Faith vs politics

[BaconWizard]

So, how would one square these quotes with John 3:16 and Mark 7:7? I'll be a rich man if I got $1 every time a Christian tried to convert me with these quotes.

I read your quoted verses and they do not indicate that I can't go to heaven. John 2:4 would eliminate 99.9999% of professed Christians.

I think heaven is already occupied by detestable murderers and liars. Dalmer, Jimmy Bakker.... What you will not find in heaven are: Ghandi, Dalai Lama, and 100% of people living in North and South Americas and Asia before the arrival of Christian missionaries.

Well yes. my quoted verses wouldn't show something that they do not deal-with. They DO deal with the subject that they deal-with though. Good, that.

But it's ok to break these moral laws if you accepted JC into your heart, and keep asking for forgiveness.

The Bible says the polar opposite, as I have shown by quoting where is does.
John 2:4 and 3:16 say nothing about the issue whatsoever and Mark 7:7 if anything at all, backs my view and not yours: it is NOT enough to believe. Worship is not the point.

Also, I am an atheist not a Christian.

 

[dazed]

The Bible says the polar opposite, as I have shown by quoting where is does.
John 2:4 and 3:16 say nothing about the issue whatsoever and Mark 7:7 if anything at all, backs my view and not yours: it is NOT enough to believe. Worship is not the point.

Also, I am an atheist not a Christian.

I'm a Buddhist, not a Christian.

My take on Christianity is that a Christian is preparing for the eternal life, either damnation or heaven. Morals, smorals. John 3:16 clearly stated that my ticket to heaven is reserved as long as I accepted JC. I don't see, maybe someone can point out, the exception clause of John 3:16.

Correct me on this. I don't think JC kept all OT commandments. Didn't JC modify a few OT laws too? There are parables on stoning a prostitute and Sabaths.

 

[BaconWizard]

I'm a Buddhist, not a Christian.

My take on Christianity is that a Christian is preparing for the eternal life, either damnation or heaven. Morals, smorals. John 3:16 clearly stated that my ticket to heaven is reserved as long as I accepted JC. I don't see, maybe someone can point out, the exception clause of John 3:16.

Correct me on this. I don't think JC kept all OT commandments. Didn't JC modify a few OT laws too? There are parables on stoning a prostitute and Sabaths.

My information is that JC DID keep all OT commandments. That was the means my which he fulfilled the covenant, leaving it clear for a new one.

I supposed where John 3:16 is concerned it comes down to how you interpret "believe in" and possibly how it was translated from ancient Greek. Luckily, the rest of The Bible explains it clearly. I quoted some of those verses.

 

[LoAmmi]

My information is that JC DID keep all OT commandments. That was the means my which he fulfilled the covenant, leaving it clear for a new one.

*According to Christianity's idea of what the covenant was which is, of course, completely different than the Jewish understanding of it.

I would also disagree that he kept them all, but that's a different discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

I doubt he was a monarchist. God wasn't a huge fan of monarchs either is what I get from 1 Samuel. If you are implying that by saying God is a persons king somehow makes them a monarchist, I disagree. A monarchist is someone who thinks they should be ruled by an earthly king. Jesus wasn't down with that.

Umm, I'd disagree with your definition of "monarchist." There is no specification of "earthly" or "non-earthly" to the definition.

Jesus is a king, He is a monarch, and a monarch is a monarchist. If a man is a citizen of Heaven, that man is also a monarchist.

Jesus was not by any means an anarchist--He accepted the authority of earthly kings within their own kingdom and did not advocate anarchy.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh! So following Christ would be a hardcore fundamentalist type of Christianity now, would it?

No, but insisting on a proof-texted quote to prove a point is.

 

[BaconWizard]

No, but insisting on a proof-texted quote to prove a point is.

I guess you think you can just make-up whatever you like and claim it to be Christian.

Luckily, there is a handy and convenient list of potential quotes, by which means Christians can know what Christ's teachings were and thus follow them.

According to you, sharing one such instance in order to show that one's own social viewpoint is indeed a Christian one and not simply one's own, would be fundamentalist.

No. What it would be is factual and justified rather than false and twisted rhetoric.

 

[RDKirk]

I guess you think you can just make-up whatever you like and claim it to be Christian.

Luckily, there is a handy and convenient list of potential quotes, by which means Christians can know what Christ's teachings were and thus follow them.

According to you, sharing one such instance in order to show that one's own social viewpoint is indeed a Christian one and not simply one's own, would be fundamentalist.

No. What it would be is factual and justified rather than false and twisted rhetoric.

I guess you're not familiar with all the varieties of Christianity, every one of which claims to "know what Christ's teachings were and thus follow them."

 

[Sasquatchit]

I can't speak for LoAmmi, and indeed we may disagree about this issue. But I'm serious.

What makes you so certain that the only interpretation is that gay rights and abortion are wrong?

Oh, I am not saying that this is the only thing that is wrong. I'm merely pointing out these 2 big issues simply because it is so clear cut.

Since you are a CHRISTian, let's see you cite Christ on this issue. And not the OT. Since the entire point of CHRISTianity is a new covenant between God aka CHRIST and man, rather than the OT covenant, yeah?

Ok, yes u r right, we r no longer under the O.C. [laws], however do we not still honor the 9 commandments (except the Sabbath, the other 9 r spread throughout the N.C.).

Gal. 3:24 "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
25 "But after faith has come, we r no longer under a tutor."
26 "For u r all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ."

But, that doesn't mean that we r to throw the history out and the knowledge that we have about God (that never changes!). Do we not learn by the Bible Formula in the N.C. (direct command, examples, inferences)? There r soooo many things to learn from in the Old Testament, excluding the Law.

Specifically, Hebrews 11 gives examples of faith from the O.T. There r so many examples of so many things, and abortion (which is one of the 9 commandments: Thou shalt not kill) and homosexuality is also talked about (Rom. 1:26-27). God was against it in the O.T. and apparently it didn't change in the N.T.

 

[BaconWizard]

I guess you're not familiar with all the varieties of Christianity, every one of which claims to "know what Christ's teachings were and thus follow them."

Exactly. Hence requiring a quote upon the issue attributed to Christ himself.
In my view, too many people believe in church and not in Christ.

 

[Sasquatchit]

It always amazes me when non-Christians insist that Christians must be more hardcore fundamentalists than even Fundamentalists.

Oh, that's ok, they r playing philosophy and word games. I guess that they r trying to trip us up. What they can't quite understand is that Scripture is more powerful!

 

[BaconWizard]

Ok, yes u r right, we r no longer under the O.C. [laws], however do we not still honor the 9 commandments (except the Sabbath, the other 9 r spread throughout the N.C.).

Gal. 3:24 "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
25 "But after faith has come, we r no longer under a tutor."
26 "For u r all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ."

But, that doesn't mean that we r to throw the history out and the knowledge that we have about God (that never changes!). Do we not learn by the Bible Formula in the N.C. (direct command, examples, inferences)? There r soooo many things to learn from in the Old Testament, excluding the Law.

Specifically, Hebrews 11 gives examples of faith from the O.T. There r so many examples of so many things, and abortion (which is one of the 9 commandments: Thou shalt not kill) and homosexuality is also talked about (Rom. 1:26-27). God was against it in the O.T. and apparently it didn't change in the N.T.

The OT is self-contradicting and requires very careful (hint: impossible) translation from Old Hebrew and sometimes Greek.

You cite "thou shalt not kill" yet it is full of killing at God's command or with his apparent blessing.

Indeed, a more correct translation might actually be "thou shalt not murder" with murder needing to be defined apart from other types of killing such as warfare.

With the issue of abortion, it has somehow become a habit to cite the OT when the precise opposite is true.

We can ALL go and read it; it's an exercise in futility to suggest otherwise or to lay claim to any kind of superior ability to interpret it than those who still maintain the covenant of the OT, The Jews, who also maintain the laws and interpretations and applications of those commandments whereas Christians do not. This is what pre-Christian Christianity looks like: Judaism!

And in so doing are NOT against abortion. Specifically, life is said to begin at the first drawing of breath. In some cases, plus a month! That's the law of the day, and it is Biblical law.

The OT itself contains advice on how to potentially induce an abortion if you suspect your pregnant wife of adultery.

You say "it seems" to be against abortion all you like. It is specifically and demonstrably NOT against abortion.

 

[LoAmmi]

The OT is self-contradicting and requires very careful (hint: impossible) translation from Old Hebrew and sometimes Greek.

Greek?

 

[BaconWizard]

Oh, that's ok, they r playing philosophy and word games. I guess that they r trying to trip us up. What they can't quite understand is that Scripture is more powerful!

He said it in response to me asking for scripture. Apparently either supporting one's viewpoint with Christian scripture or alternatively not representing one's own politics as being inherently that of Christianity, would be fundamentalism.

 

[BaconWizard]

Greek?

I wondered if you'd pop-up, I have a question.

But yes, the OT was in some cases reclaimed from fragments that were recorded in Ancient Greek, unlike the Torah. I didn't mention Aramaic and should have.

 

[LoAmmi]

I wondered if you'd pop-up, I have a question.

But yes, the OT was in some cases reclaimed from fragments that were recorded in Ancient Greek, unlike the Torah. I didn't mention Aramaic and should have.

Only if you believe that the Jews didn't accurately keep Hebrew copies of their books throughout history.

 

[BaconWizard]

Only if you believe that the Jews didn't accurately keep Hebrew copies of their books throughout history.

That doesn't mean that those copies exclusively were used in recording The Christian OT though.

The Hexapla and Septuagint were key and do vary from Hebrew versions.

 

[LoAmmi]

That doesn't mean that those copies exclusively were used in recording The Christian OT though.

No, of course not. But I don't really end up consulting Christian sources when I'm looking at things.

 

[Sasquatchit]

No, but insisting on a proof-texted quote to prove a point is.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with this. If u can't prove it with Scripture then perhaps it shouldn't be discussed. [?]

 

[BaconWizard]

No, of course not. But I don't really end up consulting Christian sources when I'm looking at things.

Um.. could that be because you're not Christian?

Having said that, I don't understand why Christians would not consult the Torah rather than the OT.