christian values incompatible with christian scripture

[Beanieboy]

I will add that as a Christian, I pray to God for love for such people, because I know that God loves them, and I have to ask him for it, to love them perfectly as He does. I have to offer forgiveness for not knowing what they do, and I have to be thankful to God for offering me an opportunity not to condemn, but to lead by example, and hope it inspires at least one other person.

For those in agreement with me, part of your stewardship is going to be to heal those who have been bible bashed, condemned unjustly by Christians, mistreated in the name of God, and simply listen, and nod your head, and understand. Then, you will have to go out on a limb, and show them who God really is, a God of love. In doing so, realize that for many Christians, you have become their enemy. If that be true, I say, Bring it on!

 

[Verv]

I love you, Beanie, and I think that because you keep your eye on God you will come to the truths that you need in your life to make a good, positive peace.

We are all sinners and by no means can I lord judgment over you. I do think it is clear that homosexuality is against Christian values.

One thing that could be noted:

Christ did say, quite bluntly, that a rich man will never enter the Kingdom of God. His reaction to an adulteress, though, was to save her life and tell her to go forth and not sin.

Paul ranked homosexuality as a sin that was comparable to wrathful attitudes.

Here is another nice statement about wrath and the Kingdom of God:

1 Corinthians 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Take note: verbally abusive people will not inherit the Kingdom of God.


1 Thessalonians 5:9

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

It isn't nor will it ever be our position to cast such stones.

 

[Blackmarch]

It seems to me that a number of opinions frequently associated with christians and with conservative christians in particular seem to be in absolute opposition to biblical principles. It seems unethical, therefore, that christians hold these opinions.

Concerning the pursuit of riches, which most of us call capitalism:
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth (Mathew 6:19,20)

Matthew 6:26
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mark 10:21-25
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:24,25
24But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

I don't believe that one should strive to wealthy... however we are to be hard working and we need to save up for the day of famine. Quite often Christians who do follow those principles do get wealthy by and by, and not ecessarily because they seek riches. (I also note that such people i've met generally tend to be liberal with how they share it with others too).

Mark 10 is a work in progress... hopefully I'll be able to give up all instead of some at some point along my path.

War (Jesus even seems to command against just wars or even self defense):
Luke 6:32-36
32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

I agree. However I can not stand idly by and watch my neighbor be destroyed.... there is a fine line there and it is a difficult one to walk- One must be ready to forgive the enemy and stop, and then embrace them afterwards.

Capital punishment, all that noisy condemnation of homosexuality:
John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

this wasn't about condemning something wrong- in this case what was wrong is not disputed.

Matthew 7:1-4
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

this was Christ tabout the pharisees and/or sadducees and talking mainly about hypocracy... When one decides not to judge, that is a judgement itself... and there are times when judgement is required because humanity is not perfect.
However one should exercise caution (and restraint) in making judgements.

I think that's plenty to start. If you're going to respond, don't just call me an atheist liberal homosexual babykiller, cite the bible. Don't just say that I need the Holy Spirit to understand, cite the bible. Show me I'm wrong. If you're going to cite a theologian or a doctrine, include a bible verse that backs up the theologian or doctrine. Prove me wrong.



To the moderators: This thread may look like it belongs in American Politics, or even in our beloved lost GA, but I assure you, this is entirely an ethical discussion. The reasons will become apparent a little later, but if you'd like to know them now, I'd be happy to share them over private messages.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. I'm not skeptical that a person could be so generous, but I am skeptical that a person could be so indiscriminately generous and remain rich.
Also, biblically, I think the story of the widow's mite undermines the man's actions.

I think most of us feel the same way. His actions seem almost reckless to me, which is why I said that I wasn't commenting on his actions, but merely the motive of his heart. First, he didn't care if he remained rich, that was kind of the point. The fact that he has, so far as we know, remained rich, could possibly mean that God was blessing his actions simply because he saw his heart. The other thing is that it is possible that God directed each person who sent this man a request, or possibly protected the man from those who would take advantage of him. Maybe some have taken advantage of him, and God has used it to penetrate their own hearts. I don't know, but as I said before, the thing that touched me about this man was that he wasn't dependent on his money, and therefore was unbelievably generous with it. I do think his full dependency on Christ, and not the money that he had is a lesson for us all.
Please clarify what you mean about the widow's mite putting this man in the wrong. Thank you.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think most of us feel the same way. His actions seem almost reckless to me, which is why I said that I wasn't commenting on his actions, but merely the motive of his heart. First, he didn't care if he remained rich, that was kind of the point. The fact that he has, so far as we know, remained rich, could possibly mean that God was blessing his actions simply because he saw his heart. The other thing is that it is possible that God directed each person who sent this man a request, or possibly protected the man from those who would take advantage of him. Maybe some have taken advantage of him, and God has used it to penetrate their own hearts. I don't know, but as I said before, the thing that touched me about this man was that he wasn't dependent on his money, and therefore was unbelievably generous with it. I do think his full dependency on Christ, and not the money that he had is a lesson for us all.
Please clarify what you mean about the widow's mite putting this man in the wrong. Thank you.

Mark 12:41-44. The rich man gives from his wealth, but your Lord and Saviour praises the one who gives from her poverty.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't believe that one should strive to wealthy... however we are to be hard working and we need to save up for the day of famine. Quite often Christians who do follow those principles do get wealthy by and by, and not ecessarily because they seek riches. (I also note that such people i've met generally tend to be liberal with how they share it with others too).

Mark 10 is a work in progress... hopefully I'll be able to give up all instead of some at some point along my path.




I agree. However I can not stand idly by and watch my neighbor be destroyed.... there is a fine line there and it is a difficult one to walk- One must be ready to forgive the enemy and stop, and then embrace them afterwards.


this wasn't about condemning something wrong- in this case what was wrong is not disputed.


this was Christ tabout the pharisees and/or sadducees and talking mainly about hypocracy... When one decides not to judge, that is a judgement itself... and there are times when judgement is required because humanity is not perfect.
However one should exercise caution (and restraint) in making judgements.

You are wrong about wealth. Well, maybe you're not wrong, but your view is not in accordance with that of your Lord and Saviour. Consider Matthew 6:25-34:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.




Concerning the defense of others, you have appealed to my reason, not to the scripture. I agree with you, but I know of no evidence that Jesus does.


The issue on judgment is pretty clearly that condemnation of another is always hypocritical.

 

[Zebra1552]

You are wrong about wealth. Well, maybe you're not wrong, but your view is not in accordance with that of your Lord and Saviour. Consider Matthew 6:25-34:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Animals, where we get our food from, came from God. So did plants. How is eating them not relying on God for them?

Concerning the defense of others, you have appealed to my reason, not to the scripture. I agree with you, but I know of no evidence that Jesus does.

Jesus is silent on the issue of defense of one's life. A slap on the face is not a life or death situation.

The issue on judgment is pretty clearly that condemnation of another is always hypocritical.

Condemnation of the person, not their actions. Of course, one's attitudes and motives while condemning one's actions can also be sinful.

 

[The Nihilist]

Jesus is silent on the issue of defense of one's life. A slap on the face is not a life or death situation.

The man was put to death. He refused to defend himself against violence or before the law, and he refused to let others defend him. He may have not spoken on the issue, but I think it's a gross misrepresentation to say he was silent on it.

 

[Zebra1552]

The man was put to death. He refused to defend himself against violence or before the law, and he refused to let others defend him. He may have not spoken on the issue, but I think it's a gross misrepresentation to say he was silent on it.

Jesus had a mission to save all of mankind from their sin. Your point is quite moot.

 

[The Nihilist]

Also Luke 9:24

 

[Beanieboy]

I love you, Beanie, and I think that because you keep your eye on God you will come to the truths that you need in your life to make a good, positive peace.

We are all sinners and by no means can I lord judgment over you. I do think it is clear that homosexuality is against Christian values.

One thing that could be noted:

Christ did say, quite bluntly, that a rich man will never enter the Kingdom of God. His reaction to an adulteress, though, was to save her life and tell her to go forth and not sin.

Paul ranked homosexuality as a sin that was comparable to wrathful attitudes.

Here is another nice statement about wrath and the Kingdom of God:

1 Corinthians 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Take note: verbally abusive people will not inherit the Kingdom of God.


1 Thessalonians 5:9

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

It isn't nor will it ever be our position to cast such stones.

Sin isn't "a rule" that is like God saying, "Because I'm your Father, and I said so." Sin does something against another, or oneself.

Homosexuality itself doesn't do anything against anyone, just as heterosexuality doesn't do anything against anyone. However, rape, even if it is heterosexual, is sinful, because it's intent is to overpower and harm the other person, going against their will for one's own selfish ego. Adultery, as with the woman that Jesus did not condemn, wasn't just breaking a rule.

She was committing adultery against her husband, and breaking his trust in her, as well as emotionally breaking his bond with her. If your wife cheated on you, wouldn't you be hurt?

She probably had to lie in order to be able to commit adultery. Again, it makes the person lied to feel betrayed, and distrustful towards the person who lied.

So, basically, what you have with the woman accused of adultery is:
a) a woman who betrayed her husband's trust
b) a woman who emotionally harmed her husband by being physical with someone else against his will
c) possible lying to her husband

Her husband would be
a) hurt
b) angry
c) distrustful

THAT is why it's sin. It harms the relationship.

A loving homosexual relationship, just like a heterosexual relationship, doesn't do those things, so while you want to say, "Adultery is a sin" and then try to tie it to homosexuality, logically it fails. Why? For one thing, I could cheat on my partner, and commit adultery. I choose not to.

Yes, being gay, I have read all of the passages supposedly saying that homosexuality is wrong.

You quote Corinthians 6
There is more than one interpretation:

In I Corinthians 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute (as in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament described above). The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation. More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

It is amazing the number of times that you will see the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" or "pervert" in different translations concerning this text. It is amazing because no one knows exactly what the words of the original text mean! The layperson, unfortunately, has no way of knowing that interpreters are guessing as to the exact meaning of these words. Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written lexicons (dictionaries explaining the meaning of words) of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of the word within the scriptures themselves and also go outside of scripture and research literature written around the same time the scriptures were written. If the interpreter is already prejudiced against homosexuality they can translate these words as condemning homosexual sex even based upon little usage of that word in the Scriptures and little if any contemporaneous usage of that word.

The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".

The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. "No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 105-107) "Arsenokoitai" is discussed in the next section as it is found here and in I Timothy 1:8-11.

Quote source
Whosoever Magazine

 

[Zebra1552]

Also Luke 9:24

Your point? You think that *somehow* is talking about self defense? It's talking about what it takes to be a follower, the same principle is found in John 3 and Romans 6: Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Rom 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
Rom 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
Rom 6:13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Don't take the Bible out of context, please.

 

[Beanieboy]

To add, I appreciate your concern, but guess what?
Yeah, I've read Corinthians, Romans, Leviticus, Genesis, and every passage that people have claimed condemns homosexuality. I have been Christian all of my life, and spoke in tongues beginning in my late teens, and this issue is something that I have prayed to God about almost everyday of my life, because it is something that is part of me, and something I have had to go through.

As I said, what I was often told by conservative Christians was that all gay people are enemies of God, and that God hates us (me.) And that drove me to the edge of suicide, knowing that gay was something I was, not something that I did, and so, there was no other way to refrain from being gay than to end my life.

That is NOT what Christ taught. That was what the Pharisees taught.

And the people that claim to care about the issue?
They say things that show that they have barely even researched the subject.

I have looked at the translations, both sides of what scholars have found or believe, and then prayed to God, in English and in tongues, about the issue, every day since I was in my teens. I'm 46 now.

Here is the kind of stupid thing that someone Christian dares to say:

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Why?
Here's your first clue: 1. God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah already. Lot was searching for 1 good person to spare the two cities.

Clue two: The men weren't asking Lot to bring the two visitors out and have cocktails and party, and have an orgy. They were demanding. Men rape. Historically they did it to humiliate the enemy by putting him down to the level of a woman, and forcing him to have sex with the attacker. Don't believe me? Do you really think that guys who rape in prison are all gay? Really? Look it up. It happened in times of war as well.

Clue 3: Lot was a man. They didn't want Lot. They wanted the angels. Basically, they were going to rape the angels to snub God.

Clue 4: God needed to send angels with Lot and his family for protection. This was a time when towns were to be hospitable to strangers. However, in Sodom and Gomorrah, it was like walking into a bad side of town in a big city today. They would rape, steal, maybe even kill them, without remorse. The angels were bodyguards.

Clue 5: Since the men wanted to have sex with the angels, they weren't "homosexual" at all, but rather, after "strange flesh."

Clue 6: If you released two virgin daughters into a group of gay men, they would become icons like Madonna and Cher, and dance. Will and Grace? Gay men with female friends? Yeah, that.

Clue 7: Ezekial lists the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and homosexuality isn't among them. Sexual immorality is, such as, oh, say, coming to a new comers door, where you bang on it, and demand that two of the visitors come out so that you can gang rape them. It also lists pride, having plenty and ignoring the poor, young, and elderly.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

This to me sounds like the current state of the USA. It's proud, does whatever it wishes, even those in the church will often talk about how the government is "stealing their money" when the tax money is being used to feed the poor, even children. People worry about their own health care, at the cost of others. We have killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in this pointless war Sources - Antiwar.com, but they aren't "people." They are "Collateral Damage."

And then we have the nerve, wiping our overfed, fat mouths and putting our half eaten plates of food in the trash, to think that God somehow thinks that we are his favorite.

It's a wonder it doesn't rain fire on the US, but if it did, I'm sure the gay people would be blamed, because it is far easier to blame others than consider for a fact that maybe, just maybe, we are the ones who are sinning, and angering God, like the Parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

 

[Beanieboy]

I have been keeping my eyes open a lot recently, just because I sense that the end is here, has already started. I kept thinking of that sad, twisted story of a young 9 year old boy killed by a Pastor after being accused of being a witch. And thought about what I had said about feeling like large sections of the Church have turned against the teachings of love and forgiveness and mercy, and are now full of pride, condemnation, hatred, and anger, and I believe that it is the Church that will prop up the anti-Christ.

I asked God about this as I walked home, and I recalled Christ. He wasn't killed by the Romans. He wasn't trying to be entrapped by the sinners. He was trying to be entrapped and killed by those who, according to Scripture, taught the Scripture, but were false leaders, were wolves among sheep sent to destroy, to burden followers, and to keep them from God by serving their own egos. It was those in the Temple that strove to deligently to destroy Christ, and I believe it is those within the Church, that will bring about the power of the Anti-Christ, who will feed into their selfish self-righteous egos and try to oppress, if not destroy and kill, others whom they claim are "enemies of God". They will try and use OT verses, not unlike those who were trying to entrap Christ with the adulterer. And I believe that many of us, myself included, are going to be killed. But I was also reminded that they could kill Christ's body, but never his soul, never his spirit, and his death made him even stronger. And I take comfort with that knowledge.

 

[The Nihilist]

Your point? You think that *somehow* is talking about self defense? It's talking about what it takes to be a follower, the same principle is found in John 3 and Romans 6: Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Rom 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
Rom 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
Rom 6:13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Don't take the Bible out of context, please.

I'm not real sure what you're talking about

 

[Zebra1552]

I'm not real sure what you're talking about

I'm talking about your verse that's talking about dying to one's sinful self and rebirth in the Spirit, as referenced elsewhere in Scripture. I'm telling you that the verse you brought up isn't relevant to the conversation.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Mark 12:41-44. The rich man gives from his wealth, but your Lord and Saviour praises the one who gives from her poverty.

Mark 12:41-13:1 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. KJV He was making a point to show that the motive of her heart mattered more than the physical reality of what she had to give. This is actually consistent with what I have been saying. Nowhere in this passage does he condemn those with money, he is instead showing the generous heart of the one who might me looked over for her lack of portion. Consider this passage. Matt 25:29-30 29'For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. NKJV

 

[Blackmarch]

You are wrong about wealth. Well, maybe you're not wrong, but your view is not in accordance with that of your Lord and Saviour. Consider Matthew 6:25-34:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]? 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

We do not worry about being clothed or having food, nor is obtaining wealth our focus... however this was instruction to the disciples on how they were to travel and teach, and was not reiterated to the masses.Every time I have traveled and taught I have followed the same principle.So far nothing has been done to contradict the Lord.I suggest you look up malachi 3:10-12

Concerning the defense of others, you have appealed to my reason, not to the scripture. I agree with you, but I know of no evidence that Jesus does.

I doubt you have any evidence that Christ does not either. This was never a question that was ever given to him or the apostles if memory serves. And so there is no thing in the NT on this subject.second you were not specific.Here's why my stance on "war" (extrabiblical scripture)

The issue on judgment is pretty clearly that condemnation of another is always hypocritical.

You didn't say about condemning a person, you said "all that noisy condemnation of homosexuality".In either case I suggest you look up John 7:24. And yes when one does do judgements he should be prepared to recieve judgement.

 

[Beanieboy]

It seems to me that a number of opinions frequently associated with christians and with conservative christians in particular seem to be in absolute opposition to biblical principles. It seems unethical, therefore, that christians hold these opinions.

Jesus said, "And by this all men will know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for one another." This he said at the Last Supper, so it was very important.

So, I will ask you, Nihilist, what would you like to see to make you KNOW that someone is Christian, by there demonstration of love?

And more specifically, can I ask how I can demonstrate it more so that you don't guess, or suspect that I am Christ's disciple, but that you know it without asking.

I will add this: Thank you for this OP. It is helpful for me as a Christian. It opens communication between me and those who are not Christian. It also allows me to see how others view me, to assess that, to take that into account, and to grow in love, and grow in Christ. It is not condemnation as I see it, but rather, constructive criticism of how I can personally improve.

For those who you may have seen as being the anti-thesis of what Christ taught and stood for, I apologize. I wish we were saints, but we are still human. We want so much to believe that we have left our imperfect selves, and suddenly have become perfect as God is perfect. We desire it. And unfortunately, the way that we sometimes try to achieve this is by condemning others, and ignoring the beams in our eyes, focusing on the specks of others.

We all do it. It's human nature. I tend to do it by condemning Christians who are condemning, and not acting loving. I act in love for one reason, and that is because I allow God's love to flow through me. It is not my doing, but my submission to God that allows me to demonstrate perfect love. Any time I don't submit to God, I act in selfishness. I act in anger. I act without mercy. I act in condemnation, and it exalts myself, and disgusts God.

I am forgiven only because I forgive. I am forgiven only because God is merciful, and he shows me mercy to demonstrate how we should show mercy in kind.

 

[The Nihilist]

Sorry to leave y'all hangin, but I'm out of town. I'll be back probably late Sunday; we can play then