Cause & Effect?

[Belk]

The Bible shouldn't be made to say whatever we want it to, that's condemned in God's Word,
“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

The Bible tells us to be “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)


Violence is condemned,

“At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!’” (Acts 23:2-3)

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)

“not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.” (1 Timothy 3:3)

“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,” (2 Timothy 3:2-3)

“Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.” (Titus 1:7)

By what process does on “rightly divide(ing) the word of truth.” and how do you measure to ensure you have it correct?

 

[JGG]

Not any. It's a fundamental belief of Christianity. There are those that claim to be Christian, but are not.

No, you're not really going to pull out the "not a real Christian" line. If someone claims to be Christian, I generally take them at their word.

The Bible shouldn't be made to say whatever we want it to, that's condemned in God's Word,

The Bible tells us to be “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

You don't think these people would claim that they are "rightly dividing the word of truth" and you're not?

 

[david_x]

No, you're not really going to pull out the "not a real Christian" line. If someone claims to be Christian, I generally take them at their word.

That's not smart. If I say I'm a bank owner, will you give me your money?

 

[MoonLancer]

By what process does on “rightly divide(ing) the word of truth.” and how do you measure to ensure you have it correct?

this is something i want to know as well. What i see is Christians of all sorts with a wide array of beliefs all claiming they know the word of god, the word of god is different in every case.

The bible is a very self contradictory work of literature. If a divine being really wrote it i would expect them to at least be consistent. Instead i see varying people with varying ideologies and beliefs writing their views into the bible and calling it divine.

 

[quatona]

That's not smart. If I say I'm a bank owner, will you give me your money?

Well, if I were supposed to leave the definition of and the criteria for what a "bank owner" is to you it would be smart.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's not smart. If I say I'm a bank owner, will you give me your money?

well its very easy to determine if someone is really a bank owner or not. However what methods would you use to determine if someone is christian? there really is no methodical way to tell, however i can think of many methodical ways to tell if someone is a bank owner.

This is a fallacy.

 

[david_x]

well its very easy to determine if someone is really a bank owner or not. However what methods would you use to determine if someone is christian? there really is no methodical way to tell, however i can think of many methodical ways to tell if someone is a bank owner.

This is a fallacy.

This is not fallacy, this is ignorance. Simply not knowing the method does not mean it doesn't exist. It should be fairly obvious what makes up a Christian once you have studied the core beliefs and the Bible.

 

[david_x]

Well, if I were supposed to leave the definition of and the criteria for what a "bank owner" is to you it would be smart.

Yes, but not in the sense that you were still leaving the definition up to me so that would not have been smart anyways.

 

[MoonLancer]

This is not fallacy, this is ignorance. Simply not knowing the method does not mean it doesn't exist. It should be fairly obvious what makes up a Christian once you have studied the core beliefs and the Bible.

So that's why Christians who both claim to know what Christan is and understand core beliefs call the other non christian?

There is no method to determine who is a true christian and who is not. I defy you to try and i will find a group of Christians that defy that belief and have their own definition of christian. On the other spectrum you might make the definition so broad that it would be impossibly to declare someone as not a true christian.

 

[david_x]

So that's why Christians who both claim to know what Christan is and understand core beliefs call the other non christian?

There is no method to determine who is a true christian and who is not. I defy you to try and i will find a group of Christians that defy that belief and have their own definition of christian. On the other spectrum you might make the definition so broad that it would be impossibly to declare someone as not a true christian.

There are some very simple groups to point out: Mormons and Jahova Witnesses.

 

[HannahBanana]

There are some very simple groups to point out: Mormons and Jahova Witnesses.

Who are you to say that they aren't Christians? Is that really a good way to follow Matthew 7:12 or Matthew 22:39? Or do you, like many other Christians these days, like to pretend that both of those verses don't exist?

 

[david_x]

Who are you to say that they aren't Christians? Is that really a good way to follow Matthew 7:12 or Matthew 22:39? Or do you, like many other Christians these days, like to pretend that both of those verses don't exist?

So, you think the law will save you?

 

[HannahBanana]

So, you think the law will save you?

No, I think that following Christ's teachings will save me, and Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39 are two of Christ's teachings, so my questions still stand.

 

[david_x]

No, I think that following Christ's teachings will save me, and Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39 are two of Christ's teachings, so my questions still stand.

In both verses Christ references the Law, so no your question falls.

 

[HannahBanana]

In both verses Christ references the Law, so no your question falls.

Christ was teaching others the Law in those verses, though, so those verses should count as part of His teachings.

 

[david_x]

Christ was teaching others the Law in those verses, though, so those verses should count as part of His teachings.

Yes, but out of context these verses make it sound like all you need to do is treat others how you want to be treated and to love your neighbor as yourself, then you'll get into heaven. That is false.

 

[HannahBanana]

Yes, but out of context these verses make it sound like all you need to do is treat others how you want to be treated and to love your neighbor as yourself, then you'll get into heaven. That is false.

Actually, it's not false:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

See, even Jesus Himself thought that "love your neighbor as yourself" was one of the most important rules for people to follow. So why shouldn't we think that as well?

 

[david_x]

Actually, it's not false:




See, even Jesus Himself thought that "love your neighbor as yourself" was one of the most important rules for people to follow. So why shouldn't we think that as well?

I never denied that it was important. I said that it wouldn't save you. i.e. one can love their neighbor without having there sins washed away with the blood of Christ.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but not in the sense that you were still leaving the definition up to me so that would not have been smart anyways.

There are two consistent ways for me:

1. I accept everyone as Christian who considers themselves to be one
2. I decide who of you guys are TrueChristiansTM.

I used to be under the impression that the first option was fairer and more respectful than the latter. However, if you want me to be the judge...any time.

Your "bank owner" analogy is apples and elephants.
Whether someone is a bank owner or not depends on one clearly defined criterium: does he own a bank?
Unless you can demonstrate how the definition of "bank owner" is under dispute (in the way the definition of "Christian" is under dispute among different branches of Christianity and any label for any ideology is under dispute among different branches of that ideology), your analogy ignores the very core of the problem.

Typically Christians don´t disagree who´s a Christian because they disagree who matches their definition, but because they work from different definitions, in the first place.

 

[JGG]

That's not smart. If I say I'm a bank owner, will you give me your money?

Firstly, there's a pretty simple standard to tell if someone is a bank owner: They own a bank.

Secondly, why would I give my money to a bank owner?

Thirdly, why would I give my money to someone just because they say they're Christian?

Lastly, if you knock on my door telling me you're an axe murderer, I'm not opening the door.