The Pope Said It Best

[CriticalThought]

Well that puts an end to the discussion, doesn't it? You don't believe in the New Testament. AND it would be illogical to think that you believe in the Old Testament.

You don't believe in the Bible.

So why are you arguing with Christians in a topic about the Pope?

So...I don't agree with one part that means I don't agree with any of it? Bit of all-or-nothing thinker there, ain't ya? Every man is his own church. That is the reality because ultimately every man has to account for his own actions. That is my view. The Bible has some true inspiration in it, but a lot of it has been marred by centuries of politically motivated men putting their own spins and twists on it to suit their purposes. I try to look past that to the core truths hidden under all that historical muck. Individuals like yourself are...for lack of a nicer way of putting it...historically ignorant. You think the way you practice the religion is the way it has always been practiced when in reality, you practice an incredibly liberal version of it given what past Christians have historically felt justified to do with their interpretation of the faith. You cannot tell me what I do or do not believe because that is between me and my spirituality, and if it offends you that I believe differently than you, then please tell me what makes you the discerner of who should believe what? What gives you the right to say I have to follow your particular interpretation as if it is infallible?

 

[head of joaquin]

Nobody is equating sex with sin. It is how/when/with whom the sex occurs.

Not much of a distinction.

 

[head of joaquin]

But that doesn't give a license to sin.

You are making a category error. No act is a sin itself, not after the advent of Christ. It is intent that counts. Charity don't out of hate and spite is a sin. Theft done out of love is a virtue.

People who act out of love may make mistakes, but they don't sin.

 

[head of joaquin]

No distortion was done basing it on your statement:



Stating that God's Words could become irrelevant - ie sexual orientation - is saying God can become irrelevant.
That traditional Christianity MUST EVOLVE.

In current simplistic language, your statement translates to:
God must re-package Himself - and His moral laws - to fit into our current society.

Keep avoiding what the gospel and the epistles say. And instead attack me. It's all you can do. It's what doctrinal Christianity is reduced to.

Meanwhile Paul says EXPLICITLY in Romans 2, don't judge the sinners of Romans 1. And yet hee is the anti-gay cult of doctrinal Christianity judging the sinners of Romans 1.

It just doesn't get any clearer who is following scripture and who isn't.

 

[CriticalThought]

Nobody is equating sex with sin. It is how/when/with whom the sex occurs.

Sex outside of marriage is sin. Imagine if people in this country treated people who have premarital sex or people who cheat on their spouse the same way they treat gays. All this talk about "homosexuality is sin" and yet the same people have so little to say to their peers who they know are out cohabitating with a partner they are not married to or are having sex with multiple people as they date to find the "right one". A lot of planks in peoples' eyes, but the fixation seems to be in the specks in the eyes of their brethren. And unlike with homosexuality, Jesus sure did make the time to say a thing or two about adultery.

 

[Master PO]

You are making a category error. No act is a sin itself, not after the advent of Christ. It is intent that counts. Charity don't out of hate and spite is a sin. Theft done out of love is a virtue.

People who act out of love may make mistakes, but they don't sin.

telling yourself what you want to hear?

 

[specklebang]

No, you're the one saying that. I'm honored that you ascribe all this to me but regretfully you are just extracting portions of my posts rather than looking at the overall position.

You could just as easily say the Koran is written by God. All these prophets and their writings are the works of humans, not the creator of the universe. If anything, I offer more respect to God than you do. It's a big, big universe and to purport that God took a day off a couple of thousand years ago and came down to select these guys to write down what he said that day is kind of disrespectful. You give God no more credit than a manager at Burger King. As I said in another post, long ago and far away, I think these writers were "imbued with the spirit of The Flame".

As for "loving one another", well, I'm still waiting to see that happen. Maybe when the God you seem to want to represent becomes less hateful and more inclusive, I'll see that you were on the right path.

Yes. You got that right! And the pharse ...."is a human interpretation of what God MIGHT expect from us."

The same conclusion still applies:

You're saying the Bible is a compiliation of "claims" made by men who "claimed" they were chosen by someone who "claimed" to be the son of God, and they "claimed" to have been witnesses to various miracles, not to mention to His death and Resurrection, and they all "claimed" that.....we should love one another.

You're still saying the same thing: the Bible has no credibility.

 

[tosca1]

So...I don't agree with one part that means I don't agree with any of it? Bit of all-or-nothing thinker there, ain't ya? Every man is his own church. That is the reality because ultimately every man has to account for his own actions. That is my view. The Bible has some true inspiration in it, but a lot of it has been marred by centuries of politically motivated men putting their own spins and twists on it to suit their purposes. I try to look past that to the core truths hidden under all that historical muck. Individuals like yourself are...for lack of a nicer way of putting it...historically ignorant. You think the way you practice the religion is the way it has always been practiced when in reality, you practice an incredibly liberal version of it given what past Christians have historically felt justified to do with their interpretation of the faith. You cannot tell me what I do or do not believe because that is between me and my spirituality, and if it offends you that I believe differently than you, then please tell me what makes you the discerner of who should believe what? What gives you the right to say I have to follow your particular interpretation as if it is infallible?

You don't agree with the Apostles, because you don't believe them. So that's one thing you don't believe.....

Do you believe the prophets and those who wrote the Old Testament?

In what way are we historically ignorant? Cite.

What core truths do you consider the truth in the Bible?

 

[tosca1]

You are making a category error. No act is a sin itself, not after the advent of Christ. It is intent that counts.
Charity don't out of hate and spite is a sin. Theft done out of love is a virtue. People who act out of love may make mistakes, but they don't sin.

If you believe that, you must also believe that someone who makes more money.... out of love.......may make mistakes, but they don't sin.

You must also believe that the rich who had grown more rich do not sin, if their intent is borne out of love. Some rich people start out that way. They love their family that they want to make sure they wouldn't want for anything.

Being greedy and love of money (more so that one lets money become his master) is as offensive to God as much as immoral acts are offensive. Those are the stated truths in the Bible.

We humans can point out that an act such as killing, or stealing, or having an adulterous affair, or having sex with the same gender is a sin or an offense against God. BUT we cannot judge who'd go to hell or how God will punish them.
That kind of judgement is up to God.

Only God knows the intent of every person. Only God knows what measures He'll use when He makes His judgement....we don't know for sure if intent will count...or good works....however,

What He did say is that He'll be as merciful and forgiving to us as we're merciful and forgiving to those who had wronged us.

 

[tosca1]

No, you're the one saying that. I'm honored that you ascribe all this to me but regretfully you are just extracting portions of my posts rather than looking at the overall position.

Sorry, but I don't read all posts, therefore I have no clue as to what you've written but just the ones I've responded from here.

You could just as easily say the Koran is written by God.

No, I can't. Because it's not.

All these prophets and their writings are the works of humans, not the creator of the universe. If anything, I offer more respect to God than you do. It's a big, big universe and to purport that God took a day off a couple of thousand years ago and came down to select these guys to write down what he said that day is kind of disrespectful. You give God no more credit than a manager at Burger King.

God can do anything He wants. Whenever He wants. Unlike a manager at Burger King.

As I said in another post, long ago and far away, I think these writers were "imbued with the spirit of The Flame".

With so many threads, how many here I wonder follow each and every post you made, or even remember who wrote what?
I surely won't....especially when not only was it so long ago...but oh, so far away. You sound like the lyric of a song (Superstar)....I'm waiting for you to bust out singing the refrain that follows...

Don't you remember you told me you love me baby
Baby, baby, baby, baby ,baby oh baby :mrgreen:

As for "loving one another", well, I'm still waiting to see that happen. Maybe when the God you seem to want to represent becomes less hateful and more inclusive, I'll see that you were on the right path.

He is not hateful. He is inclusive. He died for ALL mankind....how much more inclusive can you get?

All He wants from us is to love and glorify Him by showing our Obedience and Repentance.

 

[head of joaquin]

telling yourself what you want to hear?

Personal attacks instead of reasoned debate of the texts at issue?

That happens a lot with doctrinal Christians faced with their heretical interpretations of scripture.

 

[head of joaquin]

If you believe that, you must also believe that someone who makes more money.... out of love.......may make mistakes, but they don't sin.

Well you clearly do, so this isn't much of an argument. But I can distinguish between sincere intent and rationalization. More importantly, God can.

Hence:


41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

 

[Master PO]

personal attacks instead of reasoned debate of the texts at issue?

That happens a lot with doctrinal christians faced with their heretical interpretations of scripture.

your idea that if a person acts in the name love, whatever he does under love is not a sin......hogwash.

If two people of the same sex engage in homosexual acts, under the guise of love, its a sin.......please stop with you new age interpretations of the bible.

 

[head of joaquin]

Only God knows the intent of every person. Only God knows what measures He'll use when He makes His judgement....we don't know for sure if intent will count...or good works....however,

Deflection. That's not the issue. If a Christian calls himself a Christian and is greedy (i.e., rich) Paul says don't even eat with that man. That's because rich "Christians" are fake and destroy our witness.

As to nonChristians we are not to judge, but share the gospel.

You are confusing these two situations, perhaps on purpose. It's a common trope of doctrinal Christianity to excuse the greed of its followers.


I Cor 9 - I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

 

[head of joaquin]

your idea that if a person acts in the name love, whatever he does under love is not a sin......hogwash.

If two people of the same sex engage in homosexual acts, under the guise of love, its a sin.......please stop with you new age interpretations of the bible.

Please stop with your unsupported distortions of the gospel. Jesus tells us that intent is what counts. If you don't accept Jesus' words, and Paul's words, but prefer your theology, just say so.

1 Cor 13. says it all.

But Galatians 5 isn't bad either:


1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

 

[Master PO]

Please stop with your unsupported distortions of the gospel. Jesus tells us that intent is what counts. If you don't accept Jesus' words, and Paul's words, but prefer your theology, just say so.

1 Cor 13. says it all.

But Galatians 5 isn't bad either:


1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Jesus--"i have not come to destroy the law of the Prophets, but to fulfill them"

the bible speaks and tells us people will in the future people will reinterpret the bible, to tickle their fancy, have it say what they want it to say.......thanks for showing us the bible is truth, and full of wisdom.

 

[head of joaquin]

Jesus--"i have not come to destroy the law of the Prophets, but to fulfill them"

the bible speaks and tells us people will in the future people will reinterpret the bible, to tickle their fancy, have it say what they want it to say.......thanks for showing us the bible is truth, and full of wisdom.

Yep, Jesus said that if you want the law and its condemnation (a curse Paul calls it), I'm not going to prevent you from condemning yourself. But if you want grace, I stand at the door and knock.

Sound like you've chosen the Law and its condemnation. Poor choice.



Romans 7:4 - Likewise, my
brethren, you have died to the law
through the body of Christ, so that
you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead
in order that we may bear fruit for
God.

Romans 7:6 - But now we are
discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive, so that
we serve not under the old written
code but in the new life of the Spirit.


Galatians 2:19 - For I through the
law died to the law, that I might live
to God.

Galatians 3:10 - For all who rely
on works of the law are under a
curse; for it is written, "Cursed be
every one who does not abide by all
things written in the book of the law,
and do them."

Galatians 3:23 - Now before
faith came, we were confined under
the law, kept under restraint until
faith should be revealed

Galatians 5:4 - You are severed
from Christ, you who would be
justified by the law; you have fallen
away from grace.

Galatians 5:18 - But if you are
led by the Spirit you are not under
the law.

Ephesians 2:15 - by abolishing
in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances,
that he might create in himself one
new man in place of the two, so
making peace,


James 1:25 - But he who looks
into the perfect law, the law of
liberty, and perseveres, being no
hearer that forgets but a doer that
acts, he shall be blessed in his
doing.

James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.

 

[specklebang]

Sorry, but I don't read all posts, therefore I have no clue as to what you've written but just the ones I've responded from here.

No, I can't. Because it's not.

God can do anything He wants. Whenever He wants. Unlike a manager at Burger King.

With so many threads, how many here I wonder follow each and every post you made, or even remember who wrote what?
I surely won't....especially when not only was it so long ago...but oh, so far away. You sound like the lyric of a song (Superstar)....I'm waiting for you to bust out singing the refrain that follows...

Don't you remember you told me you love me baby
Baby, baby, baby, baby ,baby oh baby :mrgreen:

He is not hateful. He is inclusive. He died for ALL mankind....how much more inclusive can you get?

All He wants from us is to love and glorify Him by showing our Obedience and Repentance.

Speaking of music, the group Tosca is one of my favorites.

Unfortunately, your perspective comes from faith and not logic.

The universe came from a force too complex for humans to even begin to understand. In the time of the prophets, humans though the sun rotated the earth and the stars were decor. The force that created the universe (for which I borrow the term The Flame) is the origin of all matter, all atoms. There are quintillions of planets and the universe is teeming with life. I don't know what percentage of planets are H-congrous but it certainly numbers in the quadrillions.

The Flame is unlikely to even be aware of our existence, let alone provide rule-books for us. Religion is the origin of government and various creeds have chose various representations of "God". The Bible is an early attempt to codify societal structure. If your religion dictates that god itself descended on earth and issued orders, then you may find my logic unsettling.

The Bible serves great purpose and I find it disturbing that only 3 commandments are observed and enforced. To stay on topic, at the time the Bible was written, any waste of human seed was discouraged, masturbation. homosexuality and sport****ing. We no longer have a population shortage so the arguments against "spilling seed" no longer are applicable.

I do not disrespect religions. They serve a purpose for some. Others simply choose the right path without religious influence. Even if you perceive an active-matrix deity who knows your name and counts your prayers, if anything will be judged it will be how you conducted yourself, not which prayers you read.

Also, I understand that you don't agree with anything I just said. So it goes...

 

[nota bene]

What are those three Commandments? I thought the ten were a package deal.

 

[CriticalThought]

You don't agree with the Apostles, because you don't believe them. So that's one thing you don't believe.....

Do you believe the prophets and those who wrote the Old Testament?

In what way are we historically ignorant? Cite.

What core truths do you consider the truth in the Bible?

I'm not going to get into a drawn out religious argument with you. You have your beliefs and I respect that, but you simply have to recognize that other people are going to have different interpretations. Honestly, I have learned from experience that there really isn't any point into going into historical debates on these issues because if people really cared about it, they would have done so on their own. Seriously, if some modern individual made the same kind of claims that Paul did regarding his conversion, then people would have ignored him or had him assessed by a mental health professional, and yet many Christian folk like to take him entirely on his own word and ignore his potential political motivations entirely. To the individual who takes the time to study the history of Christianity, they find it is a religion that has changed significantly through time, not stayed the same, but gone through dramatic shifts from the ancient times, to the dark ages, to the medieval, to the Renaissance, to the industrial age, to the postindustrial age, and finally to the information age. Hell, the Church arguably had same sex marriage during periods in its past until the church redefined marriage in the 13th century! Tell ya what, I'll give you a cite for that one.

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe: John Boswell: 9780679751649: Amazon.com: Books

 

[gilbertc1908]

Sex outside of marriage is sin. Imagine if people in this country treated people who have premarital sex or people who cheat on their spouse the same way they treat gays. All this talk about "homosexuality is sin" and yet the same people have so little to say to their peers who they know are out cohabitating with a partner they are not married to or are having sex with multiple people as they date to find the "right one". A lot of planks in peoples' eyes, but the fixation seems to be in the specks in the eyes of their brethren. And unlike with homosexuality, Jesus sure did make the time to say a thing or two about adultery.

We are all sinners.

It is that simple.

 

[tosca1]

Well you clearly do, so this isn't much of an argument. But I can distinguish between sincere intent and rationalization. More importantly, God can.

You can distinguish between sincere intent and rationalization? You must mean, you can only assume.....

 

[tosca1]

I'm not going to get into a drawn out religious argument with you. You have your beliefs and I respect that, but you simply have to recognize that other people are going to have different interpretations. Honestly, I have learned from experience that there really isn't any point into going into historical debates on these issues because if people really cared about it, they would have done so on their own. Seriously, if some modern individual made the same kind of claims that Paul did regarding his conversion, then people would have ignored him or had him assessed by a mental health professional, and yet many Christian folk like to take him entirely on his own word and ignore his potential political motivations entirely. To the individual who takes the time to study the history of Christianity, they find it is a religion that has changed significantly through time, not stayed the same, but gone through dramatic shifts from the ancient times, to the dark ages, to the medieval, to the Renaissance, to the industrial age, to the postindustrial age, and finally to the information age. Hell, the Church arguably had same sex marriage during periods in its past until the church redefined marriage in the 13th century! Tell ya what, I'll give you a cite for that one.

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe: John Boswell: 9780679751649: Amazon.com: Books

That's what I was trying to say...that,

.....You're in a Religion topic about the Pope's statement. What is the Pope?
You must realize that this thread will be heavy with Biblical references, and Christian-based opinion.

Non-believer's "interpretation" would be irrelevant if those views seek to negate what's written in the Scriptures, and try to argue the Bible to be non-credible.

 

[tosca1]

Unfortunately, your perspective comes from faith

What do you expect? Check out the thread you're in! And the OP's premise.

and not logic.

I beg to differ. All you have to do is re-read my responses to you.

 

[tosca1]

Well you clearly do, so this isn't much of an argument. But I can distinguish between sincere intent and rationalization. More importantly, God can.

Hence:


41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus was saying that this poor widow had given more by measure. A poor person that gives 10 dollars would've given more when compared to a rich man. God knows what giving that 10 dollars would've meant for the poor person - it meant that's 10 dollars less she'll have - which might mean she won't be able to afford meat to put on the table, or cannot buy that blouse on sale at WalMart etc..,
A rich person may give $500.00 on the plate.....but what is $500.00 to him?

So, explain how that quote is relevant to your statement that you'd distinguish sincere intent and rationalization?

For one thing, do you know how much rich people give? And why they give?