Meat, the hard truth - Not for Milk Christians

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
One can not find confirmation in omission.

Tell that to your "Christian" friend. The one whom you support because he doesn't believe in Christianity either. The one who is endlessly telling us that this or that is "not in the Bible". The one who worships the Bible, instead of the One whom the Bible is about.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Apart from that. 😉

How many do you need before you believe?

Originally posted by Rajk999
The bible never says the guy on the cross lived a life of sin void of good works. He was caught stealing and that is all that we know.

The Bible says the thief was a malefactor deserving of death. By his own admission he knew he was guilty.

And Jesus saved him based on a simple act of faith. Pokes your theology right in the eye.

Go ahead and make more excuses.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell that to your "Christian" friend. The one whom you support because he doesn't believe in Christianity either. The one who is endlessly telling us that this or that is "not in the Bible". The one who worships the Bible, instead of the One whom the Bible is about.

Even if you show scripture showing what why we believe what we do, it is dismissed as
if it isn't there, or we are told it doesn't mean what it says plainly, as they add to it, or take
away from it.

Originally posted by josephw
The Bible says the thief was a malefactor deserving of death. By his own admission he knew he was guilty.

And Jesus saved him based on a simple act of faith. Pokes your theology right in the eye.

Go ahead and make more excuses.

The thing about breaking the law it says that murder and adultery are both against the
law, and if you break one and not the other it doesn't matter you have broken the same
law so any breaking of the law is the breaking of the whole thing. To dismiss sin is as
dumb as you can be, one sin was all it took to for man to lose his place with God. To
suggest a few good works can clean someone of sin doesn't grasp grace or works for
that matter.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So you judge me. And other Christians. So admit it now, finally, instead of this mealy-mouthed claim that I and others "do" this or that. You do not know me. And you do not know others you have accused in this forum of some kind of "backyard Christianity", when their Christianity is mainstream. You lean unto your own understanding, which is nearly alwa ...[text shortened]... preach, yet you do not follow through. Christians in this forum have nothing to learn from you.

Stop trying so hard to make it personal. Your dispute with Rajk999 is over doctrine.

Originally posted by josephw
The Bible says the thief was a malefactor deserving of death. By his own admission he knew he was guilty. And Jesus saved him based on a simple act of faith.

The thief on the cross was mocking Jesus so there's no reason to believe his "act of faith" was anything other than part of the mocking.

Originally posted by KellyJay to Suzianne about Rajk999
Even if you show scripture showing what why we believe what we do, it is dismissed as
if it isn't there, or we are told it doesn't mean what it says plainly, as they add to it, or take
away from it.

Oh the irony. You could be talking about yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
Stop trying so hard to make it personal. Your dispute with Rajk999 is over doctrine.

No, it's not. Try to pay attention, instead of trying to make me seem like I think something I don't, like he does.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it's not. Try to pay attention, instead of trying to make me seem like I think something I don't, like he does.

Your disagreement with Rajk999 is about interpretation of the Bible and not about your autobiography or his autobiography. You are hiding behind your incessant charge of "hypocrisy" so as not to have to debate doctrine.

Originally posted by FMF
Your disagreement with Rajk999 is about interpretation of the Bible and not about your autobiography or his autobiography. You are hiding behind your incessant charge of "hypocrisy" so as not to have to debate doctrine.

Its because she cannot debate doctrine. She lacks the ability to carry on a normal discussion and worse, lack the ammunition to present points which counter some of the doctrine preached by Christ and the Apostles. She just cannot argue with that and she knows it. But its not a easy thing for someone to come along and pull the security rug from under your feet... I must be the bad guy. All along she and many others here believed their church handbook but now questions are being raised in their minds .. its a hard road ..

Originally posted by FMF
The thief on the cross was mocking Jesus so there's no reason to believe his "act of faith" was anything other than part of the mocking.

The thief on the cross, who Jesus saved, did not mock Him. The other 'criminal' did, and the crowd did, but NOT the thief.

Originally posted by chaney3
The thief on the cross, who Jesus saved, did not mock Him. The other 'criminal' did, and the crowd did, but NOT the thief.

All the thieves were mocking him, although one of the gospels doesn't mention the incident at all,

Originally posted by FMF
All the thieves were mocking him, although one of the gospels doesn't mention the incident at all,

I was referring to Luke 23: 40-43. Although Matthew and Mark do not give a similar account of this incident.

Originally posted by chaney3
I was referring to Luke 23: 40-43. Although Matthew and Mark do not give a similar account of this incident.

Luke perhaps offers some detail of the mocking words aimed at Jesus and this illustrates what Mark and Matthew describe. I'm not sure Christians are entitled to make too much out of something three of the gospels couldn't be bothered to mention. And anyway, given the accounts of Mark and Matthew, if anything, Luke's verse 40 sounds a lot like spin added, who knows, maybe decades later. Seems a tatty bit of "history" upon which to build a whole load of theology. But it's just my penny's worth.