India and Christianity

 I was taught that thinking of murder was enough, and actually doing it was just the icing on the judgement cake. As an imaginative lad, you can see where I was pretty convinced of my own damnation at an early age. Is this the usual view by the Catholics (and other denominations)?

James Lee wrote:  I was taught that thinking of murder was enough, and actually doing it was just the icing on the judgement cake. As an imaginative lad, you can see where I was pretty convinced of my own damnation at an early age. Is this the usual view by the Catholics (and other denominations)?

So eh James. Knowing that thinking was the same as doing how many people did you murder?

threefates:

You say, "You also see christianity from a pre-packaged concept. 

This seems to be the "mantra" that you ascribe to everyone but yourself: that they believe in a "pre-packaged" Christianity.  Do you believe that you are the only one who doesn't?  That you have somehow "figured it all out," and the rest of us - no matter how scholarly, well-read, or "in the Spirit" we may be - are all somehow "wrong?"  This is either arrogance or naivete.

Evidently I don't think I'm the only one... as I see many around me who do pre-scribe to the "pre-packaged" Christianity.  And no where did I state that I did.  I have however, worked it out for myself... as you have evidently for yourself.  If I've come to a different place than you, its probably because I feel it different.. and that has nothing to do with being scholarly... or arrogant or naivete... and please until you've died and come back with a message from God.. please don't assume that you have it all figured out also....

The differences between the Protestant denominations are not nearly as great as the similarities.  Indeed, despite their interpretative differences, they are far from being "pick-and-choose" sects.  With the exception of Catholics (who are world unto themselves, for better or worse), the Scriptural similarities between Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians - and even the more "literalist" denominations like Quakers, Mennonites and Jehovah's Witnesses - are near 75% or better.  It is primarily on "fine points" that they disagree, either vis-a-vis more "literalist" interpretations of Scripture, or with regard to which "rituals" are most important.  That you make the comment you do in this regard shows that, all your "scholarship" notwithstanding, you have a very limited understanding of the Scripture or how it applies to the various sects.  At the risk of sounding "smug" and defensive, you are not the only one who has not only been "around" scholars, but who has actually gone through scholarly ministerial studies.  This does not make me "infallible," or even correct all the time.  But it gives me as much knowledge and understanding of Scripture as many of those you call "scholars," and clearly far more than you have.

Excuse me, but isn't disagreeing on interpretations exactly what I said.  And I've been a baptist and an anglican and I can tell you that if they're 75% alike.... they tend to spend more time on the 25%... You are sounding a bit defensive, however. I'm not attacking your knowledge or your background or your ability to put it into words... however, I do think that the fact that you had "the calling" and have been thru ministerial studies... makes you clearly biased to those teachings.....

Excuse me?  Let's look at that phrase again: "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile the man.  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.  These are the things which defile a man."  This is as clear as can be.  It cannot be interpreted to mean that the phrase "evil thoughts" is being applied to "murders, adulteries, fornications, etc.  The clear intent is that "evil thoughts" is merely one item on the list.  Thus, it does not matter whether one's thoughts are evil as one is fornicating: "fornication" is, per se, a "defilement."  To read this any other way is either willful ignorance or wishful thinking.  Indeed, I am guessing that everyone else on this thread - believer or not - would agree with me on this, based solely on the passage as it appears.

I don't read it that way, as I said, I see that as evil thoughts in fornicating.  I guess you don't think that fornicating (other than married) can be anything but evil.  I just find that highly illogical.

You next state, "Oh and which wife, since wasn't the man allowed a few wives and concubines....??  How many women were allowed a few husbands?"

Which religion are you debating, Judaism or Christianity?  The "multiple wives" (with or without concubines) and "no multiple husbands" concepts are from Judaism, not Christianity.  And the former is not acceptable in Christianity (despite the Mormon claims).  In this case, your comment is blatantly and unnecessarily combative.

As far as I know at that time, Christians were still carrying more than one wife in the times that that was written.  And before, isn't most the rules in the old testament more Judaism than Christianity...?  And why would this be blatantly combative... if I see it as an issue...??

Next, you say, "Actually you're right, many of those women did have great stories.. and they were strong and independent women.. .even tho most times they were worried about their lives because of it.  It in no way changes the way they were perceived by men. Look at what Ester went thru for instance... And Sarah... had a husband who had children by a slave living in her tent with her... now that would of made me happy...I'm not sure how these stories are suppose to change the way I see things however...??"

First, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state that these women were "worried about their lives."  Why?  What Scripture can you cite to back up that claim?  And, indeed, even if there is such Scripture, what makes you think men in prominent positions for God were not also worried about their lives?  After all, most of the prophets were subjected to all manner of physical violence wherever they went.  Most died at the hands of others.  So what exactly are you referring to here?

Ester was worried about her life many times...and how many men do you know were stoned to death for having sex? Or and even Mary, the mother of Jesus... what do you think would of happened if the angel hadn't appeared to Joseph...??

Second, what do you mean by "Look what Esther went through?"  You mean, being married to a King?  Having to hide her faith?  Being chosen as the instrument to save the entire Jewish nation in Persia?  What exactly are you talking about?  Besides, if she "went through" something, that is simply SOP for those chosen by God for major roles - both women and men.

As I recall, some people tried to kill her and God had to step in? NO?? And basically just because she was a strong women.

Third, your comment about Sarah shows a truly sad ignorance of one of the most basic stories in Scripture.  It was Sarah who coerced Abraham into having a child by Hagar, because Sarah felt she was too old to bear children, despite God's promise that she would do so.  In this regard, your comment "now that would have made me happy" is not only incorrect vis-a-vis Sarah, but unnecessarily sarcastic.

Oh Maani, as I read it, Sarah wasn't in the least bit happy about it.. And I don't remember reading that Abraham was complaining at all.. Matter of fact, didn't Sarah make him send them away....

In response to Reed Lover, you then state, "Christ died for our sins... Do you see where anything changed afterwards?  Was he expecting a big change spiritually?  Did peace come to the world?  Did we all love our neighbors?  Did we all believe in him and follow his teachings?  Did war stop?   Was he expecting it to?  Doubt it!"

Jiminy Christmas!!  You clearly have little or no concept of what Christianity is about!  The answer to your question about whether Christ was expecting "change" is a resounding "Yes."  He expected it because he expected the Apostles and disciples to carry on His ministry, to live "Christ-like lives," and to teach others to do the same by preaching the Gospel "to all nations."  That a "big spiritual change" did not occur, or that "peace" did not come to the world, or that war did not stop, or that we do not all love our neighbors, or that not all believed in Him and followed His teachings does not alter the fact that He did, in fact, "expect" that change - or, at very least, "hope" for it.  I begin to feel that your "Christianity" is even shallower than I suspected.

You then state, "Sorry...show me a perfect christian...or what your idea of one seems to be... and I'll give in... somehow I don't I'll ever lose that bet..."  This comment also displays a dangerous ignorance of Christianity.  If you understand anything about Christianity - even the most basic precepts that 95% of Christians accept - then you know that the very notion of a "perfect" Christian is impossible, since all are "flesh" and all are thus prone to sin.  In this regard, your comment that "somehow I don't [think] I'll ever lose that bet" is not simply sarcastic, but borderline anti-Christian.

HUH?? You just say that the notion of a perfect "Christian" is impossible.. and then say that saying that borders on anti-christian???

Finally, you state, "Reed... get a clue... get out of the box, this is the 21st century."

And this means...?  Are you suggesting that God changes?  That Christ changes?  That the precepts that God and Christ "command" us to live under change?

Yes I do believe that God changes... If I'm created in the image of God... and I change... doesn't that pretty much say that God changes.  And why would you think he doesn't... ??

"For I am the Lord, I change not."  (Mal. 3:6)

 Did not Christ change things from the Old to the New Testament..??

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Don't be carried about with various and strange doctrines."  (Heb. 13:8-9)

"Preach the Word!  Be ready in season and out of season.  Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers.  And they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."  (2 Tim. 4:2-4)

Although you did not respond to my query in this regard re Paul and the Apostles and disciples, you apparently will only consider what Jesus Himself actually said and did.  And you provided the Beatitudes as something you believe in and follow.  Perhaps you missed something only seven verses later:

"Do not think that I come to destroy the law or the Prophets.  I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in heaven.  But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  (Matt 5:17-19)

Nothing changes simply because the centuries change.  God remains the same.  Christ remains the same.  The law remains.  The commandments remain.  Yes, those "in Christ" live "by faith," and "grace" is freely given.  But, as Christ indicated, this does not negate the law.

See now thats what gives religion a bad outlook... Life is all about change.  Even Christ made changes from what God had supposedly stated in the Old Testament.   When he actually lived on earth, he realized a little more what humanity was about, don't you think?  Walk a mile in my shoes kind of thing..  What you have stated is probably why Reed and the others feel the need to cast off religion.. because it has such a binding and illogical connotation from where you stand.  If I believed as you... I'd have to rethink that humanist point of view myself...

I am beginning to feel that your 14 years with the Bible Society (which you never stop using as support for your position...) is possibly the worst thing that could have happened to you vis-a-vis your faith, and your understanding of it.  As you correctly infer, "scholarship" itself is subject to bias.  Yet you claim a sort of "scholarship by osmosis" with regard to your time at the Bible Society.

Personally I saw it as a wake-up call.. and the fact that I can't take anything for granted, as you evidently do.  I don't claim a "scholarship by osmosis"... my years at the Bible Society, altho probably did make me read the Bible alot more... but my knowledge of Bible scholars is what makes me feel the way I do...

I pray for all non-believers, that God will "touch" them and allow them to know the "difference" that those "in the Spirit" understand, but that they cannot put into words that make sense.  Yet I pray even more for those, like yourself, who claim Christianity, but only those parts that are "logical" to them.  If I were you, I would bear in mind the warning in 2 Tim. 3, in which Timothy lists the traits of those who will live in the "perilous times" leading to the "end times."  Among those traits are: "...headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power."  (Emphasis mine.)

Funny, I find the love of God to be a pleasure... wouldn't that make it a sin!

threefates:

....  It is sad - in the extreme - to me that even Reed Lover, a "rabid" athetist, is easier to debate with than you, and is more willing to consider alternative positions. 

Now I got a big laugh out of this one... where have you ever seen Reed willing to consider an alternative position on religion... if you have an example of that... I'm dying to see it!!

And despite your contention that I believe that I "have it all figured out" - which I never said or inferred - not only are my views comparatively "elastic" (within the basic foundation of my faith), but I provide support for my positions via both Scripture and the hundreds of books and publications I have read.

See to me faith is something that has to be based from your heart, not from what you've read or studied... See you take that all in, along with experience and then you form your own opinion... and thats what I'm giving you.  I don't need to quote scripture.... or someone else's opinions, or experience or their biasness... I base it off my heart.. and to me thats less hypocritical than you spouting scripture at me.  I've heard so many ministers over the years give me their take on what the scriptures say... and hardly any of them saw it the same way.  I don't quote the scriptures anymore to prove a point... I find it pretentious...

Indeed, reading back over your responses to me and others, it is clear that your "debate skills" consist of a "defensiveness" undergirded by obstinacy, obfuscation, evasion, a seemingly deliberate misreading (and cherry-picking) of people's comments, and an almost total lack of support other than your own opinion. 

I know, I've been taking lessons from Reed... how'm I doing??

 For example, not once have you even attempted to support your position via Scripture.  Indeed, you have all but "disclaimed" the Scripture in its entirety - except, of course, those parts that you, personally, find "logical."  As you are a self-proclaimed "Christian," this is a serious matter.

Sorry Maani, but I think the fact that you could make that kind of statement, reflects on whether or not you understand what it means to be a Christian...

If you truly believe in your heart that your "walk" is the proper one, so be it.  However, I do not believe it is - I believe, based on your comments, that, at a very minimum, your walk has been "corrupted" somehow.  In that regard, the only thing I can do is pray and wish you peace.

I shall pray for you also, Maani... because I see your comments as a point of judgement and thats not what I was taught Christianity was all about either...