Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen

[narcissist]

Indeed Ryan. It means that God's infinite love only extends so far.

 

Many are called but few are frozen.

Many are chilled but few are frozen(?)

[Amanda]

Matthew 22:14 says that many are called but few are chosen. So does that mean even if someone does their best to appease god that their damned anyway? This is why religion is such a bad mind game. How'd you really know anyway if you are "chosen?"

 

Emerson, I hope you are staying away from fundamentalism... right? :wink:

 

I will say that I do believe the original manuscript from which the KJV Bible was taken, had some great teachings and allegories, mostly metaphorically presented.... before they got twisted and hijacked through these many centuries. *sigh* My suggestion to you is to think logical... which you seem to be doing.

 

 

 

Asimov... I loved this!

 

Thanks for the laugh...

 

Now the apostles and ministers of the gospel, the gospel being the life, death and resurrection of Christ (our salvation and the road the few choose) were sent to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept the offer. That would be applied to the part of the parable which is in verse 22:7.

 

You see the best a person could do to "appease God" is to accept His invitation to the kingdom of God, which is achieved through Christ, Jesus.

 

"Many are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the wedding-garment, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of the Spirit." -- Matthew Henry

 

If you have that you are chosen, my friend.

 

Sub Zero, I haven't seen you around for awhile. Glad you're still here! :wink:

 

I'm curious to know what you mean by "achieved through Christ, Jesus" and "salvation"? Now, I hope it is something that is well thought out and makes logical sense! Please, do not use Bible verses to explain this. According to your criteria, Hitler was "chosen" and Ghandi was not. What about all those people born where there wasn't any mention of Jesus? Condemned by default? Doesn't it make sense to just live one's life respectful to all life, than to just claim a label or name?

[Open_Minded]

Matthew 22:14 says that many are called but few are chosen. So does that mean even if someone does their best to appease god that their damned anyway? This is why religion is such a bad mind game. How'd you really know anyway if you are "chosen?"

 

Actually Emerson it does not mean that at all. Set your presuppositions aside and understand what the passage was intended to mean. It has much more significance and a deeper level that we need to reach, which requires explination. Parables, as that is what is clearly being spoken in by Christ, is "a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle" according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary...... Blah.... Blah... Blah.....

 

Sub .... Sub.... Sub.... (shaking head)

 

I honestly wish you hadn't chosen to use the word "presuppositions".... it reminded me of an exchange you and I had. So... I went and did a bit of research... and guess what I found.

 

(Sub_Zero)

(Open_Minded)So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God.

Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that!

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=140720

 

Sub ... in order to have an honest conversation ... it might be best if you set your own presuppositions aside. Just a thought....

[Guest sub_zer0]

Sub ... in order to have an honest conversation ... it might be best if you set your own presuppositions aside. Just a thought....

 

No, you see, I am merely saying that she should look at the Bible from a view that doesn't make the Bible fallible, but give it a chance is all.

[Open_Minded]

Sub ... in order to have an honest conversation ... it might be best if you set your own presuppositions aside. Just a thought....

 

No, you see, I am merely saying that she should look at the Bible from a view that doesn't make the Bible fallible, but give it a chance is all.

 

Are you willing to look at the Bible from a view that DOES make the Bible fallible, give it a chance? How can it be an honest conversation if you are not willing to entertain the possibility that the Bible MAY in fact be fallible?

 

You want Emerson to be open to the possibility that the Bible is innerant, and yet you are not willing to be open to the possibity that things do NOT need to be read literally (as if they are actual historical fact)?

 

Come on Sub, let go of your own presuppositions before you ask others to let go of theirs.

 

(Keep one other thing in mind BEFORE you respond, Sub. Most people on this board have already gone through a period of their lives where they looked "at the Bible from a view that doesn't make the Bible falible". They already gave it a chance. They've lived both sides of the equation, Sub ... so they have the right to say they won't go back to viewing the Bible as infalible. Have you lived both sides of the equation, Sub? Has there been a time in your life where you thoughtfully viewed the Bible as falible or errant?)

[Guest Emerson]

 

Emerson, I hope you are staying away from fundamentalism... right? :wink:

 

 

Yup! I hate fundamentalism and the fight over which religion is "right." But I do have questions, after all these years of being a xian, and like to explore them without xian glasses on.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Are you willing to look at the Bible from a view that DOES make the Bible fallible, give it a chance? How can it be an honest conversation if you are not willing to entertain the possibility that the Bible MAY in fact be fallible?

 

You want Emerson to be open to the possibility that the Bible is innerant, and yet you are not willing to be open to the possibity that things do NOT need to be read literally (as if they are actual historical fact)?

 

Why shouldn't they be read literally? The thing is there is no good proof to prove that the Bible isn't inerrant.

 

(Keep one other thing in mind BEFORE you respond, Sub. Most people on this board have already gone through a period of their lives where they looked "at the Bible from a view that doesn't make the Bible falible". They already gave it a chance. They've lived both sides of the equation, Sub ... so they have the right to say they won't go back to viewing the Bible as infalible. Have you lived both sides of the equation, Sub? Has there been a time in your life where you thoughtfully viewed the Bible as falible or errant?)

 

The fact that you still don't believe that the Bible is infallible proves that you never gave it a chance.

[Open_Minded]

You want Emerson to be open to the possibility that the Bible is innerant, and yet you are not willing to be open to the possibity that things do NOT need to be read literally (as if they are actual historical fact)?

Why shouldn't they be read literally? The thing is there is no good proof to prove that the Bible isn't inerrant.

 

That's not the question I asked, Sub. To be specific I want to know whether you are willing to be open to the possibility that things do NOT need to be read literally (as if they are actual historical fact)? Will you even allow yourself to consider that POSSIBILITY, Sub?

 

Once you convince people on this board that you are open minded (no pun intended) about the POSSIBILITY that the Bible is not 100% historical factual recordings delivered from the hand of God Himself ... at that point there is a more honest conversation happening. Until then - all you want is for others to give up their "presuppositions" even though you are not willing to let go of your own "presuppositions".

 

 

(Keep one other thing in mind BEFORE you respond, Sub. Most people on this board have already gone through a period of their lives where they looked "at the Bible from a view that doesn't make the Bible falible". They already gave it a chance. They've lived both sides of the equation, Sub ... so they have the right to say they won't go back to viewing the Bible as infalible. Have you lived both sides of the equation, Sub? Has there been a time in your life where you thoughtfully viewed the Bible as falible or errant?)

 

The fact that you still don't believe that the Bible is infallible proves that you never gave it a chance.

 

WTF.... You're not serious

 

This is a board of ex-christians. Most of them come out fundamentalist/literalist backgrounds. Once upon a time most of them read the Bible the same way you do now - that would be literally, as in in their minds it was innerrant. What part of that don't you get? How did they not give it a chance?

 

Man... don't make me laugh so hard - it hurts.

[Guest sub_zer0]

That's not the question I asked, Sub. To be specific I want to know whether you are willing to be open to the possibility that things do NOT need to be read literally (as if they are actual historical fact)? Will you even allow yourself to consider that POSSIBILITY, Sub?

 

Sure.

 

Once you convince people on this board that you are open minded (no pun intended) about the POSSIBILITY that the Bible is not 100% historical factual recordings delivered from the hand of God Himself ... at that point there is a more honest conversation happening. Until then - all you want is for others to give up their "presuppositions" even though you are not willing to let go of your own "presuppositions".

 

I asked Emerson, not anybody else to do this, so I won't comment on presuppositions anymore.

 

Why should I be open-minded to the fact that the Bible is not historical? What is the evidence to prove I should not look at it this way.

 

WTF.... You're not serious

 

This is a board of ex-christians. Most of them come out fundamentalist/literalist backgrounds. Once upon a time most of them read the Bible the same way you do now - that would be literally, as in in their minds it was innerrant. What part of that don't you get? How did they not give it a chance?

 

Man... don't make me laugh so hard - it hurts.

 

You don't see, that I don't read it the same as you do or did when you were apprently Christian. You see the fact that you do not any longer perscribe to that view is enough for me to realize you weren't reading it the same way.

 

Obviously one who has a heart for Christ genuinely having a heart for Him, as in a lifelong commitment to Him and understands and reads the Scriptures, will ever turn their back on them.

[white_raven23]

You don't see, that I don't read it the same as you do or did when you were apprently Christian. You see the fact that you do not any longer perscribe to that view is enough for me to realize you weren't reading it the same way.

 

Obviously one who has a heart for Christ genuinely having a heart for Him, as in a lifelong commitment to Him and understands and reads the Scriptures, will ever turn their back on them.

 

Whether you like it or not Subby, O_M IS a christian. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if more exposure to close-minded folk like you encourage her to de-convert. And the fact that you plainly are not sensitive to the risks of insulting your bretheren, is proof you don't really believe this crap either, and are simply jealous of our happiness that requires no approval of invisible beings.

[Open_Minded]

I asked Emerson, not anybody else to do this, so I won't comment on presuppositions anymore.

 

OK .. 1st things 1st.

 

Thank you Sub, thank you for realizing that you have no right to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself. I do mean that.

 

2ndly

 

You don't see, that I don't read it the same as you do or did when you were apprently Christian. You see the fact that you do not any longer perscribe to that view is enough for me to realize you weren't reading it the same way.

Sorry Sub, it isn't, "when you were apparently Christian".......... I AM Christian.

 

And 3rdly:

 

Obviously one who has a heart for Christ genuinely having a heart for Him, as in a lifelong commitment to Him and understands and reads the Scriptures, will ever turn their back on them.

Who are YOU to know what is my heart (or anyone elses heart for that matter)? Just because I do not read the Bible literally does not give you - or anyone else - power to see what is in my heart, how I feel about Christ and why I read the Bible the way that I do. You know nothing of my commitment to Christ or to Christianity. You don't know me, period and so you have no right to judge, none. When you can gather up the strength to let go of your presuppositions I might have reason to talk to you about my own journey - until that time - keep your assumptions to yourself.

 

And last - but definitely NOT least....

 

Why should I be open-minded to the fact that the Bible is not historical? What is the evidence to prove I should not look at it this way.

I'm going to leave this one for the big boys and girls - you put your head in a noose here, Sub. (Shaking Head)

 

 

P.S. Thanks for your support White_Raven.

 

.... One last thing ... the original topic was "Many are Called but Few are Chosen".

 

You know Sub - we are all called to use the brains we are given. All of us are called to do this... very few choose to do this, though. Most people prefer emotion to logic. Emotion doesn't require work, thinking does.

[Guest sub_zer0]

 

P.S. Thanks for your support White_Raven.

 

.... One last thing ... the original topic was "Many are Called but Few are Chosen".

 

You know Sub - we are all called to use the brains we are given. All of us are called to do this... very few choose to do this, though. Most people prefer emotion to logic. Emotion doesn't require work, thinking does.

 

You being a Christian and all, what is it you believe then.

[Open_Minded]

.... One last thing ... the original topic was "Many are Called but Few are Chosen".

 

You know Sub - we are all called to use the brains we are given. All of us are called to do this... very few choose to do this, though. Most people prefer emotion to logic. Emotion doesn't require work, thinking does.

You being a Christian and all, what is it you believe then.

 

See the following quote from my earlier post ...

 

When you can gather up the strength to let go of your presuppositions I might have reason to talk to you about my own journey - until that time - keep your assumptions to yourself.

 

We've had this discussion before Sub. I'll be happy to discuss what I believe and why. My only criteria is that the person I'm talking to be willing to explore other points of view with an open mind (no pun intended). If you want to show me you are willing to talk about these issues with an open mind answer the question I asked you two previous threads....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=148144

So....now Sub - considering the fact that Dr. King was willing to embrace other religions and looked upon the Love experienced in those religions as equal to the Love experienced within the Christian tradition ... where are you at with it?

 

Do you feel that Dr. King understood Christ in the "Set" ways that you do?

Choosing "set ways to believe in Christ and how to view Him", is choosing a closed mind. So, when you convince me that you can have a conversation with me - about these issues, and have that conversation with an open mind (no pun intended) then, and only then, will I answer your question.

 

Sub.. I'm not trying to be contradictory here... but this is important to me. I'll talk about practically anything as long as I know the person I'm speaking with is willing to accept the validity of a different perspective. Answer the question I asked you about Dr. King. If you can't tackle that question - then you're not willing to really hear what I have to say about my Christian faith and experience.

 

I sincerely do hope you decide to wrestle with the question I've asked you (now for the third time) - I really do....

[AtheistMommy]

Matthew 22:14 says that many are called but few are chosen. So does that mean even if someone does their best to appease god that their damned anyway? This is why religion is such a bad mind game. How'd you really know anyway if you are "chosen?"

 

Awww, damnit! Does this mean less people will be chosen during the rapture? I was looking forward to getting free cars, money and houses. Damn, now what am I going to do?!

 

The verse in question is Matthew 22:14. Parable or not, there isn't much there to work with. However, you seem to be all to eager to just keep adding to it in order to make it say something that it doesn't.

 

How is it that you can't recognize the dishonesty in this type of approach?

 

Actually it was quite honest considering I listed which verse I was speaking of and basically bringing the context of the 22:14 passage into light.

 

Matthew 22:14 - many are called but few are chosen

 

I know EXACTLY what "the text reads". I just typed it out there and boldened it so that YOU can see "what the text reads".

 

You are the one that is denying what is right in front of your freakin' eyes - not me.

 

No, I addressed it in my post.

 

"You see the best a person could do to "appease God" is to accept His invitation to the kingdom of God, which is achieved through Christ, Jesus.

 

"Many are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the wedding-garment, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of the Spirit." -- Matthew Henry

 

If you have that you are chosen, my friend."

 

 

Exactly how do you know what the author meant if you're not the author? I'm not speaking just of the bible, I'm speaking of all books. Unless you take it literally, or there is an obvious meaning like "the" you can't mistake the word "the" to mean anything else, how exactly do you know what they mean?

[Lycorth]

Matthew 22:14 says that many are called but few are chosen. So does that mean even if someone does their best to appease god that their damned anyway? This is why religion Xianity is such a bad mind game. How'd you really know anyway if you are "chosen?"

 

(Alterations to quote by myself)

 

Now that we've cleared up that little oopsie, I do agree completely. In Xianity, we all know that Jeezus™ supposedly says that "not all who call Lard, Lard! will be saved." Things like this only display the demented nature of the Xian spiritual foundation, and serve only to instill fear in even the firmest believer. Either you work overtime at being a Good Xian or Jeezus™ will get angry at you and all your hard work goes down the shitter.

 

This is truly a mindfuck, to say the least. The history of Xianity is riddled with sad examples of human beings abusing themselves physically and mentally and spiritually in the name of becoming more pure, more holy, more acceptable to their god. Ritual starvation, self-mutilation, flogging, turning away from family and friends - even spouses and children, living in squalor and filth, milling in and out of a "holy" building at least once a week, wasting every chance to truly make the world a better place, all in the name of sucking up to Jeezus™. When you finally step outside the cult and look at it from an unbeliever's perspective, one wonders how Xians can go on like this. One wonders how they cannot see the clearly unnatural and inhuman practices they adopt. One wonders how they cannot at least think of their children and question the sanity of passing on such twisted views on life and the universe.

 

If only more could just see...

[Guest sub_zer0]

Exactly how do you know what the author meant if you're not the author? I'm not speaking just of the bible, I'm speaking of all books. Unless you take it literally, or there is an obvious meaning like "the" you can't mistake the word "the" to mean anything else, how exactly do you know what they mean?

 

I have said many times, just read the Bible, Jesus is speaking in parables, the text specifically states that.

 

If you don't know what a parable is, look at my other posts.

[Lycorth]

I have said many times, just read the Bible, Jesus is speaking in parables, the text specifically states that.

 

If you don't know what a parable is, look at my other posts.

 

Speaking in parables doesn't mean Jeezus'™ words were recorded accurately, that his words were true, or that he even existed. Reading the Babble™ will only cement why we deny Xianity, and that filthy verse about your demon of a god "calling" many but then cherry-picking his faves and screwing the rest only does the same.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Speaking in parables doesn't mean Jeezus' words were recorded accurately, that his words were true, or that he even existed. Reading the Babble will only cement why we deny Xianity, and that filthy verse about your demon of a god "calling" many but then cherry-picking his faves and screwing the rest only does the same.

 

He calls all, but few accept, that is key to understanding the parable and Jesus.

[Lycorth]

He calls all, but few accept, that is key to understanding the parable and Jesus.

 

Yes - I remember that one from quite some time back. Used to give me comfort, since in my mind I had "answered the call" and therefore was safe. However, when I began to have questions, I wondered what happened to the other people, the ones who couldn't understand (since the Babble™ is so confusing and Jeezus™ deliberately uses confusing parables), the ones who never had a chance to hear about him (and the Babble™ makes no mention of people being saved through ignorance, only differing combinations of faith/works/grace), and even the ones who tried their best but Jeezus™ just didn't like, no matter how much they called "Lard, Lard!".

 

For any god to condemn a person just because they couldn't bring themselves to answer a deliberately obscured "call" or never got a chance to hear it in the first place is evil.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Yes - I remember that one from quite some time back. Used to give me comfort, since in my mind I had "answered the call" and therefore was safe. However, when I began to have questions, I wondered what happened to the other people, the ones who couldn't understand (since the Babble is so confusing and Jeezus deliberately uses confusing parables), the ones who never had a chance to hear about him (and the Babble makes no mention of people being saved through ignorance, only differing combinations of faith/works/grace), and even the ones who tried their best but Jeezus just didn't like, no matter how much they called "Lard, Lard!".

 

Nothing will happen to this world until all nations and people hear about it.

 

For any god to condemn a person just because they couldn't bring themselves to answer a deliberately obscured "call" or never got a chance to hear it in the first place is evil.

 

How is it obscure? I am telling it to you right now. Apparently you answered it some time ago.

[Open_Minded]

He calls all, but few accept, that is key to understanding the parable and Jesus.

 

Sub... the verses read:

 

Matthew 22:13-14: Then the king said to the attendants, "Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

 

So .... I want to know ... was Martin Luther King, Jr. "chosen" ... or did the king have his attendants "bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

 

[Guest sub_zer0]

He calls all, but few accept, that is key to understanding the parable and Jesus.

 

Sub... the verses read:

 

Matthew 22:13-14: Then the king said to the attendants, "Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

 

So .... I want to know ... was Martin Luther King, Jr. "chosen" ... or did the king have his attendants "bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

 

 

Why would I know if MLK is chosen?

[Lycorth]

Nothing will happen to this world until all nations and people hear about it.

 

Then nothing will ever happen, since there are many people born in the world without being checked by a census. Sounds like a mind trap, the sort geared to reinforce Xian devotion by appealing to something that can either not happen or be proven to happen.

 

Then again, the clear message of the Gospels and the NT was that Jeezus™ was coming back within that generation, so the Babble™ is in contradiction yet again.

 

How is it obscure? I am telling it to you right now. Apparently you answered it some time ago.

 

The meaning of the Babble™ is never clear. People can say it was for the sole purpose of spreading Jeezus™ belief, but the book is unclear on many things. Below is a link to many such contradictions.

 

Or if we are to believe in Jeezus™ without paying heed to the following, verified flaws in the so-called "perfect" Babble™, then why are the flaws there? The Xian god, if he is all-knowing, must've realized that the method he chose to reveal his message to people would be mostly rejected, and usually due to the overall incomprehensibility of Xian dogma in the face of reason and science. Why did he still choose a bewildering path of gibberish?

 

I believed it once, but more because I was raised to believe in it, and less because I actually took it at face value. Once I did that, I saw how twisted and evil it is, and decided that even if such a god exists, I'd rather burn than be his slave whilst my family and loved ones and other innocent people were tortured for not having perfect belief. It was easy to reject the message after seeing how sick it is.

 

Babblical™ Contradictions

[Open_Minded]

Why would I know if MLK is chosen?

Come on Sub ... you know what this is about. This is about a question I've repeatedly asked you (in three different threads now) and you have consistently chosen to ignore it. So.... I'm bumping up the question again.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=148144

 

So....now Sub - considering the fact that Dr. King was willing to embrace other religions and looked upon the Love experienced in those religions as equal to the Love experienced within the Christian tradition ... where are you at with it?

Do you feel that Dr. King understood Christ in the "Set" ways that you do?

Choosing "set ways to believe in Christ and how to view Him", is choosing a closed mind. So, when you convince me that you can have a conversation with me - about these issues, and have that conversation with an open mind (no pun intended) then, and only then, will I answer your question.

 

Let me be more clear ... maybe that's the problem

 

Dr. King was willing to embrace other religions and looked upon the Love experienced in those religions as equal to the Love experienced within the Christian tradition. Given these facts...

 

Did Dr. King understand Christ in the "Set" ways that are required for a "True" Christian?

 

Come on Sub, quit ignoring the question and just simply answer it.

[Amanda]

 

Emerson, I hope you are staying away from fundamentalism... right? :wink:

 

 

Yup! I hate fundamentalism and the fight over which religion is "right." But I do have questions, after all these years of being a xian, and like to explore them without xian glasses on.