The speech of the upright!

[Bobcat]

Scripture says the words of the upright deliver them so Jesus’ was not needed for forgiveness of sin.

His death and resurrection were not to save anyone. It was His example of servitude to the Father that was needed so that those who continue in His teaching could be saved.

Jesus agrees with scripture that the words of the upright deliver them when He said;

“By your words you’ll be justified and by your words you’ll be condemned.”

“The words of the wicked are a deadly ambush, but the speech of the upright delivers them.”Proverbs 12:6

[Bobcat]

[Replying to Wootah in post #38]

When Jesus said ; “If the son frees you, you’ll truly be free” He was saying that if your truly freed you will be the son because the son of God and son of man is the servant of God. Everyone must serve God in spirit and in truth.

“Genuine worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth for it is just such worshippers the Father seeks for God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

I think the words are simpler than that. If Jesus sets you free you are free indeed. How can you free yourself?

It’s always been about freeing yourself. Christianity changed it with their misunderstanding.

“When a wicked man turns from wickedness and does what is right and just he shall live.”

“The righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

“The LORD redeems the lives of His servants.”

“By your words you’ll be justified and by your words you’ll be condemned.”

“Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

“Whoever seeks the glory of the One who sent him is truthful and there is no unrighteousness in him.”

[bjs1]

I merely took a claim to a logical conclusion.

You took the claim half-way to it logical conclusion.

You are right that if no one is upright then those who claim the Bible is true are not (completely) reliable.

You left out the fact that if no one is upright then those who deny or question the truth of the Bible are not (completely) reliable.

[JoeyKnothead]

I merely took a claim to a logical conclusion.

You took the claim half-way to it logical conclusion.

You are right that if no one is upright then those who claim the Bible is true are not (completely) reliable.

You left out the fact that if no one is upright then those who deny or question the truth of the Bible are not (completely) reliable.

That's because I believe folks can be upright in the absence of religious belief.

[bjs1]

I merely took a claim to a logical conclusion.

You took the claim half-way to it logical conclusion.

You are right that if no one is upright then those who claim the Bible is true are not (completely) reliable.

You left out the fact that if no one is upright then those who deny or question the truth of the Bible are not (completely) reliable.

That's because I believe folks can be upright in the absence of religious belief.

Then it seems that Wootah’s challenge to you is valid. Name one person whose words are entirely upright.

I am sure that grandgirl 1 and grandgirl 2 and sweet and wonderful young ladies, but are you genuinely going to claim that every word they speak is perfectly trustworthy and accurate?

If you believe that, “folks can be upright in the absence of religious belief,” then it should be easy to name one person whose words are completely upright.

[Bobcat]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #43]

“Only in the LORD are righteous deeds and power.”

[Wootah]

“Whoever seeks the glory of the One who sent him is truthful and there is no unrighteousness in him.”

That means Jesus is truthful and was sent by God. Not you and I.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #43]

“Only in the LORD are righteous deeds and power.”

Well isn't that special.

Let me know we you can show you speak truth about it.

[boatsnguitars]

Well, there we go. When the Bible is Interpreted to mean different Dogmas, getting any of which wrong can (at least in some versions of Christianity) send one to Hell, what good does it do any of us to believe any Christian claim.

As we goddless say, "when you agree which god (and religion, denomination and scriptural interpretatiopn) get back to us." Until then Christianity has nothing much to offer.

Yep, it's amazing how - in the absence of God's ability to be clear - men are quick to rush in and tell us all what God means to say. Why does God need a translator?

Again and again, I see (what I call) people speaking for God. Christians do it here (in this case translating songs that are often explained away as "just songs" when it's about dashing babies on rocks, but when they need a religious point made in order to disparage some group, they are happy to use the songs...), Muslims do it, Mormons, Hindus, etc.


All religious people do is speak for God, and where is God to tell us who is right? Silently absent. We all see the con that religion is. All but the religious.

[JoeyKnothead]

Then it seems that Wootah’s challenge to you is valid. Name one person whose words are entirely upright.

I am sure that grandgirl 1 and grandgirl 2 and sweet and wonderful young ladies, but are you genuinely going to claim that every word they speak is perfectly trustworthy and accurate?

If you believe that, “folks can be upright in the absence of religious belief,” then it should be easy to name one person whose words are completely upright.

My point is thus...

Where the Christian claims that "none are righteous", then we can't trust the Christian. We can't even trust the claim there the Christian claims, because, ya know, "none". If only for me, "none are righteous" is better a consideration of the folks the Christian hangs out with. It fails to reflect what it means to exist in a world where struggle and strife are part of the daily struggle to survive.


Did my grandgirl lie when she said she didn't steal a cookie? Of course not. She doesn't fully understand the implication of what it means to lie. In her mind, she got her a cookie, and dang the consequences she can't even fully consider. Who on this planet it so vile, so cruel, so hateful, they'd begrudge a littler girl her cookie? And especially if she stole her an extra one just for me.

This "righteous" angle is just another empty Christian claim, where they can't show a god gives the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans. So they hafta try to guilt trip folks into belief. They have to try to avoid actually showing they speak truth. The Christian who carries on about "righteous" is doing a disservice to all who've done their best but had to cut a corner, who find themselves in difficult times and have to steal a piece of bread, or who fight and die for the freedoms the Christian will use to go about slandering any and all who reject goofy, unfounded, unproven Christian slurs and slanders.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #49]


Yep. This is the problem with the challenge 'if we can be upright without God, name one person of completely upright speech'.

Of course we can't, even if there was such a person. But - as you suggest - can the Christians (honestly - polemicals and politics aside) name one of theirs as being of completely upright speech? That is the problem - Nobody is of totally upright speech especially when they will use some doorstep -sales techniques as 'Have you never told a lie?' cue 'Yes, I've lied too, but I'm forgiven because of Jesus'. The point of sale being 'Convince them they are sick, then sell them the medicine'.

The secularist side being - of course - as it always was: 'No, we are not perfect. We are what we are and we try to make the best of it and - yes - with moral and social ideals up to the saintly, but knowing they are ideals, not divine promises, but not until we are dead and can no longer ask for a refund'.