|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on May 4, 2009 21:32:15 GMT -5
RR visitor here... A few years ago, I flicked through a Christian magazine. In it was a story of a Christian husband and father who loved to ride his motorcycle. But his wife freaked out about it. They went to their pastor for advice. The pastor told him that there would be motorcycles in heaven, and he didn't need to ride them on earth and, I guess, expedite his trip to heaven. The man gave up his motorcycle. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a while. I'm a lifelong Christian and biker. I've never read anything in Scripture indicating we should give up motorcycles or any other toys. Scripture admonishes us not to let "toys" take over our lives, but that doesn't mean we have to give up everything and live in a tent in the desert. Honestly, hon, if you're really from RR, I am shocked. Pleasantly so, but shocked nonetheless. I don't think anyone should have to give up the good things on Earth unless they've, you know, committed rape or murder and need to be imprisoned. I don't believe you or any other Christian should, either.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on May 4, 2009 21:57:44 GMT -5
***sigh again**** Mathew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 19:24 And again I say unto you, It 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. The verse you're missing changes the entire context of the passage; you should have posted it instead of going off on a tirade. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. This confirms that Jesus wasn't referring to simply being rich, but rather to people who loved their possessions so much that their love gets in the way of everything else. And while we're at it, let's look at the final few verses there. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Guess what - rrvisitor's post isn't actually that far removed from the letter of the passage, even if it is completely missing the spirit.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 4, 2009 22:38:59 GMT -5
***sigh again**** Mathew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 19:24 And again I say unto you, It 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. The verse you're missing changes the entire context of the passage; you should have posted it instead of going off on a tirade. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. This confirms that Jesus wasn't referring to simply being rich, but rather to people who loved their possessions so much that their love gets in the way of everything else. And while we're at it, let's look at the final few verses there. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Guess what - rrvisitor's post isn't actually that far removed from the letter of the passage, even if it is completely missing the spirit. Yeah, I know it's the willingness to give up the possessions. But I've yet to meet a TRUE CHRISTIANS(TM) that is willing to give up one iota of personal comfort for their beliefs. In fact they take the same argument as you (except usually they're smart enough to leave out the part that I bolded). That's why you worship the GOP, and believe that welfare is evil, even though Jesus was a liberal hippy Jew. I'm really tired, so I'm not sure if that came out the way it was supposed toOh, hell I'm waiting for a bunch of emails to come in.... Matthew 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Luke 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 5, 2009 8:18:49 GMT -5
LOL it only means rich people.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on May 5, 2009 10:34:52 GMT -5
That's why you worship the GOP, Actually, I have no party affiliation. It's just that the DNC has consistently failed to impress me for one reason or another. I'd actually consider going third-party if any of the third-party candidates actually stood a chance. Welfare isn't evil per se, but there is an alarming tendency for people to use and abuse the system. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. Sounds to me like you need to brush up on the Gospels. For starters, you had the situation where he grabbed a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple. That John and the Synoptics disagree on when the situation happened has led some scholars to believe that he did it twice over the course of his career. Then there was the fact that many of his sermons involved him teaching civil disobedience (a person would need to know what things were like then to catch it) or even calling out the existing religious authorities of his day. He actually went so far as to compare them to old tombs, which back then was such an utter insult that nowadays it'd be akin to accusing someone of being a pedo (the Mosaic Law was incredibly strict in regards to handling dead bodies; even coming near one was largely forbidden). And he's recorded as being a downright ass on a few occasions, either to test people's faith or because they'd gone too far on something. So the "liberal hippy" image that American liberals and Theology Lite ministers like to portray is actually pretty far from the mark.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 5, 2009 10:45:05 GMT -5
That's why you worship the GOP, Actually, I have no party affiliation. It's just that the DNC has consistently failed to impress me for one reason or another. I'd actually consider going third-party if any of the third-party candidates actually stood a chance. Welfare isn't evil per se, but there is an alarming tendency for people to use and abuse the system. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. Sounds to me like you need to brush up on the Gospels. For starters, you had the situation where he grabbed a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple. That John and the Synoptics disagree on when the situation happened has led some scholars to believe that he did it twice over the course of his career. Then there was the fact that many of his sermons involved him teaching civil disobedience (a person would need to know what things were like then to catch it) or even calling out the existing religious authorities of his day. He actually went so far as to compare them to old tombs, which back then was such an utter insult that nowadays it'd be akin to accusing someone of being a pedo (the Mosaic Law was incredibly strict in regards to handling dead bodies; even coming near one was largely forbidden). And he's recorded as being a downright ass on a few occasions, either to test people's faith or because they'd gone too far on something. So the "liberal hippy" image that American liberals and Theology Lite ministers like to portray is actually pretty far from the mark. Have you ever seen a pissed off hippy? Me neither, but I don't think it's all smiles and flowers.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 5, 2009 10:45:30 GMT -5
[For starters, you had the situation where he grabbed a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple. That John and the Synoptics disagree on when the situation happened has led some scholars to believe that he did it twice over the course of his career. Yeah, those "some scholars" being the ones that are more concerned with affirming the idea that the bible is literally true and inerrant in every word than in separating actual history from mythology.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 5, 2009 10:47:05 GMT -5
Have you ever seen a pissed off hippy? Me neither, but I don't think it's all smiles and flowers. Seriously, I'm pretty liberal (I've even been called a hippy by conservatives who considered it an insult), but that doesn't mean I can't also be an ass sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 5, 2009 11:21:46 GMT -5
Gotta remember, anything that vaguely supports their stance becomes hardcore fact.
Jesus wanted everyone to give up their possessions because this would make them humble and uncorrupt. this whole "Only the rich people" bullshit is a flat out lie and you know it
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 5, 2009 11:50:44 GMT -5
That's why you worship the GOP, Actually, I have no party affiliation. It's just that the DNC has consistently failed to impress me for one reason or another. I'd actually consider going third-party if any of the third-party candidates actually stood a chance. Welfare isn't evil per se, but there is an alarming tendency for people to use and abuse the system. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. Sounds to me like you need to brush up on the Gospels. For starters, you had the situation where he grabbed a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple. That John and the Synoptics disagree on when the situation happened has led some scholars to believe that he did it twice over the course of his career. Then there was the fact that many of his sermons involved him teaching civil disobedience (a person would need to know what things were like then to catch it) or even calling out the existing religious authorities of his day. He actually went so far as to compare them to old tombs, which back then was such an utter insult that nowadays it'd be akin to accusing someone of being a pedo (the Mosaic Law was incredibly strict in regards to handling dead bodies; even coming near one was largely forbidden). And he's recorded as being a downright ass on a few occasions, either to test people's faith or because they'd gone too far on something. So the "liberal hippy" image that American liberals and Theology Lite ministers like to portray is actually pretty far from the mark. This is the reason I left Christianity in the dust. The mental gymnastics they go through to not have to actually do anything for their faith is insane.
Charles Manson was a hippy, how laid back was he?
For fucks sakes have you not heard of the riots back in the 60's? Do you not know about the Berkley massacre? Ah yes, you need the secret seer stones to know what the book really means[/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 5, 2009 12:40:02 GMT -5
Welfare isn't evil per se, but there is an alarming tendency for people to use and abuse the system. It's supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. The last time you brought that up, someone posted some numbers that demonstrate that's bullshit. I'm disappointed you would then continue to assert the same lines. For starters, you had the situation where he grabbed a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple. So which part of "Liberal Hippie Jew" does that defy? Not liberal. Hell, I'm a liberal, and I own knives, swords, a baton, and a staff. I'm also well versed in firearm use, though I don't own one. Not hippie. My parents were hippies fighting 'Nam. Don't think either of them are completely passive just because of their hippiness. That only leaves Jews. And given the state of Israel, I doubt that they oppose chasing people out of anything, since they'll shoot or bulldoze you if you don't clear out. Or perhaps, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're operating on stereotypes. And which part of liberal hippie Jew does that preclude? Or is this more of the same "Don't know what you're talking about?" You yourself treat many liberal hippies as though they are asses, so that only seems to affirm the argument. Check and Mate. Assuming you're ignorant.... Sky, I just want to remind you how offended you are by assertions that you are a member of a cult who believe they will become celestial gods and join an eternal orgy. You do yourself no credit by decrying the "ignorance" of the critics then demonstrating complete ignorance of liberals and hippies. In fact, assuming your own interpretations of the Bible and what "scholars" say is completely correct, the only thing that is wrong is your conclusion. You've even used an example which would affirm a liberal viewpoint (Passive resistance) if true.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 6, 2009 1:24:59 GMT -5
Sky, not use the same old debunked bullshit and know what he's talking about?
Wow, you've got a long wait
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 6, 2009 8:16:01 GMT -5
Sky, not use the same old debunked bullshit and know what he's talking about? Wow, you've got a long wait Didn't say I was going to wait. Just seemed more productive to say I was disappointed than to call him a lying little fucktard.
|
|