94 Camel

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10) backs this up.

 

Ace mentions interpretation of Scripture quite a bit, and in some cases, I think there is a tendency for some of us to be overly dogmatic about verses or sections of the Bible where it's difficult to tell whether something was a permanent lesson or a cultural example.

 

But for me, the greatest flaw made by both conservative & liberal types when reading Scripture is the tendency to take one verse or a handful of verses and build an entire theology around it/them. In the one I mentioned from 2 Thess. 3:10, if I just read that by itself, I could come to the conclusion that any government assistance program is a violation of the Bible--and I would be wrong. Conversely, I could look at "Do not judge or you too will be judged" and inaccurately assume that any judgment of any kind is sinful--and I would be wrong.

 

I believe one of the most important verses in the Bible is where we are told to "rightly divide the word of truth." We have to read God's word as a whole and not just pull little nuggets out here and there because they help support a certain belief we might have. I've made that mistake before and try to do my best to avoid repeating it.

Fair enough.

According to many theological historians . . . so you are interpreting the scripture and not taking it literally. THANK YOU.

 

As to the Hebrews of history, you are right they did not give handouts, they just plowed the fields, planted the seeds, irrigated it, weeded it, and let it grow, other than that they did nothing.

So you are saying that knowing the definition of a word is personal interpretation of the scripture? There is a big difference between that and saying that a portion of the scripture was Paul's opinion and did not come from God. As far as the Hebrews go, it seems very clear that the message is not to give enableing handouts, but rather give the opportunity for help through work and effort.

How many times did Ryle pass the ball against CovCath?

12. There were more passes where Hemple chose to run.

You are right it does, and all I can say is that Paul is writing from his world view. Paul also says that people should not marry, yet, I see Christians getting married every day. Paul says that women should be quiet in church - there are many, many denominations that allow women to be ministers, even to men their own age.

 

Paul also says that the "wifes body does not 'belong' to her, but also to her husband". At least in my house, "no" still means "no" regardless of what Paul says about my wife's body also being mine. Paul says not to take people to court, yet Christians do it every day.

 

Paul says not to associate with anyone who call himself a brother but is sexually immoral or GREEDY, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

 

Jesus says - in contradiction to Paul - I have not come to call the righteous but the unrighteous. He ate with sinners, even the loathesome tax collectors. Jesus was more at home with the sinners that the religious right of his day. What do I do when Paul contradicts the teachings of Jesus?

 

Paul also says (still in 1 Corinthians 6) that "Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial." What does that mean exactly. What does Paul say about divorce, what does Jesus say.

 

Paul does us not eat with sinners but then he goes on to say that if a believing wife stays with her unbelieving husband, the husband will be sanctified through her - what does sanctified mean here.

 

I post this not to be argumentative but to show why it is not so easy for me to simply say, well Paul said, so there you go.

If you have faith in the Bible, Paul is writing from the direction of God. I think that trying to break down the written word as being from the point of view of the person who wrote the verse is a humanistic stance toward the Bible, and not one of faith in its teachings. I once again will say that I find it difficult that we are supposed to believe the verses that we choose to.

So when I ask why "we" don't live this way, I am being morally superior? I have a certain perspective on what I believe are Jesus thoughts to OUR collective economics. I post a thread for discussion about that and it makes me sound morally superior - you have an odd view of a discussion board. I don't recall ever calling you out in that since. All Christians appear to be hypocrites, because none of us are perfect. Of course I have not taken a vow of poverty, that doesn't mean I can't talk about my understanding of how Jesus wants us to live. I also believe who doesn't want me to sin in any since, and yet I do it all of the time - does that make me a hypocrite, or does it make me someone who is struggling daily with my Christianity. I ask you again do you deny yourself daily, because if you don't and you claim to be a christian, then you too are a hypocrite - right? Of course not.

 

What I view as hypocritical is the level of Christians on this board that hold to the firm belief that the free market is the end all be all and that taxes are an abomination and that it is THEIR money to do with what they will. None of that is scriptual, so lets talk about it. I am more than open to being convinced that I am wrong, but you are certainly not going to do that by trying to shut me down because I don't live up to what I think Christ wants me to do. If we can't talk about it until we are living it perfectly, then we cannot talk at all about anything Christian. We surely cannot have another discussion about abortion until everyone who posts about it states that they are willing to adopt the next unwanted child. We cannot talk about the 2nd amendment and the right of self defense when we know that Jesus tells us not to kill - what then should we talk about? Should we talk about your morally superior life where you actually live what God expects of you every day, all day? I apologize that I am not yet there and am continuing to "work out" my faith.

In the Old Testament the Hebrews who were wealthy were supposed to leave grain in the edge of the fields for the poor to pick on their own. They were not supposed to pick it for them and give it to them. My interpretation of these scriptures are that we are supposed to provide ability for people to enable themselves, not provide enabling for people to live off of others without personal sacrifice. As far as the word kill goes, kill in old text, according to many theological historians, reffered to murder and not self-defense.

Sounds pretty much like every Christian I have ever known.

As it should. Without that faith, you are not practicing Christianity. You are practicing humanism.

Neither are the people who wrote the Bible, but you seem keen on taking them at their word....

If you don't believe in the Bible as an absolute truth, are you just supposed to pick and choose the parts that you want to believe?

Thank goodness, because I was not familiar with it either. So what do you do with that Quote from Jesus?

I believe that believing that Jesus is the son of God and my savior is the only way to reach Heaven. I also believe that we will all sin and will never reach the level of the forgiving figure Jesus was on Earth. I also believe in ritcheous indignation. In short, I try to live according to the principles of the Bible as close as I can, but I believe I will fail. I do however mean the Bible, and not just the New Testament. Jesus is my path to heaven as a sinner. His history in the Bible is not the only part of the book that I choose to attempt to adhere to.

You don't recall God telling the Israelites to kill all the women and children of a conquered people? To bash the heads of the little children against the stones? It is in there.

That is why I pray for God's mercy and not his justice.

:confused: Don't know that story at all.

 

Are you confusing it with the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11?? That was Peter, not Jesus that caught them in the lie. It is not mentioned that they are in the temple or their exact location.

I am incorrect. I was confused with another story out of the Old Testament.

If you don't mind sharing, what denomination are you?

Pentecostal Church of God

So you ignore where Jesus said "You have heard it said and eye for and eye and tooth for tooth, BUT I say to you . . ." I certainly thought being a Christian meant following the teachings of Christ.

Did Jesus not bring a man to his death who lied in the temple before him and God?

Just wondering - what makes their way a better perspective?

Nothing.

How is that? :confused:

 

Muhammad was born 500 years AFTER Jesus. :walk:

Seems my church has taught that the ancestors of the people who started the Muslim faith were the spawn of the illegitimate child of Abraham and Sarah's hand maiden, at least in early biblical history. Of course, the people that lived in these areas had a deep seeded hate for the Hebrews and were know by many different names throughout history. My point was that the hate goes back much further than both the Muslim and Christian religions.

How does that Jive with your Bible? Not saying it doesn't, just looking for clarification.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, nail for a nail. Being a Christian doesn't mean you only abide by the principles established in the new testament IMO.

FUNNY STUFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would call it more sad than funny. Something easily solved by establishing a running program and practicing doubles.

In answer, I would think that we could/should consider a couple of things, historic Christian/Muslim conflicts first and foremost. For centruies Christians invaded and tried to eliminate Islam, as well as Judaism. Historically, we have not been examples of Christ's NT teachings.

 

Secondly, that the culture in the Middle East is so far outside our understanding that we are naive to think we can understand it. Living as we do in America, as most of us Christians, we simply can't fathom either the religious/political/economic/sociological/combination of the previous, culture.

 

I guess my question to you is, why does it have to be our fault or not?

 

I think the best example of what attitude we should use to approach our relations can be found in the religiously based orgainzations that are in Afghanistan (for example) doiing what they feel is Christ's compulsion. An example is the organization that recently lost several members in Afghanistan, yet have vowed to continue their work there. They aren't trying to "convert". They're there trying to minister through medicine, improving living conditions, teaching methods of improving daily lives, and improving literacy. THAT is what I feel will ultimately change the misconceptions about Christianity.

Muslim vs. believer issues go back much further than Christ. Of course then there were no Christians, there were Jews.

Wow, I did not realize the coaches threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball. Maybe that was more of the reason they lost than coaching.

Those things are much more likely to happen if the team is not in shape. Dixie is not in shape.

Were you at the game?

Yes

What do you take issue with regarding Dixie coaching?

I would say that not having your kids in shape to play early in the season in a major problem.

Wow... so how is that counted? Is it a forfeit win for HHS JV, or is it treated like the game was never scheduled to begin with?

JV games aren't counted.

how about everyone admit that Dixie was not conditioned enough to play 4 quarters and New Cath was?

Not a problem. Dixie was sadly out of shape. The worse coach in the U.S. has the ability to have his team in shape. IMO, not having your kids in shape to play is inexcusable.

I predict no more than 10 passes thrown the entire contest for both teams combined.

Brad Weber 6-3 265 offensive tackle for Ryle would be a soph to watch.

I left after one hour and I don't recall Hempel doing much of anything during that hour. What did

he do in the 2nd half?

Hempel had eleven carries for 141 yards and a touchdown on the ground and was 66% with a td in the air.