[PERMANENTLY CLOSED]Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego

[Hikarifuru]

I would love to hear about you, regardless of your beliefs.

oh well I'm just an introverted ex christian preacher bible college student who became bisexual, a humanist and has no use for spiritual ideas anymore and I just like to see what Christians think about intriguing conflicts like these.

What do you think about the OP?

 

[anonymous person]

oh well I'm just an introverted ex christian preacher bible college student who became bisexual, a humanist and has no use for spiritual ideas anymore and I just like to see what Christians think about intriguing conflicts like these.

What do you think about the OP?

I am just an introverted Christian apologist who is heterosexual and have much use for spiritual ideas. I think the question in the OP is loaded.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I am just an introverted Christian apologist who is heterosexual and have much use for spiritual ideas. I think the question in the OP is loaded.

Ok, well why is it ok for Jesus to burn people alive for not agreeing but it wasn't ok for King N. to?

 

[anonymous person]

Ok, well why is it ok for Jesus to burn people alive for not agreeing but it wasn't ok for King N. to?

This is a loaded question.

 

[Hikarifuru]

This is a loaded question.

no it isn't... there is a difference, you believe they are different I want to know why. It isn't a loaded question. You just aren't comfortable in answering it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The bible praises the courage and integrity of Shadrach, Meshach and Abedegno and their willingness to face certain death in order to do what they believed was right. This evil tyrant threatened to burn them alive in a furnace if they did not worship the right god. This evil King was the epitome of cruelty and violence and evil.

Jesus also threatens to kill or torture people with a fiery furnace if they do not worship him and accept him and love him.

What is the difference?

Why should you care since you don't believe....Only believers care.....

 

[Hikarifuru]

Why should you care since you don't believe....Only believers care.....

uhm... its how you learn about different people... what is with you guys tonight?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The bible praises the courage and integrity of Shadrach, Meshach and Abedegno and their willingness to face certain death in order to do what they believed was right. This evil tyrant threatened to burn them alive in a furnace if they did not worship the right god. This evil King was the epitome of cruelty and violence and evil.

Jesus also threatens to kill or torture people with a fiery furnace if they do not worship him and accept him and love him.

What is the difference?

When you can explain this to me, we can talk....
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Cor. 2:14).

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" And He answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. ...

"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

"You will keep on hearing, but you will not understand;

And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive." (Matthew 13:10,11,13,14)[/QUOTE]

 

[ViaCrucis]

The bible praises the courage and integrity of Shadrach, Meshach and Abedegno and their willingness to face certain death in order to do what they believed was right. This evil tyrant threatened to burn them alive in a furnace if they did not worship the right god. This evil King was the epitome of cruelty and violence and evil.

Jesus also threatens to kill or torture people with a fiery furnace if they do not worship him and accept him and love him.

What is the difference?

The difference is that Jesus doesn't threaten to kill or torture people with a fiery furnace if they do not worship/accept/love him.

I seem to recall you being in these parts in the past asking similar questions. So I think it's worth asking if there is any response that you'll consider acceptable. For example since I don't believe in a Jesus who threatens to "kill and torture people" I consider the question to be itself flawed--is this an acceptable response to you?

If you want to know why I don't believe in a Jesus who threatens to "kill and torture people" it's pretty simple, such a conception of Jesus is one alien to the New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hikarifuru]

Civilwarbuff

1 Peter 3.15

Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

 

[Hikarifuru]

The difference is that Jesus doesn't threaten to kill or torture people with a fiery furnace if they do not worship/accept/love him.

I seem to recall you being in these parts in the past asking similar questions. So I think it's worth asking if there is any response that you'll consider acceptable. For example since I don't believe in a Jesus who threatens to "kill and torture people" I consider the question to be itself flawed--is this an acceptable response to you?

If you want to know why I don't believe in a Jesus who threatens to "kill and torture people" it's pretty simple, such a conception of Jesus is one alien to the New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran

I see, yes I think I recall you sharing that you do not believe in the traditional idea of a hell. I didn't really have much to say in response to that so I never said much in return. It seemed odd to me that you did not consider Jesus' parables the way I did.

Thanks for answering my question.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Civilwarbuff

1 Peter 3.15

Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

Still waiting on the explanation.....

 

[Hikarifuru]

Still waiting on the explanation.....

uhm ok... Jesus was wrong... but he still gave the parables, he still told them... and... not every non-believer fell under that classification, all the disciples started as non-believers too but he still talked to them and the bible makes it clear that god wants all people to be saved, that is why he died once for all sin. He doesn't desire any perish.

So it is folly that you use that scripture to avoid talking to non-believers. It rather seems like you're uncomfortable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It seemed odd to me that you did not consider Jesus' parables the way I did.

Do you suppose your particular upbringing might play a role in that? If I had remained firmly entrenched in the staunch fundamentalism and conservatism of the environments I had been raised I scarcely think I'd still be a Christian any longer; not because I need a different Christianity than "normal Christianity" (i.e. fundamentalism); but because I was able to realize that Fundamentalism wasn't "normal Christianity" it was an aberration of the modern era.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hikarifuru]

Do you suppose your particular upbringing might play a role in that? If I had remained firmly entrenched in the staunch fundamentalism and conservatism of the environments I had been raised I scarcely think I'd still be a Christian any longer; not because I need a different Christianity than "normal Christianity" (i.e. fundamentalism); but because I was able to realize that Fundamentalism wasn't "normal Christianity" it was an aberration of the modern era.

-CryptoLutheran

I think my upbringing definitely played a role in that. But I have found no way to take the bible as it is, in its entirety and arrive at a moral or reasonable place. People who can rationalize the horrifying parts of the bible seem to either dismiss or trivialize parts of it and they end up discussing something other than the bible itself, a higher and external truth or morality. They are something else, something I am not trying to discuss.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think my upbringing definitely played a role in that. But I have found no way to take the bible as it is, in its entirety and arrive at a moral or reasonable place. People who can rationalize the horrifying parts of the bible seem to either dismiss or trivialize parts of it and they end up discussing something other than the bible itself, a higher and external truth or morality. They are something else, something I am not trying to discuss.

Historically the Bible isn't the morality manual of the Church; but instead the Bible came into being and existed within the context of the Church's liturgy. The Bible is, as a Canon of Scripture, a liturgical document. The Scriptures were read out loud within the context of the liturgy, as part of the multifaceted engagement between God and man in the life of the Church and in Christian worship.

The Bible, historically, is not the Christian Qur'an. The role of the Qur'an in Islam and the role of the Bible in Christianity are fundamentally different. The Qur'an, in Islam, is the absolute Word of God which commands and instructs the ins and outs of the Muslim's life; in Christianity the Word of God is not a text, but a person, Jesus Christ--the Bible is that collection of writings which, received and held within the liturgical life of the Christian Church have been read in order to lift the faithful and point them toward Christ. It is in this capacity that they are called God's word.

St. Augustine, as an example, describes Christ as the "One Utterance" of all Scripture.

How one relates to the Bible will change, fundamentally, how one approaches, understands, engages with, and applies the Bible.

Fundamentally what is often the case is not merely that different Christians interpret the Bible differently; but different Christians have very different understandings of what the Bible's role and purpose is, and how it should even be approached in the first place.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hikarifuru]

Which ones?

weve talked about
1. How to talk to non-beleivers
2. What Peter meant
3. What I once was
4. The presence of god

 

[Hikarifuru]

Historically the Bible isn't the morality manual of the Church; but instead the Bible came into being and existed within the context of the Church's liturgy. The Bible is, as a Canon of Scripture, a liturgical document. The Scriptures were read out loud within the context of the liturgy, as part of the multifaceted engagement between God and man in the life of the Church and in Christian worship.

The Bible, historically, is not the Christian Qur'an. The role of the Qur'an in Islam and the role of the Bible in Christianity are fundamentally different. The Qur'an, in Islam, is the absolute Word of God which commands and instructs the ins and outs of the Muslim's life; in Christianity the Word of God is not a text, but a person, Jesus Christ--the Bible is that collection of writings which, received and held within the liturgical life of the Christian Church have been read in order to lift the faithful and point them toward Christ. It is in this capacity that they are called God's word.

St. Augustine, as an example, describes Christ as the "One Utterance" of all Scripture.

How one relates to the Bible will change, fundamentally, how one approaches, understands, engages with, and applies the Bible.

Fundamentally what is often the case is not merely that different Christians interpret the Bible differently; but different Christians have very different understandings of what the Bible's role and purpose is, and how it should even be approached in the first place.

-CryptoLutheran

I see.

I am talking about catholic or protestant Christians. Christians like yourself are a variety I haven't concerned myself with.

 

[Hikarifuru]

ok I need to go bed now

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am fully aware of what it feels like to think you are in ones presence.

not ones presence....the ONES presence....do you understand that? To stand in the presence of God Almighty?