5Wide...I call it "Pick and Choose".

5Wide...I call it "Pick and Choose".

 

:thumb: I think that's the general term...:lol:

:thumb: I think that's the general term...:lol:

 

It is amazing to me Larry, Scooter, and 5 that your reading of the scripture and how God's word was revealed to you through Jesus is right and mine is wrong. When I point out things it is Cherry Picking and when you do it is because you are focusing on the whole word. Is it not possible that my AGENDA arises out of my reading of the SCRIPTURE. What possible agenda (which I would assume means it is a benefit to me) would cause me to want to love everybody, other than that is what I read in the Bible. Doesn't Jesus say it is easier to hate. "What good is it if you love those who do good to you, even the sinners do that, but you should love your enemy." As a straight male with a wife and 2 kids and a nice combined salary, what Agenda would I be pushing unless it is one that I have gotten from what the Word says to me.

 

One of the '"evil" words on another thread is 'wealth redistribution'. Well daggone it, that might be anti-American and anti-capitalism to you but it certainly ain't anti-scripture; a man ask for your coat give him your shirt too, and man asks for you to walk a mile, walk two. Taking the boys food and feeding the 5000 - the rich young ruler (who kept all of the laws) could not enter heaven until he sold all of his possessions and gave the money to the poor.

 

Again, go back to the teachings of Jesus, get on the computer and do a word search if you must and see whether or not the Son of God talked more about sexual immorality or more about how we treat the poor. JESUS EMPHASISED THE LATTER.

 

Jesus also saved most of his wrath for SELF-RIGHTEOUS religious right of his day than anything else.

 

If you take the whole body of Jesus Teaching then the only conclusion that you can come to is that your safest bet is love everyone unconditionally and when they ask for help give it to them, reagrdless of whether or not they are gay or straight or had an abortion.

 

How many of the hungry and poor in India do you think Mother Theresa lectured on their behavior. Or do you think she just loved and served them and let them see Jesus through her.

Ace...I believe you are missing the point.

 

I don't believe I have read a post from someone that professesses to be a Christian that wouldn't agree with saying that "loving your enemy" as well as giving of oneself and helping others is not a core of the CHristian belief. The Christians who post on here (even the ones I don't always agree with) would, I believe agree with you that this is a central focus.

 

I believe that you saying the message ends there. That is the ONLY thing to teach. If I misinterpreted your message, than I gladyly stand corrected.

 

What we are saying is yes, 100% we agree with you, that you have to teach the above message but there is also a hell that needs to be taught. And the latter is also important to teach.

Good Question???

 

What about this one?

 

Matthew 18: 12-14

What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wondered off? ?And if he finds it, I tell you the truth he is happier about than one sheep than about the nninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way you father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.

 

Appears to me that God will not stop until ALL have been found.

If the bolded is accurate, who did Lazarus (I believe that is who it was but if I am mistaken someone please correct me) see when he visited heaven and saw a man suffering in hell. And the man begged him to go tell his brothers. Was that man not suffering? Are you saying he was suffering in heaven since you feel that ALL will be found?

One of the '"evil" words on another thread is 'wealth redistribution'. Well daggone it, that might be anti-American and anti-capitalism to you but it certainly ain't anti-scripture; a man ask for your coat give him your shirt too, and man asks for you to walk a mile, walk two. Taking the boys food and feeding the 5000 - the rich young ruler (who kept all of the laws) could not enter heaven until he sold all of his possessions and gave the money to the poor.

 

 

How many of the hungry and poor in India do you think Mother Theresa lectured on their behavior. Or do you think she just loved and served them and let them see Jesus through her.

I agree and the posters on here I believe would agree with you that it is a Christian responsibility to take care of the poor. But I don't recall ANY SCRIPTURE that indicates that Jesus came to this planet to setup a government to do that. He did say he would establish his Church to carry out his Will. I do not recall him setting up ANY GOVERNMENT to do that.

 

In fact, if someone feels that the US government was setup as God's plan to carry out such wishes, who was supposed to be doing it the previous 1776 years?

 

Lastly, remember that this country has established a separation of church/state. So, any given in the name of the poor by the US government via tax redistribution is NOT in the NAME or for the GLORY of GOD. That is ACCORDING to the US GOVERNMENT THEMSELVES.

 

My personal view is that me giving $2,000 to a local foodbank, a shelter, etc, etc. is for God's glory rather than the government taking $2,000 in taxes, using 1/2 of it for administrative costs and $1,000 of it getting redistributed. My personal view is that local churches that are actively seeking to help out the poor through food programs, clothes closet, programs to pay for heating bills is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than sending my money to DC or Frankfort.

LBBC makes some good points.

 

Paying taxes under the threat of pentalty of the law if we fail to do so, to ensure that we do "the Christian thing" for the poor is not scriptural. God certainly requests that we give, but freely and joyfully, from a generous heart.

 

As much as I personally believe that a true Christian government would and could be beneficial, and truly look forward to a day when Christ personally returns and leads as He has promised, I also realize that I am predisposed to such governance. Far too many would see this (under human rule) as a type of Bible bashing, forced conversion. This is not in line with the freedom God has provided us to choose Him or the world.

 

The other side of that coin would require not only that we assist those truly in need, but that we cut out all support for things that are clearly out of line with God's Word. Again, I'm all for that personally, but I don't see that happening at this point in time.

 

Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God that which is God's. It's God's people's duty to care for the poor, not with Caesar's taxes, but with our free giving.

 

We are also taught that any man that is too lazy to work, should not be given food. The Pilgrims tried socialism, and found out quite paifully it doesn't work.

It is amazing to me Larry, Scooter, and 5 that your reading of the scripture and how God's word was revealed to you through Jesus is right and mine is wrong. When I point out things it is Cherry Picking and when you do it is because you are focusing on the whole word. Is it not possible that my AGENDA arises out of my reading of the SCRIPTURE. What possible agenda (which I would assume means it is a benefit to me) would cause me to want to love everybody, other than that is what I read in the Bible. Doesn't Jesus say it is easier to hate. "What good is it if you love those who do good to you, even the sinners do that, but you should love your enemy." As a straight male with a wife and 2 kids and a nice combined salary, what Agenda would I be pushing unless it is one that I have gotten from what the Word says to me.

 

One of the '"evil" words on another thread is 'wealth redistribution'. Well daggone it, that might be anti-American and anti-capitalism to you but it certainly ain't anti-scripture; a man ask for your coat give him your shirt too, and man asks for you to walk a mile, walk two. Taking the boys food and feeding the 5000 - the rich young ruler (who kept all of the laws) could not enter heaven until he sold all of his possessions and gave the money to the poor.

 

Again, go back to the teachings of Jesus, get on the computer and do a word search if you must and see whether or not the Son of God talked more about sexual immorality or more about how we treat the poor. JESUS EMPHASISED THE LATTER.

 

Jesus also saved most of his wrath for SELF-RIGHTEOUS religious right of his day than anything else.

 

If you take the whole body of Jesus Teaching then the only conclusion that you can come to is that your safest bet is love everyone unconditionally and when they ask for help give it to them, reagrdless of whether or not they are gay or straight or had an abortion.

 

How many of the hungry and poor in India do you think Mother Theresa lectured on their behavior. Or do you think she just loved and served them and let them see Jesus through her.

 

I was replying to something scooterbob posted. Nothing I said was directed at you, nor had anything you've posted on here in mind.

Ace...I believe you are missing the point.

 

I don't believe I have read a post from someone that professesses to be a Christian that wouldn't agree with saying that "loving your enemy" as well as giving of oneself and helping others is not a core of the CHristian belief. The Christians who post on here (even the ones I don't always agree with) would, I believe agree with you that this is a central focus.

 

I believe that you saying the message ends there. That is the ONLY thing to teach. If I misinterpreted your message, than I gladyly stand corrected.

 

What we are saying is yes, 100% we agree with you, that you have to teach the above message but there is also a hell that needs to be taught. And the latter is also important to teach.

 

:thumb:

 

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. But, if you love someone, then sometimes that means pointing out some sin in their life so they can correct it. I'm not saying we should spend the majority of our time preaching and teaching about hellfire and sin, but it does need to be taught. We aren't doing people any favors if we leave out anything...it all needs to be taught.

:thumb:

 

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. But, if you love someone, then sometimes that means pointing out some sin in their life so they can correct it. I'm not saying we should spend the majority of our time preaching and teaching about hellfire and sin, but it does need to be taught. We aren't doing people any favors if we leave out anything...it all needs to be taught.

 

 

2 Questions:

 

1. Where in the Bible does it instruct us to point out the sins of NON-Christians? I don't think anywhere. It talks about rebuking our brothers and sisters in Christ, but not about rebuking non-believers.

 

2. Why would a homosexual ever come to know Jesus if he/she is constantly being bombarded with what an abomination they are.

 

C. Philip Yancey has an awesome book (actually he has several) entitled What's So Amazing About Grace where he talks to a woman who has been a prostitute and is in an awful place in her life, and he asks her if she has thought about going to a church and talking with someone there and she says, Why would I go to a church, I feel bad enough about myself as it is?

 

True story, says a lot about Christians and the message we put forth.

Often the same thing and often intentionally done so in order to meet a preconceived intent. Unfortunately, the scriptures are worded in a way that easily allows for both interpretations and misinterpretations. Which is which? I suppose it depends on the interpreter and on his/her intent.

 

Please, please, please tell me that we are not starting down one of those post-modern "truth-is-what-you-make-of-it" arguments?

2 Questions:

 

1. Where in the Bible does it instruct us to point out the sins of NON-Christians? I don't think anywhere. It talks about rebuking our brothers and sisters in Christ, but not about rebuking non-believers.

 

2. Why would a homosexual ever come to know Jesus if he/she is constantly being bombarded with what an abomination they are.

 

C. Philip Yancey has an awesome book (actually he has several) entitled What's So Amazing About Grace where he talks to a woman who has been a prostitute and is in an awful place in her life, and he asks her if she has thought about going to a church and talking with someone there and she says, Why would I go to a church, I feel bad enough about myself as it is?

 

True story, says a lot about Christians and the message we put forth.

 

Using your mindset, On #2, why would a religious leader of Jesus' day ever change their ways with the way he lamblasted them?

Please, please, please tell me that we are not starting down one of those post-modern "truth-is-what-you-make-of-it" arguments?

 

Hearsay -

I am truly asking a question, and not trying to be smug:

 

When it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, or any other religious text, who is the final arbiter of truth?

 

This is the basis for the same question regarding morals. Make no mistake - I believe that some things are clearly wrong (if not, I couldn't support the death penalty). When it comes to morals, though, who is "right", and who is "wrong". How do we decide which person defines these terms?

 

 

Frances

Hearsay -

I am truly asking a question, and not trying to be smug:

 

When it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, or any other religious text, who is the final arbiter of truth?

 

This is the basis for the same question regarding morals. Make no mistake - I believe that some things are clearly wrong (if not, I couldn't support the death penalty). When it comes to morals, though, who is "right", and who is "wrong". How do we decide which person defines these terms?

 

 

Frances

That's easy Frances...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just ask me. :sssh:

 

 

 

That wasn't too smug was it?

Hearsay -

I am truly asking a question, and not trying to be smug:

 

When it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, or any other religious text, who is the final arbiter of truth?

 

This is the basis for the same question regarding morals. Make no mistake - I believe that some things are clearly wrong (if not, I couldn't support the death penalty). When it comes to morals, though, who is "right", and who is "wrong". How do we decide which person defines these terms?

 

 

Frances

I will give my two cents if that is okay to both you and Hearsay.

 

To Christians, my feeling is that the Bible is the final say. It would not make sense that God would want each Christian to find their own way in today's world and remake Christianity as they see fit with no guidelines. For me, that is a key reason why I feel that the Bible is the word of God. In the day's of the OT, they relied on religious leaders and that worked for awhile.

 

So for most issues in my personal world, it is the Bible. I feel in most issues the Bible and prayer and it is rather clear when looking it as a whole. (on a sidenote: to recognize God's voice and direction takes practice and a willingness to let him direct your life.)

 

God will make that final call at the end of time.

 

I can make no judgements on salvation or where a person is going but give advice and warnings based on what I read in the Bible. And HERE IS A KEY....

 

My advice and warnings should come with Scriptural reference. Not for a person to take LBBC's word because LBBC said (that does not go for my children) but because they see from Scripture how I arrived at that decision.

 

I SHOULD NOT say, you are XXXXX sin and you are going to hell. But say, here John whatever it says that people who live this life are endangering their salvation. You might want to reconsider your life choices.

 

I heard once about a pastor that impressed me. When people come to him, they ask him what do you think I should do Pastor Tom....and his reply is...let's see what Scripture says.