What would YOU want to hear at church?

[Spade]

If only I had a time machine, I'd go back, pick up Tolstoy and William Blake, bring them back, and take them to a contemporary Church and see what they'd think of it.

“Love is life. All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists, only because I love. Everything is united by it alone. Love is God, and to die means that I, a particle of love, shall return to the general and eternal source.”
-Lev Tolstoy

 

[adopted]

Since when does believing in ethics have anything to do with believing in God?

ethics is about a sense of right versus wrong. if there is no God, and our universe is an accident, and we evolved from goo, then there is no source or meaning for ethics.

 

[darkbeaver]

“Love is life. All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists, only because I love. Everything is united by it alone. Love is God, and to die means that I, a particle of love, shall return to the general and eternal source.”
-Lev Tolstoy

Tolstoy was a student of the mysteries. That love is light itself in the old schools.

ethics is about a sense of right versus wrong. if there is no God, and our universe is an accident, and we evolved from goo, then there is no source or meaning for ethics.

The goo is your mother (matter).

 

[JLM]

ethics is about a sense of right versus wrong. if there is no God, and our universe is an accident, and we evolved from goo, then there is no source or meaning for ethics.

On THAT I have to respectfully disagree until I hear more details. :smile:

 

[adopted]

Suppose you have a dream that includes lusting after another woman, does that not count as committing adultery in your heart?

Of course it does, but Jesus' sacrifice was once for all time. If his sacrifice doesn't justify sinners today, then sinners today will go to hell. Either there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ," or there is no savior at all.

You can't win a theological dispute by quoting scripture, the Bible's sufficiently large, complex, and inconsistent, that you can find support in it for any position you'd care to take. I like 1 Thessalonians 5:21 myself: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

How is 1 Thessalonians 5:21 inconsistent with any other scripture?

... granting that it's true, the creator's responsible for the nature of what he creates, and if he has the characteristics your faith ascribes to him, he created us with the full knowledge of what was going to happen, there's no one to blame but him.

You're currently receiving oxygen into your lungs because God is being merciful with you, and then you're using your energy to complain and insult him.

 

[lone wolf]

Geez.... My dog even knows when he's done something wrong - and he doesn't even know how man complicates his life with gods

 

[darkbeaver]

Geez.... My dog even knows when he's done something wrong - and he doesn't even know how man complicates his life with gods

Your dog is a better christian than you are.

 

[adopted]

Geez.... My dog even knows when he's done something wrong ...

Yes, there is a general revelation of right/wrong granted by God. You just have no ability to explain why something is right or wrong, because you deny the existence of the very source of ethics. You ask Christians about "evil" as if it's a difficult thing for Christians to explain, but you yourself cannot answer the question, "why should one thing even be called evil?" (Or perhaps you don't call anything "evil.")

 

[spaminator]

What would YOU want to hear at church?

reverend: "in order for us to be saved we have to keep on sinning."

 

[lone wolf]

yes, there is a general revelation of right/wrong granted by god. You just have no ability to explain why something is right or wrong, because you deny the existence of the very source of ethics. You ask christians about "evil" as if it's a difficult thing for christians to explain, but you yourself cannot answer the question, "why should one thing even be called evil?" (or perhaps you don't call anything "evil.")

I deny?....

You have no idea of my abilities or level of Christianity.

Judgement is MINE sayeth the Lord. Therefore it's not the place for some twerpy little mouthpiece using his particular version of Christianity as billy club.

 

[Cliffy]

Yes, there is a general revelation of right/wrong granted by God. You just have no ability to explain why something is right or wrong, because you deny the existence of the very source of ethics. You ask Christians about "evil" as if it's a difficult thing for Christians to explain, but you yourself cannot answer the question, "why should one thing even be called evil?" (Or perhaps you don't call anything "evil.")

There is no evil, there is only ignorance.The devil is that part of us that we refuse to take responsibility for and project out and manifest as an eternal being. It is not true, it is an illusion. That is why I say that Satan is alive and doing well in Christianity. On the same note, god is that part of you that understands the difference between right and wrong, love and hate. We are, above all else, divine beings who create ourselves and our reality. We are pure spirit (energy) trapped in an experiment of physicality of our own making. We have been lied to by religion that has created a duality between spirit and matter. We are both. We are not separate from god (spirit) or each other (matter). We are not immoral sinners. We are lost in a lie that has disconnected us from our true selves by religion and the insanity of duality.

To be born again is to become as a child, to clear our minds of the clap trap of religious dogma, or rules and regulation governing our behaviour. Religion is a yoke around our neck, imprisoning us in the material world, cutting us off from our true spiritual nature. In that nature we cannot do wrong. It is impossible for a divine being to do wrong. If the bible were to be taken as metaphor, we would see that truth reflected there. It is the fundies and their literal interpretation that keep us from that realization. Christhood is a state of knowing the true nature of our being, a state of consciousness, not a person who died for our sins.

Jesus came to free us from sin, not by dying, but by trying to show us our true potential, where sin does not and cannot exist. He even said, that one day we would wake up to that fact and would do great works that would make what he did pale by comparison. It is time to wake up and claim our birth right. It is time to say "Get thee gone!" to the prison of the soul called religion and those who try to impose their servitude on the rest of humanity.

 

[Spade]

Well, you haven't answered this question.
If you claim to follow Yeshua the Nazarene, why are you not pacifists?

 

[adopted]

Beware the self righteous! We can measure the damage done by the rapist and the murderer, but we have no way to measure the damage done by the self righteous.
self-righteous
holier-than-thou, pharisaic, pharisaical, pietistic, pietistical
Synonyms
sanctimonious, pharisaical.

We don't have a debate on self-righteousness. It was the Christ of the Christians who spoke against the Pharisees.

Genuine Christians embrace the gospel not to declare themselves righteous, but precisely because they know that they are not righteous.

"How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me!" (You wouldn't call John Newton "self-righteous.")

"What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog such as I?" (You wouldn't call Mephibosheth "self-righteous.")

"Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." (You wouldn't call the Canaanite woman "self-righteous.")

Of such are the kingdom of heaven. So don't pretend that the label "self-righteous" applies to the proper followers of Christ.

I deny?....

You have no idea of my abilities or level of Christianity.

Judgement is MINE sayeth the Lord. Therefore it's not the place for some twerpy little mouthpiece using his particular version of Christianity as billy club.

Anchor falls on boat.wmv - YouTube

If you felt condemned or judged by what I said, that was your own conscience. I don't know you. You didn't answer the question. Perhaps you are a Christian?

Well, you haven't answered this question.
If you claim to follow Yeshua the Nazarene, why are you not pacifists?

I didn't post the question in order to position myself as an expert to answer your questions. I'm not an expert, I was just curious about your questions.

Since you asked, I'll start the answer to your question by pointing out that there's a difference between the individual and the state.

In the scripture, we are taught that the individual must not seek revenge (Romans 12:19), but then a few verses later we are taught that the civil government has the right (the duty!) to carry out God's wrath on wrongdoers. (Romans 13:4.)

See the difference? I am not the state. The ethics of the individual are not identical to the ethics of the state, which was instituted by God for the purpose of governing and bearing the sword of vengeance.

 

[Cliffy]

We don't have a debate on self-righteousness. It was the Christ of the Christians who spoke against the Pharisees.

Genuine Christians embrace the gospel not to declare themselves righteous, but precisely because they know that they are not righteous.

"How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me!" (You wouldn't call John Newton "self-righteous.")

"What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog such as I?" (You wouldn't call Mephibosheth "self-righteous.")

"Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." (You wouldn't call the Canaanite woman "self-righteous.")

Of such are the kingdom of heaven. So don't pretend that the label "self-righteous" applies to the proper followers of Christ.



If you felt condemned or judged by what I said, that was your own conscience. I don't know you. You didn't answer the question. Perhaps you are a Christian?

Besides "holier-than-thou" and "sanctimonious", Self-righteous also means that you know the truth better than anybody else, that anybody who does not believe as you do, is going to hell. You think you know the truth, but nothing could be farther from the truth. What you think you know may work for you but it does not apply to everyone. You are free to believe in whatever turns your crank, but to have that freedom you must give the same freedom to those who disagree. Your continued judgement of others is your self-righteousness. You continue down that path at your own peril.

 

[adopted]

Besides "holier-than-thou" and "sanctimonious", Self-righteous also means that you know the truth better than anybody else, that anybody who does not believe as you do, is going to hell. You think you know the truth, but nothing could be farther from the truth. What you think you know may work for you but it does not apply to everyone. You are free to believe in whatever turns your crank, but to have that freedom you must give the same freedom to those who disagree. You continued judgement of others is your self-righteousness. You continue down that path at your own peril.

If pointing people to the Son of God as the source of truth and salvation is a self-righteous thing to do, then I'm definitely self-righteous.

Which one of us here is not preaching what we believe to be true? By your definition then, we are all self-righteous.

But if I have found this one thing to be true, that Jesus Christ is the righteous Son of God and the Savior of the world, then this one thing I will say again and again. I would be a criminal to deny it.

Have I removed your freedom to disagree? Have I closed the forum topic? You're inventing false accusations.

 

[Cliffy]

In the scripture, we are taught that the individual must not seek revenge (Romans 12:19), but then a few verses later we are taught that the civil government has the right (the duty!) to carry out God's wrath on wrongdoers. (Romans 13:4.)

See the difference? I am not the state. The ethics of the individual are not identical to the ethics of the state, which was instituted by God for the purpose of governing and bearing the sword of vengeance.

The state was instituted by God!???? Holy Crap!!!

 

[lone wolf]

If you felt condemned or judged by what I said, that was your own conscience. I don't know you. You didn't answer the question. Perhaps you are a Christian?

Advantage? Me - for having a conscience.

Perhaps I am a Christian for not answering a question? Only in your peculiar version apparently.

Evil is a broad scope. Most starts with trying to manipulate others into one's own little hole.

 

[Spade]

I didn't post the question in order to position myself as an expert to answer your questions. I'm not an expert, I was just curious about your questions.

Since you asked, I'll start the answer to your question by pointing out that there's a difference between the individual and the state.

In the scripture, we are taught that the individual must not seek revenge (Romans 12:19), but then a few verses later we are taught that the civil government has the right (the duty!) to carry out God's wrath on wrongdoers. (Romans 13:4.)

See the difference? I am not the state. The ethics of the individual are not identical to the ethics of the state, which was instituted by God for the purpose of governing and bearing the sword of vengeance.

That is fatuous nonsense.

Besides, what you quoted was from a letter of Saul. The Roman Empire was ordained by Gawd? Preposterous...

 

[Cliffy]

If pointing people to the Son of God as the source of truth and salvation is a self-righteous thing to do, then I'm definitely self-righteous.

Which one of us here is not preaching what we believe to be true? By your definition then, we are all self-righteous.

But if I have found this one thing to be true, that Jesus Christ is the righteous Son of God and the Savior of the world, then this one thing I will say again and again. I would be a criminal to deny it.

Have I removed your freedom to disagree? Have I closed the forum topic? You're inventing false accusations.

You couldn't remove my freedom to anything. That is not what I was talking about. In your mind, what you have found is the only truth, so by that, in your mind, you condemn all others who believe differently than you to eternal damnation. Of course, that judgement does not affect me, but it may cause someone who has no faith to get a bad case of the heeby jeebies.

That is fatuous nonsense.

Besides, what you quoted was from a letter of Saul. The Roman Empire was ordained by Gawd? Preposterous...

Who was the head Gawd of the Romans? Is he saying it was that Gawd who ordained the Roman government instead of Jehovah? This fellow is getting more and more confused (or confusing).

 

[adopted]

... in your mind, you condemn all others who believe differently than you to eternal damnation. Of course, that judgement does not affect me, but it may cause someone who has no faith to get a bad case of the heeby jeebies.

Wrong. If I had condemned you to eternal damnation, I wouldn't even be speaking to you. I consider you a human being who is equally worthy and unworthy of all the same things I am worthy and unworthy of. If I knew the cure to cancer, I would not withhold it from you, considering myself more valuable. If I know the "one truth" you speak if, then of course I must discuss it with you. What would you do, if you knew the secret of eternal salvation?

Who was the head Gawd of the Romans? Is he saying it was that Gawd who ordained the Roman government instead of Jehovah? This fellow is getting more and more confused (or confusing).

It's not my doctrine, it's God's, and he shared it in his Book. You'll get a far superior explanation from the book of the Romans than you will from me. I'm not inventing this (that God instituted the state). You can look it up. If I'm confusing you, then use the better source.