For RJH...

This form of Christianity that RJH is proclaiming to all does not fit the description in the Bible and if it does anything at all it puts a black cloud over the bible and it's message, period.

It is actually embarrising to me and others here that claim to be Christians to hear him day after day brag of his ways and to quote his "redneck" views.

I would like to challenge RJH to prove to all why he thinks he is indeed a Christian because I don't think any of us fall for this extremely hypocritical stuff that comes out of his mouth.
Just my opinion but I wish he would take a hike.

Originally posted by galveston75
This form of Christianity that RJH is proclaiming to all does not fit the description in the Bible and if it does anything at all it puts a black cloud over the bible and it's message, period.

It is actually embarrising to me and others here that claim to be Christians to hear him day after day brag of his ways and to quote his "redneck" views.

I ...[text shortened]... tical stuff that comes out of his mouth.
Just my opinion but I wish he would take a hike.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that both of you have taken a hike from this forum and then come back.

Originally posted by galveston75
This form of Christianity that RJH is proclaiming to all does not fit the description in the Bible and if it does anything at all it puts a black cloud over the bible and it's message, period.

It is actually embarrising to me and others here that claim to be Christians to hear him day after day brag of his ways and to quote his "redneck" views.

I ...[text shortened]... tical stuff that comes out of his mouth.
Just my opinion but I wish he would take a hike.

My "redneck" views are from the Holy Bible and are in agreement with Christian doctrine. Your JW views are heretical to Christianity and were declared such by the councils of the combined Christian church before the split. The JWs either deny or distort practcally every Christian doctrine in existence. The JWs teach another Christ, not the Christ that is God manifest in the flesh and that arose bodily from the grave as Christianity teaches.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My "redneck" views are from the Holy Bible and are in agreement with Christian doctrine. Your JW views are heretical to Christianity and were declared such by the councils of the combined Christian church before the split. The JWs either deny or distort practcally every Christian doctrine in existence. The JWs teach another Christ, not the Christ that is God manifest in the flesh and that arose bodily from the grave as Christianity teaches.

Prove you are a Christian because nothing you've ever stated on this forum shows anything of the sort...

For instance I would never kill you even though you believe differently. Can you honestly say that to me?

Originally posted by galveston75
Prove you are a Christian because nothing you've ever stated on this forum shows anything of the sort...

For instance I would never kill you even though you believe differently. Can you honestly say that to me?

No. 😏

Originally posted by galveston75
Prove you are a Christian because nothing you've ever stated on this forum shows anything of the sort...

Only just the other day you were saying that the only True Christians are those who are members of your organisation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. 😏

There ya go......

I would venture to say that you believe that Jesus would favor your side on this.

Originally posted by galveston75
There ya go......

I would venture to say that you believe that Jesus would favor your side on this.

No doubt touting the verses where JC was supposed to have said to gather swords together.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No doubt touting the verses where JC was supposed to have said to gather swords together.

Read the following verses to get the point of what Jesus was telling them. This is where RJH refuses to get the point and only sees what he wants to see in the first of that statement by Jesus.

Originally posted by galveston75
Read the following verses to get the point of what Jesus was telling them. This is where RJH refuses to get the point and only sees what he wants to see in the first of that statement by Jesus.

So one area where you differ is with respect to violence.

I'd say it's G75 1, RJ 0.

Next topic?

Here's my reasoning.

There is a pretty good analysis at

http://www.ncccusa.org/rayfulmer.html

"Sword and War Metaphors in the New Testament"

By Ray Fulmer

Although some Bibles differ in their wording.

The summary at this site says, in part:

" For Christians the sword is virtually always symbolic of the message of the preached gospel, proclaimed with boldness through the spirit, and their sufferings on behalf of that truth.

"We’ve seen time and again through the scriptural reflections above that where God commands the sword to be wielded, it refers to the message of the gospel against the invisible powers of the world. When followers of Christ resort to the use of physical violence in the scriptures they are uniformly chastised for their error of judgment – they’re misunderstanding who the enemy is, which is not other humans per se, but rather the evil spirits that mislead earthly people.

"Whether disciples or saints take up the sword in defense of Christ or his church the result is the same – they’re told that this is not the way of God. Additionally, using the sword, as Jesus stated in Matthew, is a denial that God is the author of human events. According to the Scriptural corpus, for a Christian to use coercion is a refusal to understand that God demands that his followers be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to avoid the ways of the world, namely violence. The idea of accepting an unfair burden on behalf of showing the love of God to another human being who will not pay you back in kind is at the heart of the Christian gospel, and to resort to violence is always a tacit distortion of that ideal.

"It should be clear from these brief reflections that the martial imagery employed by the New Testament is not a license for Christians to use physical violence against physical enemies. "

It quotes: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [Rom 12.17-21] "

Originally posted by JS357
So one area where you differ is with respect to violence.

I'd say it's G75 1, RJ 0.

Next topic?

Here's my reasoning.

There is a pretty good analysis at

http://www.ncccusa.org/rayfulmer.html

"Sword and War Metaphors in the New Testament"

By Ray Fulmer

Although some Bibles differ in their wording.

The summary at this site says, in par ...[text shortened]... r heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [Rom 12.17-21] "

Well thanks for your comments. I see that you do get the point of Jesus's comments on the sword and fighting.
I'm not in competition with RJH on any level but just trying to make the point here that his view is not correct and it's not a Christian trait to promote any kind of violence even in the defence of ones country.
If one wants to fight for a cause, that is their decision but it is not one backed by the Bible and from Jesus's comments and examples of how a Christian is to respond.
Again it is absolutely wrong to pick out a "part" of a scripture to fit ones opinions and desires and to misrepresent who a Christian should be at heart.
That is an "antichrist" attitude...

Originally posted by galveston75
Well thanks for your comments. I see that you do get the point of Jesus's comments on the sword and fighting.
I'm not in competition with RJH on any level but just trying to make the point here that his view is not correct and it's not a Christian trait to promote any kind of violence even in the defence of ones country.
If one wants to fight for a c o misrepresent who a Christian should be at heart.
That is an "antichrist" attitude...

Well you're welcome. The site has a lot of NT citations supporting that conclusion.

OK it's not a competition, I'll buy into that, but you did say, "I would like to challenge RJH to prove to all...". I'll stop scoring it.

With my "1 - 0" comment I am trying to encourage you to move to the next item in the discussion. I am not the one to say what are the key areas of difference. Of course you might even disagree on whether a particular difference is "key".

By the way; on this thread, I didn't see RJ picking a part of scripture to support his view of doing violence to another.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well thanks for your comments. I see that you do get the point of Jesus's comments on the sword and fighting.
I'm not in competition with RJH on any level but just trying to make the point here that his view is not correct and it's not a Christian trait to promote any kind of violence even in the defence of ones country.
If one wants to fight for a c ...[text shortened]... o misrepresent who a Christian should be at heart.
That is an "antichrist" attitude...

No he does not get the point of Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword, if they did not have one. The point is that in the future they were going to have to fend for themselves and that meant defending their rights and freedom with weapons just like the USA has to do today. That is the point, numbnuts!

Originally posted by JS357
Well you're welcome. The site has a lot of NT citations supporting that conclusion.

OK it's not a competition, I'll buy into that, but you did say, "I would like to challenge RJH to prove to all...". I'll stop scoring it.

With my "1 - 0" comment I am trying to encourage you to move to the next item in the discussion. I am not the one to say what are the ...[text shortened]... see RJ picking a part of scripture to support his view of doing violence to another.

It is in responce to this in another thread by RJH : "No were does the new covenant instruct people not to kill in war either. Jesus told his disciples to buy weapons, if they did not have one. Why?

And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
(Luke 22:36 NASB)"

He is only using a section of this scripture to back his ideas on killing if need be.
This is not what Jesus was saying here and in fact was saying just the opposite.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No he does not get the point of Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword, if they did not have one. The point is that in the future they were going to have to fend for themselves and that meant defending their rights and freedom with weapons just like the USA has to do today. That is the point, numbnuts!

As usual you see it from your vierwpoint and indoctrination from your military days.
Not a Christian teaching at all.