Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jojo

Easter: The Holiday so many Christians get wrong

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lefty said:

I'll likely regret asking, but I'm curious as to how you define "unstained from the world" (ESV) or "unspotted from the world" (KJV)

 

In line with that exhortation, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,..."
 

 

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
 

In the context the religious should deny their "self" and be charitable towards their neighbor. Having said that, "to keep oneself unstained from the world" is not to refrain from engaging in the world, or the unbelievers in the world which may be our neighbor. Other men may be lead astray by the world but in all our worldly engagements we are to seek what pleases God.

 

For example, on this subject of festival days which may or may not be dedicated to idols, some may celebrate pagan goddesses etc., but we may please God by bringing the message of the Resurrection on the same very Sunday in the festivities. I also find principles in other Scriptures which may apply to this subject matter. For example, meat etc that may be considered filthy or dedicated to idols. We are told not to worry about refraining from such meat but if it causes a weaker brother to stumble then we should refrain. Even applying the principle I may for example invite a new former Muslim convert to our Resurrection Sunday feast and offer him pork. Some are weak in the faith and may be bothered in conscience, likewise, the new convert may invite me to his house and it would be most inappropriate for me to bring pork and wine to his family table which may cause him much hardship. There's also Paul who preached at Mars Hill where many idols stood for many gods, but Paul still went to the place to preach the Gospel. He even used the idol which stood for an "unknown god" to bring knowledge to the true Lord. Likewise, Easter Sunday can be used in places to bring the Gospel message where pagans may indeed be worshiping another god.

 

What I do not find that the Scripture says, is that for me to be unstained from the world that I must beat everyone else down, criticize, and judge them but rather I am to keep "myself" unstained from the world, that is, to not lose my focus and be lead astray by the world but to keep in mind what is pleasing to the Lord. 

 

After all, I can always "wash my hands" afterwards.

 

Hope you didn't regret my response.

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

So no actual scriptural basis, just your personal interpretation of what is written?

 

It is one thing to give it in your own words, many a scholar have spoken straight out their backside on countless topics due to the constraints of their denomination's theology, but might I recommend that if you offer answer to a man, don't say "Be ye warmed and filled" without giving the so-called "Bread of Life".

 

I was thirsty and you gave me no drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lefty said:

So no actual scriptural basis, just your personal interpretation of what is written?

 

It is one thing to give it in your own words, many a scholar have spoken straight out their backside on countless topics due to the constraints of their denomination's theology, but might I recommend that if you offer answer to a man, don't say "Be ye warmed and filled" without giving the so-called "Bread of Life".

 

I was thirsty and you gave me no drink.

 

Do you know what exegesis and expository teaching is? Do you understand the difference between personal interpretation and application? When you say "interpretation" there are methods and principles of interpretation. Now if you're pushing for a fundamentalist approach to Scripture and going only by what Scriptures "say" rather than "mean" then I reject fundamentalism. I am Reformed and we are known to be systematic in our theology (using the entirety or totality of Scripture to answer a question rather than isolating a verse) and to infer or make inference (reason from Scriptures) in order to understand and convey what the author had in mind which utilizes both grammatical, historical, and a systematic principle and method of interpretation. For example, the Reformed principles and methods of interpretation which pertain to "reason" are Scripturally based:

 

  1. Isaiah 1:18 - The Lord said, "Come now and let us reason together."
  2. 1 Peter 3:15 - Be ready to give an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope within you.
  3. Acts 17:2; 18:4; 19:8,9; 28:23 - Paul reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove to them that Jesus was the Christ. [17:17; 18:19; 24:25]
  4. Hebrews 5:14 - We should have our sense exercised to discern good and evil.

 

However, I take what you say from a Scriptural basis seriously. Please take into account these Scriptures and the context surrounding the verses:

 

  1. Besides James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
  2. Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
  3. 1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
  4. Acts 17:16–34 

16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

 

22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[a] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

 

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said, "

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[c]

 

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

 

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lefty said:

So no actual scriptural basis, just your personal interpretation of what is written?

 

Just curious, but didn't you say that you were self-taught? I'm wondering on what basis you think your views about "correct doctrine" are more authoritative than his, or are less a "personal interpretation"? Note that I don't really care which views are "correct" and I don't really think there is any such thing as the correct view, per se, it's just interesting to me to see someone who identifies as atheist talk about interpretation in the way that you do. From a Christian perspective, it seems clear that the best criteria for settling disputes would be that the correct interpretation is the one that God would endorse, were He available to do so. But at least in his absence folks are doing their best to figure out what the answer is. But from an atheist perspective, what criteria are you using? I don't see how you can deride someone for relying on personal interpretation if your alternative is literally just your own reading of the text.

 

26 minutes ago, Christforums said:

I am Reformed and we are known to be systematic in our theology

 

I'm personally sympathetic to these attempts at systematization, because that's how I approach the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

 

Just curious, but didn't you say that you were self-taught? I'm wondering on what basis you think your views about "correct doctrine" are more authoritative than his, or are less a "personal interpretation"? Note that I don't really care which views are "correct" and I don't really think there is any such thing as the correct view, per se, it's just interesting to me to see someone who identifies as atheist talk about interpretation in the way that you do. From a Christian perspective, it seems clear that the best criteria for settling disputes would be that the correct interpretation is the one that God would endorse, were He available to do so. But at least in his absence folks are doing their best to figure out what the answer is. But from an atheist perspective, what criteria are you using? I don't see how you can deride someone for relying on personal interpretation if your alternative is literally just your own reading of the text.

 

 

I'm personally sympathetic to these attempts at systematization, because that's how I approach the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Acts 24:26

24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant,[d] said by the Holy Spirit,

“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
    and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
    and the rulers were gathered together,
    against the Lord and against his Anointed’[e]—

 

I'm including Scriptural verses because I was asked to take giving such basis seriously here. On that note, a systematic approach to Scripture is not only held by Reformed but also by true Protestants. In the Protestant Reformation the first principle established is Sola Scriptura. The authority of Protestants is Scripture rather than another standard of authority held by Catholics ~ the Church magistrate.

 

While I understand you were probably joking about the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien, I give it pause, because it's not the craziest thing I've heard. For example, the Cult Scientology is based on a fictional book and author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a joke. I tell jokes. People tell me they love 'em :P

 

I'm not sure if you are aware of the epistemological problem involved with citing a passage from a book to try to establish the authority of that same book? I don't mind the citations but I don't see how they can possibly be persuasive except to co-religionists who already share some basic presuppositions about your faith. They're appropriate enough if you're arguing with Jojo for example. In any case I think I understand well enough where you're coming from (and we could argue about it but I might have to get a little more bored at work before I really wanted to get too deep into it :P), but I find Lefty's perspective rather intriguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you know what exegesis and expository teaching is?

 

As expected. Tossing around words that aren't even in verse is typical of what I call churchianity teaching. Articulate sounding, but it is a smoke screen in my opinion. A great many fancy-sounding words that only serve to confuse. That whole mentality developed out of men who had a need to justify their own interpretations of those things which clearly are not scriptural.

 

Surely you believe "...every word of god is pure..."?

 

You can lay claim that taking just a single verse is not how you and your denomination roll, that there must be more to it to "clarify" the meaning, but I consider that a copout at best. So when the verse says, "Jesus wept", are you saying that more verses are needed to clarify the meaning of that verse? Are you really saying that verse cannot stand on its own? Surely not.

 

The claim is that the bible is the inerrant word, and that to me means that through divine inspiration "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy ghost...". It is insanity to claim that one cannot gain the correct understanding of a single verse, or a whole book of verses, considering the Holy Ghost that allegedly dwells within the believer is the one who interprets the meaning for the man. Man is not understanding it on his own intellect, and it is arrogance on a grand scale to claim such things. If you believe that you must have reference verses to complete the understanding, then you are the one that is lost, not me! What you "preach" is outright heresy, based on what it clearly says in your own bible, even though it is a screwed up tainted translation. I mean really, you can't even understand what the KJV says and instead go by some version invented not even 20 years ago? And you people wonder why the unbelieving mock you so much! 

 

Clearly, you missed those classes on what faith is as defined within scripture. You and your little group of believers is part of the problem, and you sure as hell aren't saving anyone. "Not of works lest any man should boast".

 

"...I hear there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

Colossians 2:16 "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."

 

No matter what the "religious" are going to find fault with another celebrating a holiday etc. Every year around the holidays there are criticisms and judgment by both unbelievers and believers alike. It's like a broken record but yet we still listen.

 

Scripture defines religion as simply this:

 

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

 

Amazing how religion today brings with it all the connotations of "legalism".

 

Widows and orphans...especially the widows...(E. Clampus Vitus) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lefty said:

 

As expected. Tossing around words that aren't even in verse is typical of what I call churchianity teaching. Articulate sounding, but it is a smoke screen in my opinion. A great many fancy-sounding words that only serve to confuse. That whole mentality developed out of men who had a need to justify their own interpretations of those things which clearly are not scriptural.

 

Surely you believe "...every word of god is pure..."?

 

You can lay claim that taking just a single verse is not how you and your denomination roll, that there must be more to it to "clarify" the meaning, but I consider that a copout at best. So when the verse says, "Jesus wept", are you saying that more verses are needed to clarify the meaning of that verse? Are you really saying that verse cannot stand on its own? Surely not.

 

The claim is that the bible is the inerrant word, and that to me means that through divine inspiration "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy ghost...". It is insanity to claim that one cannot gain the correct understanding of a single verse, or a whole book of verses, considering the Holy Ghost that allegedly dwells within the believer is the one who interprets the meaning for the man. Man is not understanding it on his own intellect, and it is arrogance on a grand scale to claim such things. If you believe that you must have reference verses to complete the understanding, then you are the one that is lost, not me! What you "preach" is outright heresy, based on what it clearly says in your own bible, even though it is a screwed up tainted translation. I mean really, you can't even understand what the KJV says and instead go by some version invented not even 20 years ago? And you people wonder why the unbelieving mock you so much! 

 

Clearly, you missed those classes on what faith is as defined within scripture. You and your little group of believers is part of the problem, and you sure as hell aren't saving anyone. "Not of works lest any man should boast".

 

"...I hear there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it..."

 

I'm sorry you actually think that way.

 

Regarding the context of 1 Corinthians 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,

 

Let's not forget (excuse me for being Reformed) the very next verse which states:

 

1 Corinthians 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

 

The very basis for denominations. Yet we are unified in Christendom and partake at the Lord's supper together.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just curious, but didn't you say that you were self-taught? I'm wondering on what basis you think your views about "correct doctrine" are more authoritative than his, or are less a "personal interpretation"? Note that I don't really care which views are "correct" and I don't really think there is any such thing as the correct view, per se, it's just interesting to me to see someone who identifies as atheist talk about interpretation in the way that you do. From a Christian perspective, it seems clear that the best criteria for settling disputes would be that the correct interpretation is the one that God would endorse, were He available to do so. But at least in his absence folks are doing their best to figure out what the answer is. But from an atheist perspective, what criteria are you using? I don't see how you can deride someone for relying on personal interpretation if your alternative is literally just your own reading of the text.

 

Extremely valid question. I'm glad you asked actually. I sincerely wish I could say more but it is as simple as reading it for myself, over and freakin' over in a span of nearly 25 years. Based on churchianity's definitions, I tend to be more of what they call a fundamentalist, but as I have said, I have never followed any preachers or teachers. I truly came to my own understandings simply from reading the King James bible. Unfortunately, there is no way I can prove that. Every denomination I have ever encountered are running counter to what is written in their own book. They simply do not practice what they preach. If they claim that the bible is the true word of god, then that is exactly what it's supposed to be, right? I believed that at one time, and took it as that face value. I had no previous official teachings outside of the basics when I was a child. I started reading it for myself in 1988 with no real understanding of what a belief was supposed to be or what the bible actually said, seeing I had never read more than a verse here and there till then. I simply decided that if I was claiming a belief of being Christian, then I needed to learn what that book has written in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Let's not forget (excuse me for being Reformed) the very next verse which states:

 

1 Corinthians 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

 

The very basis for denominations. Yet we are unified in Christendom and partake at the Lord's supper together.

 

 

Touche'. I was curious to see which direction you would go with that. Yes, I baited you!

 

We have a completely different take on it all. I simply reject your form of Christianity (and all other versions as well), sorry. I see the whole denomination thing as a means for men to manipulate and justify, not point out false brethren. However, revealing the errors within the believing has resulted none the less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif

 

If Christforums has the One True doctrine and Jojo has the one true doctrine, shouldnt they be the 'same' doctrine? Can Jesus be God and not be God at the same time? Is one of these people with the 'wrong' doctrine going to end up in Hell? Why would Jesus allow people to follow the wrong doctrine? I mean if you have a loving heart for Jesus you would think he would eliminate incorrect belief.

 

And if following the wrong doctrine is not enough to send you to hell, then who really gives a shit which one you subscribe to?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lefty said:

 

Extremely valid question. I'm glad you asked actually. I sincerely wish I could say more but it is as simple as reading it for myself, over and freakin' over in a span of nearly 25 years. Based on churchianity's definitions, I tend to be more of what they call a fundamentalist, but as I have said, I have never followed any preachers or teachers. I truly came to my own understandings simply from reading the King James bible. Unfortunately, there is no way I can prove that. Every denomination I have ever encountered are running counter to what is written in their own book. They simply do not practice what they preach. If they claim that the bible is the true word of god, then that is exactly what it's supposed to be, right? I believed that at one time, and took it as that face value. I had no previous official teachings outside of the basics when I was a child. I started reading it for myself in 1988 with no real understanding of what a belief was supposed to be or what the bible actually said, seeing I had never read more than a verse here and there till then. I simply decided that if I was claiming a belief of being Christian, then I needed to learn what that book has written in it.

 

I certainly don't have any issue with pointing out the failure of Christians to live up to their own values. Even when I was one I often said in all seriousness that I thought the best condemnation of a lot of Christians was in John: "by this they will know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

 

I do think though that your approach to interpreting scripture seems flawed, or at least you're applying it inconsistently. You said it yourself: "I truly came to my own understandings simply from reading the King James bible." You seem to treat that understanding as authoritative. I don't see how you can coherently criticize Christforums for merely offering his own interpretation. He could respond with exactly the same words. He can claim that while he can't prove it to your satisfaction he knows his interpretation is correct because of the level of effort he's made to come to his understanding. One thing I think is clear: he's also spent a lot of time reading the Bible.

 

My interest was mostly just curiosity, but I do think there's some value, from a secular/atheist perspective, to revisiting one's approach to the whole question of authority and epistemology. It seems a lot more coherent from a secular perspective to approach religious texts first as just plain old cultural artifacts where you would treat questions of meaning and intent no differently than you might treat questions about Shakespeare's plays. There's a place for scholarship -- especially with regard to placing works in historical context. There's also of course a place for individual interpretation and appreciation, but not with the same kind of emphasis on authority. And I think when you're dealing with human texts in general it's almost inescapable that "meaning" is not singular, nor fixed. It's normal for authors to mean one thing and readers to get something else. And if a text lives on in a culture for a long time then new generations will read it differently, almost necessarily. In practice it's not been any different with biblical texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points.

 

Indeed, who really gives a shit in the end. They are all wrong. Showing the craziness might help the brainwashed come out of their stupor.

 

It also serves to show that those buildings are full of people who actually are not really true believers but playing church. Their own book warns of those scoundrels. It's a difficult thing for a person to honestly look in a mirror and admit they themselves are the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Christforums said:

...

While I understand you were probably joking about the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien, I give it pause, because it's not the craziest thing I've heard. For example, the Cult Scientology is based on a fictional book and author.

 

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.  I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.  I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

-JRR Tolkien, Preface to Fellowship of the Ring

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

 

I certainly don't have any issue with pointing out the failure of Christians to live up to their own values. Even when I was one I often said in all seriousness that I thought the best condemnation of a lot of Christians was in John: "by this they will know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

 

I do think though that your approach to interpreting scripture seems flawed, or at least you're applying it inconsistently. You said it yourself: "I truly came to my own understandings simply from reading the King James bible." You seem to treat that understanding as authoritative. I don't see how you can coherently criticize Christforums for merely offering his own interpretation. He could respond with exactly the same words. He can claim that while he can't prove it to your satisfaction he knows his interpretation is correct because of the level of effort he's made to come to his understanding. One thing I think is clear: he's also spent a lot of time reading the Bible.

 

My interest was mostly just curiosity, but I do think there's some value, from a secular/atheist perspective, to revisiting one's approach to the whole question of authority and epistemology. It seems a lot more coherent from a secular perspective to approach religious texts first as just plain old cultural artifacts where you would treat questions of meaning and intent no differently than you might treat questions about Shakespeare's plays. There's a place for scholarship -- especially with regard to placing works in historical context. There's also of course a place for individual interpretation and appreciation, but not with the same kind of emphasis on authority. And I think when you're dealing with human texts in general it's almost inescapable that "meaning" is not singular, nor fixed. It's normal for authors to mean one thing and readers to get something else. And if a text lives on in a culture for a long time then new generations will read it differently, almost necessarily. In practice it's not been any different with biblical texts.

7

 

I understand your point. To be clear, please forgive me if I present my position as "authoritative", it's merely my personal understanding presented with confidence. Dare I say, one is more than free to read the bible and decide for themselves. If I am wrong, I try to own it and admit it. If you can show how these various versions of Christianity are not correct, then you have a good start at showing how the whole religion is a fraud. Maybe I'm naive, but I try!

 

As for Christforums, it's not personal. But the reality is that what I do believe now can be quite offensive to classically trained Christians, I was in his shoes at one time, though I didn't get the brainwashing of a denomination as he has. The challenge is to his doctrine, not his person. Unfortunately, it takes A LOT of explanations and referencing verses to explain what is sound doctrine, a task I keep telling myself not to go there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

christfuckems seems a little bit better prepared this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If Christforums has the One True doctrine and Jojo has the one true doctrine, shouldnt they be the 'same' doctrine? Can Jesus be God and not be God at the same time? Is one of these people with the 'wrong' doctrine going to end up in Hell? Why would Jesus allow people to follow the wrong doctrine? I mean if you have a loving heart for Jesus you would think he would eliminate incorrect belief.

 

And if following the wrong doctrine is not enough to send you to hell, then who really gives a shit which one you subscribe to?

 

 

 

What if.... hold onto your seats... I'm about to suggest something radical, but what if it's all bullshit made up by humans who are very good at bullshitting - especially to themselves? :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

christfuckems seems a little bit better prepared this time around.

 

No help to you, perhaps because I'm more relaxed after having made a friend here.

 

I come dressed casually.

 

Personally, I don't like engaging you. You're the epitome of a redneck in character and ironically in name. As a non white I've had very tragic dealings with ignorant trailer trash in the past. You'll have to work past my prejudices in order to reach me. I won't try.

 

If that means nothing to you it means nothing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question, though, if the bible really is the perfect revelation of a god who is both omniscient and omnipotent, how could two people come up with two such radically different revelations from it?  I could see something small, such as disagreement on whether Adam had a bellybutton or not; but whether jesus is god or not?  That's a pretty big deal.  And not being able to find an agreeable answer when both parties are reading the exact same text, as well as being (supposedly) guided by the same holy spirit, seriously undermines the credibility of both the book and the god who inspired it.

 

Lurkers, note this disparity and ask yourselves if this really is the best your religion can offer.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

No help to you, perhaps because I'm more relaxed after having made a friend here.

 

I come dressed casually.

 

Personally, I don't like engaging you. You're the epitome of a redneck in character and ironically in name. As a non white I've had very tragic dealings with ignorant trailer trash in the past. You'll have to work past my prejudices in order to reach me. I won't try.

 

If that means nothing to you it means nothing to me.

 

"...ignorant trailer trash..."?

 

Now now, that is a rather offensive comment. You as a loving Christian is supposed to love those who speak all manner of evil against you, right? What happened to turn the other cheek?

 

For the record, I, in fact, live in a mobile home in the southwestern desert, my family is from the heart of the southeast and more than one also live in a mobile home, and I know for a fact more than one have a confederate flag in their home and drive a pickup.

 

While some do have moments of ignorance, all that I know of past my grandparents not only went to high school but graduated and a few went on to college, including myself having served in the US Navy and got my degree with a BA in Multimedia/Digital Animation. My first cousin is actually a politician having been a state representative and is currently Register of Deeds in a major southern city.

 

"...You'll have to work past my prejudices..."? Nope, I sure don't, no one should. How about a much more reasonable option of you dropping your prejudiced stereotypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus tells Christforums that the trinity is correct and that Jojo is incorrect.

Jesus also tells Jojo that the trinity is false and that Christforums is incorrect.

 

Why does Jesus tell each of these Christians that the other is wrong?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Jesus tells Christforums that the trinity is correct and that Jojo is incorrect.

Jesus tells Jojo that the trinity is false and that Christforums is incorrect.

 

Why does Jesus tell each of these Christians that the other is wrong?

 

You are wrong there Brother Midnite - it is the holy spirit that tells the chosen of god the revelations.

 

However you are missing a third possibility - That its not the HS nor JC that are telling these guys anything. They could be false teachers spewing false teachings from satan.

 

For thusly Peter doth warn us of such:

 

Quote

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You are wrong there Brother Midnite - it is the holy spirit that tells the chosen of god the revelations.

 

However you are missing a third possibility - That its not the HS nor JC that are telling these guys anything. They could be false teachers spewing false teachings from satan.

 

For thusly Peter doth warn us of such:

 


 

 

 

So you're telling me that either Christforums or Jojo is an agent of Satan .... yes , yes, but which one?

 

And thank you for remembering 2 Peter 2:1 in our time of need here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.