Peace to you,
unknown soldier wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:51 pm
tam wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:07 pmYou just disagree with other Christians regarding dogma.
No, I disagree with that which contradicts Christ and His words.
That is correct. You disagree with others regarding what you believe Christ said.
If we are going by what is written, then what Christ said is a matter of public record. It does not require belief to read and see what He said.
I disagree with those who contradict what He has said. Including you.
As the examples that I gave in my previous post (which you did not comment upon), should reveal.
As you well know I and many other people here often disagree with your interpretations of passages in the Bible. Do you see yourself as an infallible interpreter of scripture? If so, do you believe you are a prophet?
I did not provide interpretations. I provided examples of "Christianity" (the religion) - that are also a matter of public record - where "Christianity" has acted contrary to Christ's teaching and example:
**
Where was the love for indigenous communities when their children were taken from them and placed in residential schools where they were abused in every sense of the word, even killed? Where was the love for the freedom of people (the very freedom God gives us to choose)... when people have been forced to convert to the religion (or be tortured, punished, persecuted, even killed)? Where is the love for anyone (other than itself/themselves) when religions/religious leaders steal from and lie to their members? Where is the love for children and families who have been abused by leaders in the religion - and - those abusers have been protected by the religion/religious leaders?
Christ taught none of those things.
**
Again, Christ is not "Christianity" (the religion). "Christianity" (the religion) is not from Christ.
If it is such a confusing and strange set of documents, how exactly how is it that you seem to claim to know what it says, what it means?
Some Bible passages are relatively clear, and it's not difficult to understand what's being said.
I agree.
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
"Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy."
"Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
I've noticed that you tend to interpret what I say as "all or nothing." You also tend to look for inconsistencies in what I say. In this case, for example, you interpret my saying that the Bible is a strange and confusing set of books as my saying that everything in the Bible is strange and confusing. Of course, that's incorrect because like most people I allow for exceptions. Regarding any perceived lack of consistency on my part, I do tend to change what I say as I become familiar with new evidence and reasoning.
This is the reason I post examples for you (and anyone else) to see.
For example, if I discover a clear passage in the Bible, then that's a bit more evidence that the Bible may not be as confusing as I once thought. So if you're looking to discredit me by characterizing me as contradicting myself, please keep this approach of mine to new evidence in mind.
I'm not looking to discredit you. I'm trying to get you to question these erroneous interpretations that you have come up.
It is an important fact, however, that all the faithful agree that Christ is the author of their beliefs.
Are you now suggesting that we believe every claim that people make?
No. I'm saying that individual Christians, whether they are right or wrong regarding their beliefs, all see Christ as the author of their beliefs. In that way you are no different from them.
So then we TEST they are claiming - against Christ and His word.
Though what you have said here is incorrect. For example, some who profess to be Christians - who are leaders in the religion - don't even believe in God, much less that He has a Son.
How can a person claim that Christ inspired them to do the exact opposite of what He commanded, all the while claiming to be faithful to Him?
You would need to ask a person who makes such a claim,
No, I am asking you. You are the one claiming that people like Charles Manson are inspired by Christ. What makes that claim true? Just because he said so?
So again (question edited for clarity):
How can a person do the exact opposite of what Christ commanded, all the while claiming to be faithful
to Him?
but few if any Christians will say that Christ inspired them to do the opposite of what he said! I think it's safe to say that whatever people have done in Christ's name, they believed it was what he wanted them to do. They saw their acts as acts of faith to him.
Not counting the people who misuse His name in order to gain something for themselves of course. Like prosperity preachers for example. Religion and religious leaders can most certainly mislead the people who are looking to them. But we are supposed to be looking at and listening to Christ. He even warned us that there would be false prophets and false christs, who would try and mislead even the elect.
How exactly does that make sense?
Ask Andrea Yates
Again, I am asking you.
the Christian woman who drowned her children to save them from hell. In a sick way, Andrea was right if Christ was right. If the hell Christ preached exists, then she assured that her children would never go there.
Andrea Yates was reacting to a teaching from "Christianity" (the religion)... she was not reacting to a teaching
from Christ.
Christ did not preach the hell that "Christianity" (the religion) preaches.
I'm honest enough to conclude that there simply isn't enough evidence to decide the "true" Christ. He is whatever you want him to be.
If that is how you feel, you won't be going around claiming that the true Christ wants people to hate. Right?
That is correct in that I will not say that the "true" Christ wants people to hate. I'll just document the passages from the Gospel in which Christ is quoted as commanding people to hate their families.
All the while ignoring the context and evidence to the contrary?
Because I have done exactly what you just said
you will do... I have posted the MANY verses and direct commands that reveal what Christ taught, as well as the understanding that the apostles and disciples had on these teachings (about love), as well as the reasoning that goes with love being the law. But you will ignore all of that evidence, and focus on one single verse (the meaning of which we discussed on another thread). It is you who is making Christ what you want him to be, unknown soldier.
You may be reading his post with some bias. I don't see how his post says what you are claiming, and he has since stated that a person can be declared righteous by their actions (same as the quote from Romans states).
I already rebutted him demonstrating that he is contradicting himself regarding that "righteousness." Please read my posts too.
You did not rebut him. You misunderstood him.
1213 put the same verse up that I put up, from Romans, where some people do NATURALLY the things required by the law. They do not have the law, they do not even have to have heard the law, they simply have to do the requirements of the law NATURALLY.
I chose to answer your question with what my Lord has taught me. I did not learn it from Christianity (the religion with its many sects and denominations), though. I learned this from Christ.
Tam, I don't for a moment believe what you're saying here.
Instead of just focusing on me, perhaps you could take a look at the content of what I shared? Because that content answered your question (can an atheist be righteous, and deserve to be treated well).
I am not, however, a member of "Christianity" (the religion). I have never been a member of any of its sects or denominations. Of those few denominations that I have learned about (some in person, and some just from these discussion boards), I have not come across any that teach as I shared (as I have learned from my Lord).
...you are the one cutting the quotes short. You want these verses to be the 'smile on the crocodile', but these are not suggestions. These words are both truth and command.
Why is it so important to you to ignore that?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm well aware that the gospel quotes Christ as in some places using the word "love." We just disagree on what his true motives were in using that word.
So lets just examine the double standard you are using for a moment.
You quote a single verse about hating one's family, including one's own life (which we discussed the meaning of in another thread).
I share the MANY verses about love (for God, for one's neighbor, for one's enemies, for one another), and the many commands that Christ gave which show love (forgive, be merciful, give to the one in need, pray for those who persecute you, the golden rule, etc)... but all of these are just the smile on the crocodile's face?
...please post where Christ loved his enemies.
A - these are commands (not suggestions) and so it would not matter if I could not find a place to show you where Christ loved His enemies.
Oh sure--the heck with evidence!
There is a "BUT... " at the end of that comment (which you did not carry down in your quote) which is immediately followed up with the evidence that you asked for.
On the cross, Christ asked His father to "forgive them Father for they know not what they do". These were His enemies and He did exactly what He told us to do: pray for them, forgive them, do good to them.
But Christ told his "Father" to forgive them which I always interpreted as his asking that his God not immediately cast them into hell.
Well, that's quite the reach now isn't it? This interpretation of yours has no basis in reality and no evidence to support it. Where is the evidence that there was some kind of imminent danger of these people being immediately cast into hell unless Christ asked His Father to forgive them? That Christ was just asking for a delay?
I mean, come on. This makes no sense. This is just clutching at straws because the actual act does not conform to your narrative.
They were probably all damned later if Christianity is true.
"Christianity" (the religion) is
not true.
Christ is the Truth.
Moreover, Christ never did any good for any of them as far as I know.
Hence you asked the question; hence I provided examples (many of which you left out):
Truth comes from love, and Christ spoke truth to everyone. Everyone is invited to repent and come to Him, including those who are His enemies (though they would not remain His enemies).
He wept over Jerusalem (and so, the people in Jerusalem), knowing what they were going to do. You do not weep over those you do not love. Yet, they made themselves His enemies. Did He ever once call down fire upon anyone, or vengeance? No, He did not. He even rebuked His disciples for wanting to do so at one point. He took no lives, but instead GAVE His life.
You know, according to the law that they agreed to be part of, Christ could have demanded their lives for taking His life. He did not do that. Instead, He asked that they be forgiven. (Just as Stephen - a Christian - did, following the example that Christ set for us, and obeying the commands that Christ gave us).
This is just off the top of my head.
When He was being arrested, and one of His disciples (Peter) attacked the servant of those who came to arrest Him, Christ rebuked His disciple and said 'no more of this!' He then healed the servant.
The violent act of that disciple reflects the nature of Christ's sect. Christ rebuked the disciple because Christ knew his Father wanted Christ to die, so the arrest needed to proceed.
Christ rebuked the act that caused harm, and healed the servant. And as the Spirit has just reminded me, He did not have to heal the servant in order for the arrest to proceed.
How in the world could you know what is in Revelation when, according to you, the NT is a 'confusing and strange set of documents'?
Well, I can understand people being tossed into a lake of fire. Is that an example of the good things Christ did for
his enemies?
That is an example of the Judgment, and God (the Father of Christ) is the Judge. Not everyone receives eternal life. Some receive judgement and the second (eternal) death. This is based upon their deeds as recorded in their individual scrolls.
No one is
owed the gift of eternal life.
If Christ existed and said what the Gospel says he said, then he's maybe the biggest hypocrite in history.
The evidence is not with you on that one.
Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
