No conditions, no rules, no boundaries - that love is there for the taking.
This is probably the most significant part of your post, and what I've suspected all along, even though you've not so blatantly stated it this way until now.
This is what I suggested about convenient doctrines. By definition, they sound very appealing. No conditions, no rules, no boundaries. How wonderful. We can do anything we like and Jesus himself cannot say otherwise, or he'll get a lecture from us about unconditional love. How very convenient.
BTW, there is a section on the home page titled "commands of Jesus". About half of them are grammatical commands while the other half are implied commands. There really ARE commands (or rules) which Jesus expected his followers to follow.
Jesus spoke of LOVE - Period. His word is based on LOVE - PeriodUnless we embrace this love as a child embraces a parent, without fear, without trepidation, without "conditions" - we ultimately fail to"get it". Too often "smart" folk attempt to look more into what the Gospel is teaching
Are you suggesting that smart people should not be looking more into what the gospel is teaching or that only stupid people do?
Thanks for taking a look at my website. You quoted this from the site:
Churchies are people whose first loyalty is to the institutional church rather than to Jesus. They are defensive about the establishment and critical of anyone who supports the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, this includes the vast majority of churchgoers
And responded with:
Overall, I found that the site is very dark.. And although the words sound "nice" and general on the surface, the message - or perhaps I should say the technicalities of what I have read mask what I believe is the true message of the Gospel
Are you suggesting that the "true gospel" does include people with loyalty greater to their church/denomination than to Jesus? Because, look at what you've actually quoted from my site. We have the audacity to suggest that some people have questionable loyalty. Is that really so bad?
You also say: "
This is FALSE, and a scare tactic to make readers feel the NEED to read further"
Are you saying that you personally experienced a need to read further because you were frightened of what you read? I don't think I can agree that you being frightened is rational reason for me to stop sharing my beliefs.
You also shared this from my website:
Another example: Churchies hate us for the same reason the Pharisees and other religious leaders hated Jesus--He pointed people back to true faith and signalled the end of religion as an institution, with all of its greed, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness.
Your response:
the mere thought that because I attend church (yes, I am a "churchie") makes me hate you (strong word) is dangerous and misleading Where is the teaching of "love, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness.. Shame on whoever wrote this nonsense.
I think it is very significant that you refer to yourself as a Chruchie, based on the definitions given in the article. In other words, you said it, not me.
Also, it's not "attending church" that makes one a churchie. That's not what the article described as a churchie, though it is, once again, significant that you chose to create your own definition rather than deal with the definition actually given.
The article suggested that churchies are people who react to having their faults pointed out.
Are you seriously suggesting Jesus was crucified because he went around telling people to "love period"? He said a lot more than that.
I get that we shouldnt kill. What is written, on the surface sounds "nice", but in reality makes no sense.
The point was about people who take a genuinely good rule and miss the spirit (or reason) behind it.
Something similar happened with Jesus and the sabbath. The sabbath was meant to give people a rest, but religious people made it into a rule which ended up making things even harder for people. For example, even today in Israel, religious Jews will not press an elevator button on the sabbath, because the act of pressing the button is work.
Instead, they will walk up 5 flights of stairs in order to obey the rule. Obviously, they are missing the spirit behind the rule. This is partially what Jesus meant when he said religious people bind heavy burdens onto people which God never intended.
Remember your outrage over me suggesting that some people show greater loyalty to their religion than they do to Jesus/God?
Two questions, WHO wrote the articles that are written within the site, and on what authority are those opinions offered??
In other words, why should I accept them as truth??
Why should it matter who wrote the articles? Do they have any truth or not?
Also, I don't understand your question about authority, but there is no obligation for you (or anyone) to accept anything written on my website aside from what your conscience tells you to.
the gospel is NOT about "me" but about the love that God has for me, for those around me - that God loves YOU - period.
Ironically, out of the two of us, you are the one who keeps bringing it back to how it's not about you. I've been talking about exploring the nitty gritty of the teachings of Jesus and applying those teachings.
I've said quite consistently that Jesus' teachings are an expression of his love. It's pointless to talk about "love period" while ignoring his teachings on HOW to love, but each time I bring that up, you fall back on "unconditional love", as though it's UNloving to talk about Jesus' expectations and standards.
That's probably the most dangerous part of the "unconditional love" doctrine; it makes an enemy out of the standards and values of the Kingdom of Heaven and treats them as unreasonable counterfeits of "real" love which has no expectations or standards.
When we trip on the technicalities and put thoughts and ideas into the Gospel that just arent there,
What thoughts and ideas have I put into the gospels that "just aren't there"? Can you be specific?