Paul Washer has a message for Christians

Originally posted by whodey
I have a question for you since you seem to be such a follower of the teachings of Christ. Did Jesus EVER reject ANY of the Mosaic commands as invalid such as the teaching on homosexuality?

Jesus rejected the Mosaic Laws on divorce. Jesus never commented upon homosexuality, although
He clearly endorsed heterosexuality (endorsing one does not equate with rejecting the other).

Jesus rejected the eye-for-an-eye provisions in the Law because they were not rooted in love.

Jesus rejected the ritual cleanliness and diet when they interfered with one's ability to love (e.g., the
parable of the Good Samaritan).

Take it to another thread, please.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I brought up the similarities between St Paul's prohibitions, each couched with an appeal to God's
image and that which is natural.

My opinion is that they are both cultural and we are called to move past them. I contend that St
Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit in either case, that he erred in his judgment and that it is
time to move past th ...[text shortened]... king about it, please return to the other thread. Stop hijacking this one.

Nemesio

And I brought up the fact that Paul stated just a few chapters before in the SAME book that if something offends your brother, like eating meat, then don't do so in front of him. What was being discussed was pulbic prayer and what was being done in front of other people such as how people prayed in public just like eating meat in public might offend a fellow believer. I felt that my objection was much stronger than yours because I used my reasoning from Pauls reasonings just a few chapters before regarding contentious issues. Paul was the one that said that not eating meat when it offends your brother is culture related than it is God's command yet he recognizes issues that other issues are direct commands from God as I do as well. In fact, Pauls thinking and my own thinking on these issues are more closely related than yours. The bottom line is that you do not agree with my reasoning so you continuously berate me and rail accusations at me such as being inconsistent and/or hypocritical.

As far as how all the laws in the Bible are grounded in love, some are easier to see than others such as the hair issue. You simply say Paul was in error as where I say he was a man of God who loved his fellow man and, therefore, gave the command out of love for his fellow man.

As far as hijacking this thread, this was done long before I arrived.

😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Our whole argument revolved around semantics. Every scriptural example you used I would read in favor of my position, and every example I used you would read in favor of your position. If I can't convince you with my evidence, and you can't convince me with yours, then what's the point of carrying on?

Let's start over. Let's go over each scriptural example one by one. Then, after we've done six, let's
put them together.

Let's see who is going to be semantically honest. Okay? Sound like a deal?

That's the reason I found something more worthwhile to pursue, because the whole discussion proved itself to be fruitless, not because your beliefs rattled me in any way - a delusion of grandeur brought you to that conclusion.

First of all, talk about intellectual dishonesty! You post that you are no longer going to offer any
resistance, and then take nearly an entire month off because you found something more worthwhile
to pursue? And beforehand you post prolifically and now you post prolifically? What, did that worthwhile
thing disappear and now the forums are the most worthwhile use of your time?

Oh, come on! You may trick other people with this claim, but you and I both know better.

But, again, you make this personal. You think I have delusions of grandeur. You think I 'have it in
for Christianity.'

And if you aren't going to see things my way, then I'm perfectly happy to let you believe what you want to believe, which I have. But you fancy yourself on some kind of crusade to deliver everybody from what you deem to be false beliefs. And that's your trip.

Two words: B. S. If you were happy with disagreement, then you wouldn't be so interested in trying
to compel people with your reasonably well-written and well-intentioned posts. You wouldn't address
people's questions. You wouldn't offer Christian insights.

You want people to come to believe what you believe because you think it's right. And when someone
says, 'Jesus hates women,' you want to correct them (and rightfully so). That you're not on a crusade
is just plain disingenuous.

The reason I wanted to call you out now is, I thought it was perfectly understandable that CB might be hesitant to share his beliefs with you, since it is rare that you are simply curious about what others believe. You always come at someone with an angle (your 'crusade'😉. Why get uptight about someone seeking some reassurance that you are simply curious rather than in attack mode? Especially when that's your default position?

He's a big boy. If he doesn't want to share beliefs, then he doesn't have to share them. He and you
can ignore me all you want. But don't expect me to respond by calling such an individual brave and
righteous. Don't expect me to call that person a 'Christian,' because Jesus never avoided dialogue.

I've never run from a conversation I started. I've never not defended a claim I've staked.

Your labelling this a 'pity party' is just flamebait, like most of your dialogue on this forum. Just like bringing up myself and whodey, etc. in your response to CB; it's all just cheap jabs for flamebait purposes. Why get all prickly as if you didn't ask for it?

I got prickly precisely because I didn't ask for it. I got prickly because the 'call out' was ill-conceived
and riddled with untruths about me. I addressed them in the fashion that they were raised.

I brought up you and whodey specifically because you both have dodged explicit questions and challenges
with 'I give up.' I brought up Jaywill because of his little rant in my direction some days ago, a rant
he has not repented of with any sincerity. As such -- as examples of so-called Christians -- I figured
they were relevant.

There you go again. What an ego you have. You are making two unsubstantiated assumptions: that you are right, and that those who don't hold your beliefs are ruled by fear. Wow. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

If I speak falsely, then testify to the wrong. But if I speak rightly, why do you whine?

Show me that I'm wrong. Demonstrate it conclusively. Watch how immediately I will repent of my
position.

DrScribbles, No1Marauder, Bbarr, LucifersHammer, Vistesd and I'm sure a host of others have corrected
me on these forums a number of times. Some were less charitable than others, but when they were
right, I backed off of my errant position and either adopted theirs or another one that I found to be
'more right.'

Stop with the petty insults and the indignation and put your cards on the table.

You think I'm wrong about something, start a thread with that in the title and let's dance!

Nemesio

Originally posted by ryunix
I was wondering what people thought of his message. I am really currious what Christians and non Christians thing, so please specify that if you wouldnt mind

Here are 3 links to youtube videos. He talks about how a Christian can know they are a Christian thus knkow they are saved.

4 minutes of your time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY6F0pkArds

1 ...[text shortened]... watch?v=d3XA2k8S8Tk

Bonus full 60 minute sermon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8

By the time I got to the part in the second video in which he said that we should be crying because of our sins, I was done.

Originally posted by whodey
What was being discussed was pulbic prayer and what was being done in front of other people such as how people prayed in public just like eating meat in public might offend a fellow believer.

This is so very frustrating. St Paul does not specify anything about whether the prayer in I Cor 11 is
public or private. Indeed, it says, 'Any man who prays or prophesies...' or 'Any woman who prays
or prophesies...[/i]. Like you said with the meat example, St Paul is specific in about the public
eating of meat and so forth. This specificity of locale is conspicuously absent in this passage where
it is profoundly visible in the discussion about diet.

Consider verses 13-15: Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman
has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to hear for a covering.

Nothing about being in public here; in fact, it's talking about prayer to God in general (and throughout
the early part of this chapter). Further, the appeal to nature (psiosis) lends credence to the idea
that he's speaking generally about prayer, not about specific contexts.

You see? You're imposing something on the text that simply isn't there.

Nemesio

P.S., I await the outcry of feeling insulted, belittled, and ridiculed to distract from my pointing out
your erroneous viewpoint.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Our whole argument revolved around semantics. Every scriptural example you used I would read in favor of my position, and every example I used you would read in favor of your position. If I can't convince you with my evidence, and you can't convince me with yours, then what's the point of carrying on?

Let' ...[text shortened]... that in the title and let's dance!

Nemesio[/b]

When I make people uncomfortable, it's because they recognize something infelicitous about their faith.

People can feel uncomfortable about their faith no matter what. Lack of comfort doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with what a person has faith in. Any kind of outside pressure can make a person feel uncomfortable about what they believe in. That you can make people uncomfortable doesn't prove anything.

Let's start over. Let's go over each scriptural example one by one. Then, after we've done six, let's
put them together. Let's see who is going to be semantically honest. Okay? Sound like a deal?

I respectfully decline. Checkbaiter already referred me to a website which anticipates and counters every conceivable biblical argument for Christ's divinity. I've taken the time to peruse the contents and I remain unconvinced. It's a dead issue for me. I respect your right to believe as you do, but I have no desire to start debating about it again. Thanks.

First of all, talk about intellectual dishonesty! You post that you are no longer going to offer any
resistance, and then take nearly an entire month off because you found something more worthwhile
to pursue? And beforehand you post prolifically and now you post prolifically? What, did that worthwhile
thing disappear and now the forums are the most worthwhile use of your time? Oh, come on! You may trick other people with this claim, but you and I both know better.

I can't help it, these forums can be addicting. Though, practically speaking, I do need a way to fill 95% of the time I'm at work when I'm not actually working. Why is this even an issue? This is intellectual dishonesty? I bow out of the divinity debate and you expect me to fall off the face of the planet?

If you were happy with disagreement, then you wouldn't be so interested in trying
to compel people with your reasonably well-written and well-intentioned posts. You wouldn't address
people's questions. You wouldn't offer Christian insights. That you're not on a crusade
is just plain disingenuous.

That doesn't make any sense. I certainly can be interested in persuading people to my way of thinking, addressing others' questions, offering whatever insights I may have, etc., AND be happy with disagreement. Why not?

I never said I was on a crusade. I may attempt to persuade people, but a crusade implies something far more serious than my commitment to this forum. I try not to be irresponsible in what I write, and I like a good conversation/argument from time to time, but I'm not out for blood.

He and you
can ignore me all you want. But don't expect me to respond by calling such an individual brave and
righteous. Don't expect me to call that person a 'Christian,' because Jesus never avoided dialogue. I've never run from a conversation I started. I've never not defended a claim I've staked.

I'm not going to ignore you, and neither do I have any expectations for you to be other than you are. All I'm saying is, your approach is 'no quarter asked, none given' and there are folks here who aren't necessarily willing to go that far. And just 'cause they aren't willing to go as far as you doesn't automatically indicate an 'immature' faith, as you claim, or that a person isn't truly 'Christian'.

You think I'm wrong about something, start a thread with that in the title and let's dance!

Your bully approach to discourse does more to repel people than your arguments. You assume people tune you out because of the logical pressure which you apply and your opponent's 'immature' faith, but it's really due to the fact that you're somewhat of a bully. That you got miffed by CB's reticence to share with you indicated to me that you might be blind to this fact, so I thought I'd chime in and call you on it.

You may not agree, or you may not give a s***, either way I felt it needed to be addressed. Do with it what you will.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
People can feel uncomfortable about their faith no matter what. Lack of comfort doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with what a person has faith in. Any kind of outside pressure can make a person feel uncomfortable about what they believe in. That you can make people uncomfortable doesn't prove anything.

Spiritual growth only happens when you're uncomfortable. If you're perfectly comfortable with your
faith, then something is wrong. It either means you're St John the Baptist or you've made a mistake.

Discomfort can be resolved in at least two ways: understanding and hiding. Requiring change or
adaptation, understanding is hard. Hiding is easy, but yields spiritual immaturity.

So, yeah, I'm sure what I say makes people uncomfortable, but it's in the hope of yielding understanding.

I respectfully decline. Checkbaiter already referred me to a website which anticipates and counters every conceivable biblical argument for Christ's divinity. I've taken the time to peruse the contents and I remain unconvinced. It's a dead issue for me. I respect your right to believe as you do, but I have no desire to start debating about it again. Thanks.

Have you ever asked yourself what it would take to convince you that the earliest Christians didn't
believe Jesus was divine? What criteria would suffice to get you to believe this?

If you've never asked yourself that question, then you've never challenged yourself on the issue and
you will remain unconvinced by apathy not confidence.

I can't help it, these forums can be addicting. Though, practically speaking, I do need a way to fill 95% of the time I'm at work when I'm not actually working. Why is this even an issue? This is intellectual dishonesty? I bow out of the divinity debate and you expect me to fall off the face of the planet?

You did fall off the face of the planet. You claim that you found something 'more worthwhile.'
But mysteriously, that 'thing' is gone and now the most worthwhile thing is this forum. That's a pretty
specious argument, don't you think?

But I don't care whether you're lying to me or yourself or really telling the truth. The fact of the matter
is, you didn't challenge my assertions and just said 'I'm gonna believe whatever I want.'

So, expect me to take a somewhat derisive attitude to such a position, especially considering I took
the time and effort to make the debate.

That doesn't make any sense. I certainly can be interested in persuading people to my way of thinking, addressing others' questions, offering whatever insights I may have, etc., AND be happy with disagreement. Why not?

So, if a Christian on here said that he thought it was morally compulsory to murder homosexuals,
you'd be happy in disagreement?

Of course you wouldn't, because it's a perversion of Christianity to assert that. I consider all perversions
of Christianity to be equally offensive, which is why I am 'unhappy with disagreement.'

Now, to believe that Jesus was divine or not, as I've said, is a matter of faith. You can believe what
you want on that issue. You can take a Creedal stance on it as long as you're honest about that fact.

To claim that the authors of the NT believed that demands support. I assert that it doesn't. I'm happy
to discuss this.

I never said I was on a crusade. I may attempt to persuade people, but a crusade implies something far more serious than my commitment to this forum. I try not to be irresponsible in what I write, and I like a good conversation/argument from time to time, but I'm not out for blood.

I'm not out for blood either. That's not what I take crusade to mean. I understand the term to mean
committed passionately to the pursuit of something. I consider it to be an affront to be dishonest
in faith. All I ask is that people be intellectually honest. When one says 'before' means 'after,' to
agree in disagreement is the tacit acceptance of ignorance.

Jesus didn't accept ignorance of His believers. Why would you?

I'm not going to ignore you, and neither do I have any expectations for you to be other than you are. All I'm saying is, your approach is 'no quarter asked, none given' and there are folks here who aren't necessarily willing to go that far. And just 'cause they aren't willing to go as far as you doesn't automatically indicate an 'immature' faith, as you claim, or that a person isn't truly 'Christian'.

Do you think that a person who hates blacks is as good as a Christian who likes/dislikes people irrespective
of skin color? I should think that you don't. And I should think that a Christian who betrays hateful
tendencies would meet with a 'no quarter' approach from you. Again, silence on such an issue is
tacit acceptance.

You're right. I give no quarter on the truth. Jesus didn't compromise on things that were true. Why
would you?

Your bully approach to discourse does more to repel people than your arguments. You assume people tune you out because of the logical pressure which you apply and your opponent's 'immature' faith, but it's really due to the fact that you're somewhat of a bully. That you got miffed by CB's reticence to share with you indicated to me that you might be blind to this fact, so I thought I'd chime in and call you on it.

Except in response to your balderdash, find a place where I was a bully in the 'divinity of Jesus' thread
that we had. Find it in the 'inerrancy' thread. Find it in the 'King James Bible is the best' thread.
The claim sounds like unsupported whining to me. People feel personally attacked when people
challenge their faith, and they construe such challenges as bullying.

The only time I become exasperated is when people will accept things that are blatantly false (like
saying 'before' means 'after'😉 or that 'nature' means something different when posed in the same
context for different issues.

Yes, I'm incisive. Yes, I demand a high attention to detail. But, by and large, people feel bullied
because they feel challenged. And they are not the same thing.

I'll own up to the bullying I've done. It's never my intent to bully, though I realize that it may sometimes
seem that way because of my penchant for precision.

However, I contend that what you said -- that most of my dialogue on this forum is flamebait --
is a gross and hateful exaggeration of what I do here.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Have you ever asked yourself what it would take to convince you that the earliest Christians didn't
believe Jesus was divine? What criteria would suffice to get you to believe this?

This is a crucial question, epiphinehas. I don't think Nemesio's out to get you with it.

It's at the heart of the distinction between received tradition and retrievable fact, and it can at least help you see the relationship between them from a different angle.

That's worth doing.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
This is a crucial question, epiphinehas. I don't think Nemesio's out to get you with it.

It's at the heart of the distinction between received tradition and retrievable fact, and it can at least help you see the relationship between them from a different angle.

That's worth doing.

"Have you ever asked yourself what it would take to convince you that the earliest Christians didn't
believe Jesus was divine? What criteria would suffice to get you to believe this?" - Nemesio

No, I have never asked myself that question.

I don't doubt that some early Christians probably believed that Christ wasn't divine. My question would be, why should that matter to me? I've never understood why early Christians are supposedly any more right than modern Christians are about Christ. He is an eminently misunderstood person, since he walked the earth until today.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No, I have never asked myself that question.

That's very honest of you. You might consider asking it.

I don't doubt that some early Christians probably believed that Christ wasn't divine. My question would be, why should that matter to me?

Because the earliest Christians -- I'm talking the authors of the texts of the NT canon now -- are the
sources for your information about Jesus. Their opinions and viewpoints on other issues matter to you,
so I would expect that their perspective on such a critical theological dogma would interest you.

I've never understood why early Christians are supposedly any more right than modern Christians are about Christ. He is an eminently misunderstood person, since he walked the earth until today.

Well, as you know, the farther we get from Jesus, the easier it is to make variations on His teaching.
So, the earliest testimonies -- those in the NT canon -- ought to serve as the framework for belief.

So, again, I'd ask you to consider the criteria that would compel you to believe that Jesus wasn't
divine just by way of challenging your faith and the dogmas to which you adhere. Such an exercise
can only strengthen your faith.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]No, I have never asked myself that question.

That's very honest of you. You might consider asking it.

I don't doubt that some early Christians probably believed that Christ wasn't divine. My question would be, why should that matter to me?

Because the earliest Christians -- I'm talking the aut gmas to which you adhere. Such an exercise
can only strengthen your faith.

Nemesio[/b]

Well, if we are going by the NT canon, then Christ is indeed divine. If I had never heard of Christ before and one day somebody shared a description of him from the NT canon, would I conclude that he is merely a man?

------------------------

"...[He is] the image of the invisible God..."

"...in him were all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created..."

"...in him doth tabernacle all the fullness of the Godhead bodily..."

"...[He] was in the beginning with God..."

"...[He] became flesh, and dwelt among us..."

"...[He is] the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending...which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty..."

"...[He] and the Father are one..."

"...he who beholds [Him] beholds the one who sent [Him]..."

"...[He] is the light of the world..."

"...[He] is the door; if anyone enters through [Him], he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture...

"...[He] is the resurrection and the life..."

---------------------

Were I to hear these descriptions, I would not assume that this is a mere man, like you and me, but something more. I would assume that he is Almighty God taking on the form of a man.

Yet you and others come along and say, "No, no, it may sound like that, but the language is meant to say something completely different." As if the bible were giving a false impression.

I'd look at you and say, "OK, then why the false impression? It sounds like he's much more than just a man. Either he is or he isn't. Somebody here is full of crap: either you or the scripture account."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well, if we are going by the NT canon, then Christ is indeed divine. If I had never heard of Christ before and one day somebody shared a description of him from the NT canon, would I conclude that he is merely a man?

------------------------

"...[He is] the image of the invisible God..."

"...in him were all things created, those in the heavens ...[text shortened]... Somebody here is full of crap: either you or the scripture account."

Consider, though, that as churches formed in Asia Minor in the 1st century, any given church would not have had access to all (or in some cases, any) of the books we now call Scripture. Any copies would have been written out by hand, and they would likely be very few in number early on. That's a fact of life in the pre-printing-press world.

So yes, a Christian today can look at an NRSV bible, and interpret many books as part of a whole.

It's probable, though, that a 1st century Christian would not have had that option, and would not have been apprised of every aspect of faith (or even crucial ones) detailed in the Bible as we now know it.

If I may interject here, this discussion (the subject of Christ's divinity) has been mulled, pulled and lulled ad nauseum without ever getting anywhere near consensual resolution.

For those informed via sola scripture, the evidence is clear and overwhelming, both in topical and practical application. That others will use scripture in contradiction to the obvious is no surprise: Jehovah Witnesses have based a main staple of their beliefs on a totally flawed understanding of the Greek of the first chapter of I John.

There isn't a respected theologian today who cannot build an overwhelmingly convincing argument for Christ's divinity based strictly upon the scripture of both Testaments, without the benefit of the additional support of early church tradition.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue, salvation is not dependent upon one's theology. Whatever one thinks of the Christ, as long as one has trusted in Him instead of self for salvation, the same is saved. No where in the scripture does there exist any condition for salvation which is based upon orthodox theology and its many applications. A complete or even accurate theology is not the litmus test for eternal life in Christ. Trusting in His work for standing before God, however, is.

As such, this makes Christ the critical and pivotal person of human history. Instead of all of the challenges and argumentative controversy regarding the particulars of one person's belief, the focus should be Christ. Anything less than such a stance is truly immature, regardless of the eloquence which frames the sentiment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I may interject here, this discussion (the subject of Christ's divinity) has been mulled, pulled and lulled ad nauseum without ever getting anywhere near consensual resolution.

For those informed via sola scripture, the evidence is clear and overwhelming, both in topical and practical application. That others will use scripture in contradiction to t ...[text shortened]... n such a stance is truly immature, regardless of the eloquence which frames the sentiment.

Very well said. I agree completely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I may interject here, this discussion (the subject of Christ's divinity) has been mulled, pulled and lulled ad nauseum without ever getting anywhere near consensual resolution.

For those informed via sola scripture, the evidence is clear and overwhelming, both in topical and practical application. That others will use scripture in contradiction to t ...[text shortened]... n such a stance is truly immature, regardless of the eloquence which frames the sentiment.

I agree as well. Very well put. My experience has been with local churches, and I have been repeatedly told.... otherwise. They say that unless one believes that Jesus is God, you are not saved.
I only wish Christains were more like the ones on this forum...
Nevertheless, I hold onto my convictions. I would not be much of a Christian, nor a man, if I was not honest with myself , God and the Lord Jesus. I have never been "convicted" to believe otherwise....
The reason it will not rest is that it intertwines with other characteristics concerning God and Jesus.....🙂