other than dropping a catch phrase theology. Why not simply explain what you mean without using the kings English? explain your quotes, make the application or principles you are teaching clear and easy to understand. (As you have pointed out not all have been given a measure of the Spirit.)

The REASON the answers are NOT given to the student by His professor is because THEY ARE NOT TO BE REVEALED TO THE PROFESSOR (or pharisees, in the bible, when Jesus has the same arguments with them and the scribes.) Again, because the professor (pharisees) are NOT seeking to find the Kingdom of God but RATHER discredit it, ALL knowledge is denied them.

Apparently it was not "REVEALED" to the student either. When the bible says knowledge of God is not revealed it is not kept or hidden away in a secret place. It is hidden in plain site. As in the parables of Christ. Christ did not hide the parables themselves, they were present for all to hear. The meanings were hidden from the Spiritually deaf, and blind.

I don't know who it was but they took the words of Christ and complied them is such a way even a small child could understand, but at the same time would not put off an adult.

This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine. (refrain x3)
(skip ahead)
Hide it under a bush, OH NO!!! I'm going to let it shine!

You get the idea. No where in the song or in the words of Christ found in Mt. 5 that inspired this song does it say we are to selectively share the light of those in whom we personally approve. Rather We are to be set on a hill or high on a lamp stand for all to see. We are to broad cast the word like seed in the parable of the sower in mark 4. We are not to selectively drop it in what we deem to only be the rich fertile ground.

The Class room in the story represented all types of Ground. Even if the student found hard pan with the professor, he could have had a seed of truth reach someone who would have yielded much fruit. As the story was told, everyone potentially seeking Christ had to take a back seat to this boys pride. Because as I have pointed out over and over God was not even mentioned in his rebuke. It was all him. A good way to win an argument, just a bad way to witness for God.

Why?

Because they have NOT asked for this knowledge with the proper humbled HEART which Jesus and the Father REQUIRE. They are asking in PRIDE AND ARROGANCE. Therefore, Jesus keeps these things hidden to them.

Well considered yourself directly asked!
(Much like the student was asked)
(I want to know how to practically apply all of the catch phrase theology you dropped earlier to this specific conversation.)

I will teach you with yet another parable. I pray ye listen.

I will read..

In another time (instance, conversation) the pharisees sought to catch Christ in His reply concerning by what authority He did all these things. He did not give them His answer but answered them WITH A QUESTION: He said that if they could answer His question, then He would in return answer theirs. They agreed. Christ then asked, the baptism of John the Baptist, was it from heaven or of men?

And the pharisees reasoned with one another, saying, that if we answer one way, we will be rued, and if we answer the other, the same will be also. So they answered, we cannot tell. Therefore Christ answered, Neither will I reveal unto you by whose authority I do these things. MARK 11: 27-33

So here, we now find a POINT where a question DEFINITELY went unanswered.

Actually no, Christ made a bargain, because he was not teaching. According to Mark:
27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

Christ knew what they wanted, was to bring charges of Blaspheme against Him so they could stone Him. If they truly wanted to know if Christ was from God then they would have petitioned God Himself, and accepted the proof in the works of Christ.

This was not the case in the classroom where your parable takes place. This is an academic setting where study and exploration is expected. No one is/was under the threat of death. The only thing being threaten in this story is pride.

In the story of the student and the professor the teacher asks a very answerable question. Why doesn't the student answer?? (hint: reread the story it tells you.) (another hint: it was not for the same reason Christ did not answer.)

Also, in other places THROUGHOUT the Gospel, Jesus EXPLAINS to his disciples that he teaches in parables so that the people may LISTEN and NOT HEAR; that they may SEE and not UNDERSTAND so that the Kingdom of God is hidden to them, lest they, at any time, simply lay hold upon their salvation. God has PURPOSEFULLY hidden this kingdom from man and FOR GOOD REASON!

And yet were the parables kept from the unbelievers?

It is by His Holy Judgment and Righteousness that He will elect those to receive the Knowledge of the Kingdom and the Gift of the Holy Spirit, so that it is not done by man but BY GOD HIMSELF. Again, everything God does is to show forth His Glory to mankind.

So because GOD takes this liberty we also should take this liberty and make these judgments as to whom shall be saved? Or should we give a response to all who ask of the Joy that is with us?

The story is NOT about answering the questions of the professor, which we know the truth of (that there are MANY facts and pieces of evidence proving the Bible and God.) The story is about answering the spirit of rebellion and PRIDE found in the professor as he accuses a young man of faith.

The only real answer to Pride and rebellion is humility, your response and my planned follow up will prove this point.

I pray that you see this point but I fear that you see too much with your own eyes and not with a humbled heart.

Why stop at praying? God has obviously given you some gifts, why do you fail to use them? What good is it to wish someone well if you have it in your power to make them well and Fail to do so? Can't your words/prayer be counted as hypocrisy at this point?

Forgive me if I offend thee, but I think this lesson from Christ is VERY important and I feel (my opinion; I'm sure these were not your intentions) that you take away from the wonderful lesson of this story and therefore take away glory from Our Lord Christ Jesus. And I feel that is dangerous.

The same could be said from me, but to the truth of the matter my intentions are geared more towards upsetting your apple cart. Why? out of genuine desire to show you that if someone does not worship or see Christ in the same light as the Spirit has given you sight, that it is not a sin, nor has the Spirit failed to act.

In truth Loving the Lord with all of my Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Strength simply manifests itself differently in me than it has with you and all who worship and think as you do. Again this is not a sin, lest "thee be" the Christ and thou hath commanded-outh to do so-ith.

Likewise it is not necessarily a sin for you to see this as the only way to approach an atheist professor who is hell bent on spreading a little humility to one who cares to share his faith.

My whole approach to this story is to simply point out two things. One both parties are grossly misrepresented here. the professor is a doofus who does not understand basic high school physics, and two the "Christian" is not representing Christ. His own answers that were evidently designed to "answer a "fool' according to his folly" did not even once point into the direction of God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit.

..And two, That said this does not mean it is not a good argument. I commended the student's technique for 2 or 3 pages of this thread. But, again just because a Christian (by name/association) can verbally humble a man who is trying to do the same does not mean it is in the interest of God.

Again if it were. Would not have God come up in the students argument? Because there is no mention of God, all this story is; Is a show case on how to verbally battle (and "win") against a potential convert/Lost soul, and a classroom of on lookers.

One more time I do not think this to be a sin, IF in all of you Heart and Mind this type of thing is all you can hope to aspire to. I personally think "we" as leaders and teachers of men should NOT endeavor to set the bar so low.

Why not teach those who look for this type of story for direction, a way to "Answer a fool according to his folly" in a way that focouses on and Glorifies God in the process? Not to mention this way also ministers to any pontiential believers as well?

Why teach the only way to answer a fool according to his folly is to first serve one's pride, by droping the "God" out of the conversation completely and speak to what it is you personally know best?

 

[sterken7983]

(I tried to post your full reply with this but the thing said it was too long. So this reply is to your entire post, not only the little paragraph above. Just wanted to give reference to what post I am replying to.)

LOL Wow. Awesome.

Okay. You have made MANY requests from me, to approach your "challenge" though I witness you, I never did use the word "challenge". I can tell from this lengthy post which you have written to (the way you twist any words I give you, I have none to reason with). Anyway, I can tell from your post which you have written to "upset my apple cart" the message of the whole is quite clear. And (I hate to say this because arguing this SAME point with you page after page on this thread is growing QUITE weary) here is the message I perceived (I'm sure it will be wrong to you, though, since everything is. Even the original parable of the professor and student appeared wrong to you.)

What I got from your message is that somehow I was implying you were a non-believer or unwittingly, somehow, "not saved" or "denied" the Spirit; also that I am advocating Christ purposefully "denies" people knowledge of Salvation and that I feel I should do the same because of my prideful self-righteousness, and that I was purposefully attacking you to simply win an argument and not properly showing you your err.

Well.... I guess part of me woud LOVE to print out your post and prepare a 2 week, analytical, verse quoting reply that I have no idea HOW I would post it, for surely I can easily seeing it becoming ten pages or longer. Perhaps if you truly want to make a friendship with me (which I would be interested in, you intrigue me, because you are stubborn and vehement, two powerful traits that the characters in the Bible often possessed) I would perhaps, over the next month, prepare a statement like that for you and we could continue THAT argument in hopes of reaching a conclusion PERSONALLY.

The other part of me (and I'm praying to the Spirit to give me this answer which I am now typing) is showing me a path of humility, which is in the Bible verse I so many times used in my "catch phrase theology" LOL sorry.
"Answer NOT a fool according to his folly."

What I mean by this is that you draw a line in the sand and dare to me to cross it. No matter what I come back with, you will have several posts like the previous (in which I as WELL got lost on your message of salvation in all your different directions and multiple ideas.) Not that there was anything I did not UNDERSTAND but rather that the MESSAGE, and meaning, and thought was rarely inconsistent and I kept getting "lost" because you had MANY different addresses, sometimes in the same paragraph.

I also realize that by saying the "above" paragraph your rhetoric will be, "because you can't, because you improvise where you are foolish, etc. etc." Quite the contrary: from your knowledge, I trust that you have "read" and full well "know" that parable which you asked me to cite (which I will in a next post because my browser is on this page and I cannot remember EXACTLY what you were referring to as I write here.) Sadly, it DOES look like I'll have to print off your post simply to keep track of it all. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (cuz that's the next thing you will cry against me.)

Again, like I said, I too am stubborn so if you really want to PRIVATELY continue this I feel it could be beneficial for us both.

Now: back to my reply on THIS forum. No, I do NOT think you are an unbeliever or "unsaved". I believe I wrote that in my post but I will write it here as well. I believe that the Spirit has DELIBERATELY made you to view this parable (though you cry it is not, so I guess I'd better call it a "story" then; perhaps a "faith based" story, for you seem EXTREMELY politically correct; AND ANALYTICAL!) in the light which you view it. And yes, analysis is a good thing! But... wow! Oh well, it's fine. At least you have a keen intellect!

I believe the Spirit may be doing this for SEVERAL reasons but I sadly cannot give you the EXACT reason because that is between you and the Spirit. It may be to teach you a different view point. May be to draw you to the Scriptures more. I know this whole experience has done that for me and it is wondeful, praise the Lord! Perhaps even, maybe the Spirit has caused you to feel the way you do about the story and me to express myself because perhaps we are to meet for some reason we cannot comprehend. Not sure. But I know NOTHING is coincidence. Or perhaps simply our argument will be a witness to the glory of God (remember you were asking how the story gave glory to God?) as people watch two Christians ARGUING and (I guess) sort of fighting with each other and at the same time BOTH of them are complimenting one another. They will know we are Christians by our love, right? Here we are, arguing over parables, whether or not this IS a parable, and both of us at the same time are still complimenting each other for the traits we see as strength or desirable, whatever politically correct form my King's English fails to come up with at the moment.

No, I think you very much are endowed with the Holy Spirit and yes, I can SEE that as evidenced in your writing. And no, I do NOT consider myself more righteous to you; I personally think that I have probably commited worse sins in my life than you, but again, I am afraid you will think I am trying to "one up" you, even as a sinner (which I am not trying to do; simply trying to make a statement of humility.)

Yes, I think the Spirit has DENIED or blocked the meaning form you in this story and that, when I tried to call you out on it, you dug in deeper, and I think the Spirit is responsible for that as well. Because I believe the Spirit of God is working through both of us in this argument simply because of this (please put aside your thoughts for a moment and consider this, this will blow your mind <meaning everyone>)

We're sitting here, NOW arguing over HOW TO ARGUE about the true meaning behind an ARGUMENT (the story of the professor and the student). You ask, how does this story bring glory to God? Sir, you do not have to SAY the name of God to bring glory to Him. Otherwise the creation would include billboards stating: Like what you see? GOD made this!

No, the majesty of the creation shows forth his glory. The glory in the story is given to God because it is another version of that argument with the pharisees (this is the only time I will bring that up, seeing as how you REFUSE to accept the connection.)

And I DID say that the knowledge was hidden. The knowledge of the Kingdom of God. What is the Knowledge of the Kingdom of God? The fact that it does INDEED exist! Which is what the professor was questioning!

And yes, it is the meaning which is hidden; the Bible is the best selling book of history. So yes, it is hidden in plain sight. And I NEVER said otherwise. Please go back and read my post again for I will NOT post it here for that would "answering a fool according to his folly" (or answering you in the trap you have set; it will not vindicate anything because you ask me NOT to teach you but so that you may catch me in my words. And NO: I did not just call you a fool. I was quoting a Bible vers and you happened to be in the way. Don't feel bad: I'm a fool more times than not as well.)

And no, I do NOT say and did not say that Christ and we should stop people from going to heaven. These are all silly things for you to say because even while you are taking little sentences here and there, pasting them into your reply, ANYONE can go back and read what I read and understand it. And it does not hold to what you wrote about me.

So, no, I will not answer you according to your "folly" (or, according to your "game", your "rules", your let's post what each other has said and then diessect it and twist it to try and destroy each other.) Let's let our yea's be yea's and are nay's be nay's. Let the Spirit speak through you with humility and love instead of pride and challenge. This perhaps is the very reason you DO NOT see the glory of God in the story. Because all you see is two people arguing and no one saying the Name of God. Perhaps God is trying to show you that you are TOO argumentative! Think about it.

Because lots of Jesus parables did not include the Name of God. But they were still about God. Just like Christ, ANY Crhistian can make an illustrating story based on faith and knowledge (called a parable) to teach and that story is Godly if it holds up against Scripture (the Word of God). This one does. But this is what you do not see.

And yes, I do genuinely love you and hope that we both come unto the Kingdom of God, unscathed so that we can laugh about "Hey, remember that first time we argued on that forum?" Then we can ask God which one of us was right.

Betcha He says you both were right AND you both were wrong. Peace and Grace be unto you, brother.

If you want that ten page plus paper, let me know.