Are the Apostles flaming others?

[Polycarp_fan]

nongodians, lol... never heard that one before poly

I'm just a non-typical free thinker.

I use the terms "lemmings" and "bobbleheads" on a different site.

See the crowd praising themselves?

Oops, this is thread about the Apostles.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'm just a non-typical free thinker.

I use the terms "lemmings" and "bobbleheads" on a different site.

See the crowd praising themselves?

Oops, this is thread about the Apostles.

The apostles usually went after Christians doing bad things and scolded them. I doubt they would have spread the word very well if they wandered into a random gentile city and started telling them how wrong they were and how they are just going to burn in Hell forever.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I think the fact that the person is a nonbeliever, thus making it rather silly for a believer to say, "Here, follow what I believe", makes it pretty clear that the believer thinks that being a Christian is following the law, and not believing in Christ first, before they would put such a demand upon them.

Jesus didn't say, "Hey, Zaccheus! You are a sinful tax collector! Well, Y'are!!!"

He asked Zaccheus to come down from the tree and eat with him. He welcomed him, without condemnation.
He defended the woman caught in adultery, without condemnation.
He ate with the "sinners" without condemnation.

Who had a problem with that? The Pharisees.

If the believer isn't following in the ways of Jesus, but the ways of the Pharisee, it is better that they unbeliever not follow the modern day Pharisee at all.

Preaching the avoidance of sin is not condemnation. Jesus was in fact the first to bring up the issue of eternal fire and condemnation. I'd say around 1/4 to 1/3 of the NT is about the avoidance of sin(mostly in the epistles)

Also the reason why Jesus talked to the Pharisees that way was because of they're denial in Jesus's Divinity and his authority. The arrogance of the Pharisees is mostly rooted in the denial of Jesus's divinity and that is what the big problem was.


We must ask ourselves, WHY do people feel condemned when the issue of sin is brought up? The guiding of the christian flock away from temptation is the Church's job. Nearly 3/4th of the book of Revelation is just that; the church dealing with the issues in regards to sin and lukewarmness within Church members


The only way a person would feel condemnation is if he has personalized sin so much in his life, that it is actually a part of him and his lifestyle. SO when it is preached against, he takes it as a personal assault to his integrity because he has integrated it so much into his lifestyle that it has become a part of him.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The apostles usually went after Christians doing bad things and scolded them. I doubt they would have spread the word very well if they wandered into a random gentile city and started telling them how wrong they were and how they are just going to burn in Hell forever.

Hmmm..something about this being a Christian site clicks somewhere with me...oh yeah, this is a CHRISTIAN forum. It's not like we're wandering into random gentile cities.

A better way to put it is that the atheists wouldn't go roaming into random churches and rambling on about Christians being schizophrenic and delusional. Essentially, that's what happens here. Even when other Christians are trying to correct their fellow brethren they are accused of flaming - and it's generally more from the non-Christian participants than the other Christian ones.

 

[b&wpac4]

Hmmm..something about this being a Christian site clicks somewhere with me...oh yeah, this is a CHRISTIAN forum. It's not like we're wandering into random gentile cities.

A better way to put it is that the atheists wouldn't go roaming into random churches and rambling on about Christians being schizophrenic and delusional. Essentially, that's what happens here. Even when other Christians are trying to correct their fellow brethren they are accused of flaming - and it's generally more from the non-Christian participants than the other Christian ones.

Something about this looking like a flame from the Society Supervisor is really funny to me.

He asked if the apostles were flaming people when they wrote what they wrote. I said they were mostly scolding Christians which is true. I don't know why you're having such a big disconnect here, but let me just clue ya in:

WHAT I SAID IS TRUE. I have never argued that homosexuality or anything else is not a sin. I have never tried to say that people are misinterpreting passages or anything like that either. I have only argued in favor of homosexual marriage from a United States civil rights issue, which I believe it to be. This is the Ethics and Morality section, right? I can argue the ethics of a country that doesn't recognize a specific religion as being correct deciding to prevent a group of people from being married, right? It didn't say "Christian Ethics", I thought that was another subforum.

So, please, before you decide to attack me again, read the entire thread, don't jump to conclusions, and don't do something that is supposedly against the rules.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The apostles usually went after Christians doing bad things and scolded them. I doubt they would have spread the word very well if they wandered into a random gentile city and started telling them how wrong they were and how they are just going to burn in Hell forever.

Many Apostles were martyred by people that they went to and told were sinners in need of repentance. Like say Romans!

Get a copy of Fox's book of Marytrs.

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hmmm..something about this being a Christian site clicks somewhere with me...oh yeah, this is a CHRISTIAN forum. It's not like we're wandering into random gentile cities.

A better way to put it is that the atheists wouldn't go roaming into random churches and rambling on about Christians being schizophrenic and delusional. Essentially, that's what happens here. Even when other Christians are trying to correct their fellow brethren they are accused of flaming - and it's generally more from the non-Christian participants than the other Christian ones.

Well said.



-----That's us when we try.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Christian-basher? I don't think so. It doesn't take the desire to "bash" to note that your knowledge of biology and the ToE amount to, well, squat.

So, for your (hopefully) ongoing education, here are some answers.


There is no "standard model" of the origin of life; several likely models have been put forward by different biologists, some of which you'll find here. As of now, all of them are hypotheses - but even as such, they're already one step further than the tired old "we don't know, so a supernatural entity must have done it"-nonsense.
I mean, after all, that's how people used to explain floods and draughts, too. And epidemics. And birth defects.

By the way, I personally find the panspermia/exogenesis hypothesis to be a sort of dodge, too: it just moves the problem someplace else and then claims that it all came from elsewhere.

Which of course, shows my assertions are knowledge based. Thanks.

1. Why shouldn't there be?
2. What apes, specifically? Biologically speaking, Man is one of the great apes, too.
3. We did not "descend from apes". Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they headed down a different branch of the family tree, which makes them more like VERY distant cousins.

Still makes my positions sound. You're not destroying me like you thought you would.

Yeah, well, evolution is not a moral prescriptive.

It is when attached to nongodianism. And of course in the morality we see played out in society as we write.

It's an "is", not an "ought". The fact that people care about the survival of other species may have several reasons - but plain compassion for the suffering of other beings capable of feeling and self-awareness is certainly a factor there.

Compassion and evolution? Oxymoron. We don't need Chimps around anymore. Obviously they haven't evolved fast enough to keep up.

And seeing ourselves as the perpetrators of the fifth great extinction event in the history of the planet isn't exactly something to celebrate, either.

Why not? It'll all come back around. Per evolution.

We're wrecking the house we live in, and it won't take long until we start to feel the negative side effects, too.

What negative effects? The dinos went bye-bye and here we are. Who's to say whatever comes next won't be very satified with what they have?

I'm very much enjoying all this going down in the world. The cycle of death and rebirth. I can't wait to be the next version of whatever. OK, yeah I can, but you know, what can I do anyway, the ToE and all.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I read your questions, I think they're great I really do. I think you should write them down neatly on a sheet of clean paper and mail them to 1859 where they might feel more at home.

Got that snappy comeback from what atheist/creationist debate? Even back then it was nothing to mud to monkeys to man.

You couldn't look more out of place if you stormed LA international with a Kentucky rifle and started assaulting passengers exiting flight 292 from Heathrow in the name of American independence.
You're too late to fight that battle and your Flintlock would be useless against the modern British army in the same way your questions and fighting spirit are 150 years out of date compared with modern biology.

Not according to British officers back in the day or in the 21st century. They very much knew/know the effectiveness of the Kentucky rifle. Those rifles can still hit the mark at the same ranges they shoot the SA80 at.

Even if you had a time machine, Huxley would pwn you. So it's best to just offer us your empty threats on an internet forum.

I'd have Huxley do the math: 0 x 0 = your universe Hux ol buddy? And I would enjoy his stammering reply. And then I would let him "own" my calculator. But I'd probably want to stay in a world where holding to marriage as a man and a woman is not thought of as a hate crime.

Sorry, I get confused.
Which is the one that tells it's followers it is their only chance at happiness and that anyone expressing skepticism is an agent of evil?

Skeptics are treated well in Christian life. Ever heard of a "Doubting Thomas?"

Ever heard the phrase: "Test all things, and hold firmly onto the truth."

Gotta love the scientist in the Apostolic voice.

That was even before Huxley was created.

 

[b&wpac4]

Many Apostles were martyred by people that they went to and told were sinners in need of repentance. Like say Romans!

Get a copy of Fox's book of Marytrs.

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

The first few persecutions were by the Romans, sure, but after that it's Christian vs Christian. Seems fair enough to me.

Also, started to read that book you linked and pretty quickly closed it. Remarking on the discomfort of the Jews after Jesus resurrected is funny to me because according to the Gospels, he never appeared to those that thought he wasn't the messiah. I personally think it would have been quite awesome for him to show up before the Sanhedrin and basically say, "Hi, I was right" but that segment doesn't appear.

I'm not saying Christ didn't come back or anything like that. I'm just saying it would have made them uncomfortable, whereas Christ appearing to his followers and best friends would likely have just been dismissed instead of discomfort.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Something about this looking like a flame from the Society Supervisor is really funny to me.

If you really think it's a flame, report it. It's an observation. People here get so riled up when other Christians correct Christians, and most of the people that get riled up are non-Christians. How is that a flame?

He asked if the apostles were flaming people when they wrote what they wrote. I said they were mostly scolding Christians which is true. I don't know why you're having such a big disconnect here, but let me just clue ya in:

Err...I was talking in the context of what you wrote. Most of the "correcting" that gets done around here is done on a CHRISTIAN site, therefore it's logical to think that we're talking with fellow Christians. But following suit with your last paragraph, maybe you don't understand that concept.

WHAT I SAID IS TRUE. I have never argued that homosexuality or anything else is not a sin. I have never tried to say that people are misinterpreting passages or anything like that either. I have only argued in favor of homosexual marriage from a United States civil rights issue, which I believe it to be. This is the Ethics and Morality section, right? I can argue the ethics of a country that doesn't recognize a specific religion as being correct deciding to prevent a group of people from being married, right? It didn't say "Christian Ethics", I thought that was another subforum.

Wow. You have quite a "it's all about ME" complex. If I disagree with you on those points, I'll do it in the threads that talk about them. In this thread, we're talking about whether the apostles were flaming. Let me explain it again for you. You said "The apostles were correcting other apostles", meaning we're supposed to only correct other Christians (like we wouldn't go roaming into gentile cities and talk about hell), remember you writing that? I then answered that this is a CHRISTIAN site...we're not randomly going into atheist forums and talking about hell and the gospel. It's more like the atheists (mainly the ones that are getting riled up when one Christians corrects another) are randomly going into churches and spouting how we're all wrong and all that jazz. Again, please tell me where the flame is.

So, please, before you decide to attack me again, read the entire thread, don't jump to conclusions, and don't do something that is supposedly against the rules.

That post was not an attack on you. It was an answer to your observation...just because this section is not a CO section doesn't mean that we're not supposed to act like Christians here. That's why your reasoning doesn't hold water. So, basically, you're stating that here in the E&M section, we Christians can't talk about right and wrong from a Christian perspective because it's not a CO section. Which is entirely wrong. As I pointed out NUMEROUS times now, this is not IIDB or Heathen Hub where Christians are "invading" your turf and talking about hell. This is a section where we welcome non-Christians but that doesn't mean that non-Christian reasoning wins the day.

Understand? Or are you still feeling attacked? If you are, I'd like to work it out because I am not attacking you. I don't agree with your reasoning and I am stating why. If this constitutes a flame in your book, then we need to deal with it right here because I thought that was how rational discussions happened.

 

[b&wpac4]

If you really think it's a flame, report it. It's an observation. People here get so riled up when other Christians correct Christians, and most of the people that get riled up are non-Christians. How is that a flame?

Read your post. It came off very insulting and basically called me stupid. I also usually find it to be a useless gesture to report a mod. I might as well report the owner of the site.

You called me stupid, basically. You're "hmmmm" followed by capital letters, why didn't you just bold it and underline it followed by a "duh, you idiot".

Err...I was talking in the context of what you wrote. Most of the "correcting" that gets done around here is done on a CHRISTIAN site, therefore it's logical to think that we're talking with fellow Christians. But following suit with your last paragraph, maybe you don't understand that concept.


Wow. You have quite a "it's all about ME" complex. If I disagree with you on those points, I'll do it in the threads that talk about them. In this thread, we're talking about whether the apostles were flaming. Let me explain it again for you. You said "The apostles were correcting other apostles", meaning we're supposed to only correct other Christians (like we wouldn't go roaming into gentile cities and talk about hell), remember you writing that? I then answered that this is a CHRISTIAN site...we're not randomly going into atheist forums and talking about hell and the gospel. It's more like the atheists (mainly the ones that are getting riled up when one Christians corrects another) are randomly going into churches and spouting how we're all wrong and all that jazz. Again, please tell me where the flame is.

That post was not an attack on you. It was an answer to your observation...just because this section is not a CO section doesn't mean that we're not supposed to act like Christians here. That's why your reasoning doesn't hold water. So, basically, you're stating that here in the E&M section, we Christians can't talk about right and wrong from a Christian perspective because it's not a CO section. Which is entirely wrong. As I pointed out NUMEROUS times now, this is not IIDB or Heathen Hub where Christians are "invading" your turf and talking about hell. This is a section where we welcome non-Christians but that doesn't mean that non-Christian reasoning wins the day.

Understand? Or are you still feeling attacked? If you are, I'd like to work it out because I am not attacking you. I don't agree with your reasoning and I am stating why. If this constitutes a flame in your book, then we need to deal with it right here because I thought that was how rational discussions happened.

You are still attacking me, yes. Now all of a sudden I have a "me" complex when I have never expressed such a thing. Just because you try to make it seem like I'm the one who's way off base doesn't make it true.

I don't care if you correct other Christians, I never have. I don't care if you post Bible verses that prove homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, stealing, eating pork, or sleeping with your socks on are sins. (AFAIK, the last one is completely made up, but I'm sure someone could try to present a case with a few obscure verses) I have never argued that point, not even once. I have only argued that there's no legal ground to apply those to everybody though legislation on solely religious grounds.

You want to go off and pretend like I attack others to justify your attack on me, well, whatever helps you sleep at night. I don't take being attacked lightly, and I take it from someone with power even less lightly. I have had posts removed and been given my little nasty-gram PM for far less than you did in your first post and I don't imagine anything would come from me reporting you.

I stay out of the sin game until it comes to making laws that would make sins crimes just for being sins. If you think laws should be made that way, that isn't really a "Christian" point of view and I see noting in the statement of faith for the site that says I have to abide by that point of view.

 

[Tenka]

Got that snappy comeback from what atheist/creationist debate?

I got it from yo' momma, she talks in her sleep.

Even back then it was nothing to mud to monkeys to man.

You get that quip from Mr. Kent Hovind?

Not according to British officers back in the day or in the 21st century. They very much knew/know the effectiveness of the Kentucky rifle. Those rifles can still hit the mark at the same ranges they shoot the SA80 at.

Oh man, somehow I knew you'd try to defend a Kentucky rifle versus modern Army scenario.
Good show old chap, you made a funny.

I'd have Huxley do the math: 0 x 0 = your universe Hux ol buddy? And I would enjoy his stammering reply. And then I would let him "own" my calculator.

We wouldn't get to that point, The fine art of trolling hadn't been invented yet and Wilberforce would have interpreted your behavior as trying to bring the church into disrepute and slapped you silly.
Huxley would be laughing as he asked the humiliated Bishop 'Where did you get this guy?' and the Bishop would answer 'You wouldn't believe me if I told you...' then he would add 'Time travel' to his Big List of Abominations unto God.

But I'd probably want to stay in a world where holding to marriage as a man and a woman is not thought of as a hate crime.

Unless the man and women are of different colours.

Ever heard the phrase: "Test all things, and hold firmly onto the truth."

Sure, thats how people become atheists.

 

[KCDAD]

3. We did not "descend from apes". Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they headed down a different branch of the family tree, which makes them more like VERY distant cousins.

Not "very" ... actually we are very close in many ways to our primate cousins including sharing 95% of our DNA... that is nearly as much as we share with many other humans.

 

[KCDAD]

Would the Apostles be considered rude and insulting towards non and anti Christians and towards people that call themselves Christian but see the writings of the Apostles as out of touch with the "modern world?"

James 4


You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God. What do you think the Scriptures mean when they say that the spirit God has placed within us is filled with envy? But he gives us even more grace to stand against such evil desires. As the Scriptures say, “God opposes the proud
but favors the humble.”

Let me translate into modern English vernacular...

"You bastards, don't you realize that participating in the Roman Imperial economy makes you an enemy to God?"

James is writing about being a part of the Empire of Rome. He is talking about being Jewish or Roman... he isn't writing about sex.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I got it from yo' momma, she talks in her sleep.You get that quip from Mr. Kent Hovind?

Mmmm hmm. Uh yeah.

Oh man, somehow I knew you'd try to defend a Kentucky rifle versus modern Army scenario.
Good show old chap, you made a funny.

Rifled barrels make an accurate rifle still. Many British Army officers were not allowed to spread their DNA around because of that.

We wouldn't get to that point, The fine art of trolling hadn't been invented yet and Wilberforce would have interpreted your behavior as trying to bring the church into disrepute and slapped you silly.

Wilberforce? We'll get to him in a sec.

Huxley would be laughing as he asked the humiliated Bishop 'Where did you get this guy?' and the Bishop would answer 'You wouldn't believe me if I told you...' then he would add 'Time travel' to his Big List of Abominations unto God.

Time travel? It already happened if it's going to happen. And on and on.

Unless the man and women are of different colours.

Mr Wilberforce will help you out there.

Sure, thats how people become atheists.

And Born-Again Christians. Known far and wide as Evangelicals. 2000-plus years and going strong, while atheism is a ad on a bus.

 

[KCDAD]

I'm just a non-typical free thinker.

I use the terms "lemmings" and "bobbleheads" on a different site.

See the crowd praising themselves?

Oops, this is thread about the Apostles.

Lemmings... ? Interesting that you would use that as a description of people you disagree with. Which misconception about them are you alluding to: That they fall out of the sky or that they follow blindly, even to their own suicides?

Both of them are false, of course.

There are some sites where non-believers are called racist terms, too, and their parentage is questioned. I betcha God just loves it when you make up cute names to call people who disagree with you... like RACA.

 

[b&wpac4]

And Born-Again Christians. Known far and wide as Evangelicals. 2000-plus years and going strong, while atheism is a ad on a bus.

Poly, the Evangelical movement started in the 1800s. If you go back in history, all Christians were basically Catholics until Martin Luther showed up.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

James 4


You adulterers! Don’t you realize that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God? I say it again: If you want to be a friend of the world, you make yourself an enemy of God. What do you think the Scriptures mean when they say that the spirit God has placed within us is filled with envy? But he gives us even more grace to stand against such evil desires. As the Scriptures say, “God opposes the proud
but favors the humble.”

Let me translate into modern English vernacular...

"You bastards, don't you realize that participating in the Roman Imperial economy makes you an enemy to God?"

James is writing about being a part of the Empire of Rome. He is talking about being Jewish or Roman... he isn't writing about sex.

That is not a good translation. Considering there were also Greek, Asian, Syrian, Egyptian, Ethopian and Arab areas around the Holy See.

 

[KCDAD]

"doesn't mean that we're not supposed to act like Christians here."

What does "act like Christians" mean? (
Does it mean be like Paul: I will say, do or be anything to win converts
Does it mean be like Peter: I will talk a great game but when it comes to it, I run like a little girl
Does it mean be like Jesus: I will love and accept everyone, judge no one and teach people to fight against economic and political oppression