Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As it's commonly understood:

right·eous /ˈrīCHəs/
adjective
1. (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
"he is a good, righteous man, I am sure"

Morally right of themselves or by God's grace?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Fortunately you don't speak for all atheists. Evidently just the self-centered ones.

But then, from what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians find mercy more appealing than righteousness: The "free gift" is so much more appealing than actually being righteous that they've made it the core of their belief system.

Which is why i said, from 'an' atheistic point of view, not 'the' atheistic point of view.

🙄

Do you speak from the point of view of 'an' impolite Christian?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are answering your own question and yet asking me to define righteous. Did not Christ provide a practical definition?

According to Christ in that passage, that group of people, the sheep, are righteous in His eyes, and they are rewarded with eternal life. No ifs or buts about it. End of story.

Moving on, there are many other practical definitions ...[text shortened]... is brother. [/i]

There is no variation in meaning so I cannot see how translation is relevant

No. That's not what the passage says. It's perfectly clear that the Father has blessed them, and that they have performed works of mercy to their fellow men in need. It's perfectly clear that righteousness is not just a quality they possess, but both that it's been conferred on them by God's blessing and by what they have done. And also, within the Biblical passage, that Jesus is to be found in the least of our fellow men, even those who are outcast, even those who are despised, and especially those in need.

Originally posted by Startreader
Morally right of themselves or by God's grace?

Not sure what you have in mind here. Can you elaborate?

By "God's grace", do you have "imputed righteousness" in mind?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Which is why i said, from 'an' atheistic point of view, not 'the' atheistic point of view.

🙄

Do you speak from the point of view of 'an' impolite Christian?

Which is why i said, from 'an' atheistic point of view, not 'the' atheistic point of view.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?
"Fortunately you don't speak for all atheists. Evidently just the self-centered ones."

Do you speak from the point of view of 'an' impolite Christian?

Once again, what does that have to do with what I wrote?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Which is why i said, from 'an' atheistic point of view, not 'the' atheistic point of view.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?
"Fortunately you don't speak for all atheists. Evidently just the self-centered ones."

Do you speak from the point of view of 'an' impolite Christian?

Once again, what does that have to do with what I wrote?[/b]

Your posts are always impolite. I have no interest in communicating with you.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your posts are always impolite. I have no interest in communicating with you.

Not surprised that instead of admitting it, you chose not to address the ill-conceived insinuations of your previous post after I called you on it.

As a matter of curiosity:
Do you consider the eye-roll you used in your previous to be "polite" or "impolite"?
Do you consider that falsely claiming that my "posts are always impolite" to be "polite" or "impolite"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not surprised that instead of admitting it, you chose not to address the ill-conceived insinuations of your previous post after I called you on it.

As a matter of curiosity:
Do you consider the eye-roll you used in your previous to be "polite" or "impolite"?
Do you consider that falsely claiming that my "posts are always impolite" to be "polite" or "impolite"?

Please refer to the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what you have in mind here. Can you elaborate?

By "God's grace", do you have "imputed righteousness" in mind?

I didn't have "imputed righteousness", whatever you mean by that, in mind.

I think you may have asked that before reading my other posts on this in this thread. Have a look and then come back to me if you want to.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Please refer to the above.

I can understand why you refused to address the salient points of my post. To do so, you would have to make admissions that you'd rather not.

Originally posted by Startreader
I didn't have "imputed righteousness", whatever you mean by that, in mind.

I think you may have asked that before reading my other posts on this in this thread. Have a look and then come back to me if you want to.

I read your posts. I just wasn't sure how you meant your question to apply to my post. If you don't want to elaborate, that's okay.

The link I provided on my first post on this thread (page 8) explains "imputed righteousness". I'd guess that that's the concept you had in mind.

Be that as it may, Jesus taught that one can not only be righteous but must actually become righteous for one to have "eternal life" / live in "the kingdom", etc.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your posts are always impolite. I have no interest in communicating with you.

Yes our friend can be rather abrasive I agree.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I read your posts. I just wasn't sure how you meant your question to apply to my post. If you don't want to elaborate, that's okay.

The link I provided on my first post on this thread (page 8) explains "imputed righteousness". I'd guess that that's the concept you had in mind.

Be that as it may, Jesus taught that one can not only be righteous but must actually become righteous for one to have "eternal life" / live in "the kingdom", etc.

Thank you for your reference to page 8. I've now found and paid closer attention to your post.

Yes, you do explain what you mean. Your first two sentences give me the key to your thinking and why it doesn't resonate with me. You explain that the concept is "particularly prevalent in the Reformed tradition".

That is not my tradition. We may not achieve mutual understanding.

Originally posted by Startreader
No. That's not what the passage says. It's perfectly clear that the Father has blessed them, and that they have performed works of mercy to their fellow men in need. It's perfectly clear that righteousness is not just a quality they possess, but both that it's been conferred on them by God's blessing and by what they have done. And also, within the Bibli ...[text shortened]... llow men, even those who are outcast, even those who are despised, and especially those in need.

I completely agree. Where we are likely to disagree is that Gods blessing falls on all of mankind which enables them to do these good works specified in Matt 25. These blessings and the resulting label of 'righteous' is not limited to Christians.

Originally posted by Startreader
Thank you for your reference to page 8. I've now found and paid closer attention to your post.

Yes, you do explain what you mean. Your first two sentences give me the key to your thinking and why it doesn't resonate with me. You explain that the concept is "particularly prevalent in the Reformed tradition".

That is not my tradition. We may not achieve mutual understanding.

Actually the text in the quote box are only excerpts from the link that I cited:
http://www.theopedia.com/imputed-righteousness

If you want to get a better understanding of the concept, you need to go to that link.

From what I gather, "imputed righteousness" would apply to all the protestant denominations.