The acid test of Christianity

Originally posted by CalJust
Some interesting contributions so far...

Yes, and I can't help adding mine. I love a good argument, even sometimes against my better judgment 🙂 So in I go again....

No, I am much more concerned about love at the basic, inter-personal level. I postulate that love is the basic criterion that will distinguish true disciples from counterfeits. Remember, Jesus said that there will be many in that day that will say "Lord, Lord!" but he will say: Depart, I never knew you! This means that the reality of counterfeits is ever present. Also, at the separation of the sheep and the goats, the single distinguishing factor is what we did, and did not do, to each other!

Remember also that the overarching single caracteristic of God, is that She is LOVE!

What is Christian love?

One answer is given by Our Lord: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) Here it seems that love is sacrifice. This certainly fits with what Our Lord did for us during His lifetime on earth.

The Apostle of Love expands on this: In this we have known the charity [love] of God, because he hath laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth. In this we know that we are of the truth: and in his sight shall persuade our hearts. For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (I John 3:16-24)

Clearly love and truth are not exclusive, but support each other.

A little bit more to the point - if love is truly the distinguishing characteristic of disciples, then petty arguments about interpretations of doctrine, etc, take a distant second (or fifth or sixth..) place.

It is clear that arguments between fellow-followers started as early as in Paul's day - hence his admonishments to the Corinthians. Significantly, John's letters (which are generally recognised as post-dating Paul's) major on love, and leave doctrinal issues behind.

On the other hand, in the Gospel of John Jesus ties love and obedience together: "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15)

So, in today's milieu of thousand of divisions in the church and beyond, I would rather err on being inclusive, showing love (without necessarily agreement on all points, as somebody has already said)rather than rejection and exclusivity, whilst focussing on doctrinal purity.

Thankfully Christian influence on culture has not yet been completely extinguished, even in majority-Protestant countries where the Def... er... Reformation has attenuated the Christian atmosphere almost to the point of the asphyxiation of belief. Yet Paul thinks doctrinal purity important enough to argue about. Even tangential points like Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jewish Christians he finds to be important enough to correct, and not to tolerate.

And not only Paul, but Jesus, wanted the church to be one: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (again from the Gospel of John, the Apostle of love, 17:21).

A famous saying that I have made my own: "They made a circle to shut me out - I made a bigger one and shut them in".

Yes, even rc and other sincere JWs, as well as Dasa, with all his crazy ideas and porcupine posts!

Regardless how far out someone's current beliefs are, we can always "preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine" (2 Tim 4:2). Clearly having love for one's neighbor, Christian or not, is not incompatible with correcting error, and it may even be an act of love to condemn bad doctrine and lead a brother to the truth. 🙂

Originally posted by CalJust
Some interesting contributions so far...

Let me explain my thinking in posing this question, and then see if we can maybe focus the discussion a bit.

I'm not really that concerned about the macro issues - such as wars and the Catholic/Protestant conflict, not only in Ireland/UK but also Germany during the reformation. These were (IMHO) inter-gro c and other sincere JWs, as well as Dasa, with all his crazy ideas and porcupine posts!

I second pyxelated's post: it is neither necessary nor desirable to devalue doctrine in order to obey God's commandment to love. The JW bible, for instance, was purposefully mistranslated so that it would corroborate a doctrinal bias (i.e., that Christ is not God). It is perfectly acceptable to clothe a naked JW, feed a hungry JW, visit a JW in prison, etc., all while refusing to accept the false doctrine espoused by the JW. Neither would sharing the true gospel with the JW interfere with doing good to the JW. I would say that erring on the side of love is no less dangerous an error, especially if doing so means that some form of deception is allowed even the remotest sense of legitimacy. Christ is the virtuous hero of love, but He also said that the truth would set us free.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently you believe in tolerance.

Absolutely!

In my thread on "Process" you rather copped out, but even Dasa admitted that there were at least four occasions in his life where he was sure he was right, but in retrospect found himself to have been wrong.

That means that there is even a slight possibility that even NOW he may be wrong, (although he won't admit it!).

Don't know about you, because you did not respond! But it certainly applies to me.

Now doesn't that call for mutual tolerance?😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas

First, to pyxelated: what is love?

The YWAM definition is to seek the highest good of . I like it, because it covers all aspects: allowing for the possibility of rebuke, right up to laying down one's life for.

epiphinehas:

it is neither necessary nor desirable to devalue doctrine in order to obey God's commandment to love.

Broadly, I agree. The problem, (which I have tried to point out to RJH in my previous post) is that we sometimes cling tenaciously to doctrines, and defend them vehemently, which we later discard for new insights! Has this never happened to you??

It is perfectly acceptable to clothe a naked JW, feed a hungry JW, visit a JW in prison, etc., all while refusing to accept the false doctrine espoused by the JW.

Totally agree with you on this point. Remember, there is a huge diffference between accepting, and validating what I currently believe to be a false doctrine, and allowing the person to BE with the current light that he/she has.

I would say that erring on the side of love is no less dangerous an error, especially if doing so means that some form of deception is allowed even the remotest sense of legitimacy.

Here we may be parting ways, since this is beginning to seriously smack of fanaticism. Some form of deception ?? What would define or limit that?? The different ways of baptism, for instance, which have caused huge divisions between brethren? The view of hell/purgatory? Are these all not to be allowed the remotest sense of legitimacy and must be eradicated at the cost of unity?

He also said that the truth would set us free.

Probably one of the most misquoted and misunderstood verses in the Bible, and often used - as in THIS case! - to support one's own particular point of view!

Whose TRUTH?? Your own personal conviction, or that of your particular denomination?? :'(

This is perhaps the real issue I am trying to get to - we each have our own definition of what is the truth and are prepared to defend it with righteous fervour, all the whilst alienating those who should also be seen as being our brothers.

As RJH identified, maybe I am pleading for tolerance and, perhaps compassion ?

Oh, another thing btw, Paul made a big distinction between how we treat outsiders vs insiders. According to him, we should be more critical and careful of those within our own group that may be leading us astray than the "heathen" outside. Remember the issue of immorality in the Corinthian church? This was not to be tolerated! (With such a one, no, not to eat!)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I second pyxelated's post: it is neither necessary nor desirable to devalue doctrine in order to obey God's commandment to love. The JW bible, for instance, was purposefully mistranslated so that it would corroborate a doctrinal bias (i.e., that Christ is not God). It is perfectly acceptable to clothe a naked JW, feed a hungry JW, visit a JW in prison, ...[text shortened]... macy. Christ is the virtuous hero of love, but He also said that the truth would set us free.

Your prejudice seems to know no bounds, in fact there are numerous instances in scripture where bias has been exhibited by the translators associated with and funded by nominal Christian denominations which demonstrate to a greater degree any bias than that which has been displayed by the translators of the New world translation. In fact i can refer you to many instances where the translators have ignored and/or interpolated the text because of their dogmatic bias in an attempt to make Christ equal with God where none have existed in the original Greek text. Indeed if you would like to put your money where your mouth is instead of exhibiting your prejudices as if they were dirty laundry, then we could examine these passages to discover just what bias has been shown, by whom and why. The day i need a nominal Christian to help me engage in idolatrous worship of a created entity, will be a sad day indeed, but hey, thanks for condescending to do so.

Originally posted by CalJust
First, to pyxelated: [b] what is love?

The YWAM definition is to seek the highest good of . I like it, because it covers all aspects: allowing for the possibility of rebuke, right up to laying down one's life for.

epiphinehas:

it is neither necessary nor desirable to devalue doctrine in order to obey God's commandment to love.
Corinthian church? This was not to be tolerated! (With such a one, no, not to eat!)[/b]

Whose TRUTH?? Your own personal conviction, or that of your particular denomination?? :'(

It is my contention that it is possible to establish the truth of enough doctrine through careful Bible scholarship to make the Bible an effective deception deterrent. You seem to be advocating something more than just tolerance; what you seem to be suggesting is that the truth cannot be known at all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dont you mean like the Second world war, when millions of Catholics and Protestants
from America and her allied forces killed millions of other Catholics and Protestants
from Germany and other parts of Europe. Does that mean that all those millions of
Christians were showing love? How about the loving act of bombing Dresden and
killing hund ...[text shortened]... am giving you a new commandment that you
love one another. . . .just as I have loved you'.

Also, didn't the Christians kill more people in the crusades than both world wars combined.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your prejudice seems to know no bounds, in fact there are numerous instances in scripture where bias has been exhibited by the translators associated with and funded by nominal Christian denominations which demonstrate to a greater degree any bias than that which has been displayed by the translators of the New world translation. In fact i can refer ...[text shortened]... rship of a created entity, will be a sad day indeed, but hey, thanks for condescending to do so.

...there are numerous instances in scripture where bias has been exhibited by the translators associated with and funded by nominal Christian denominations which demonstrate to a greater degree any bias than that which has been displayed by the translators of the New world translation. In fact i can refer you to many instances where the translators have ignored and/or interpolated the text because of their dogmatic bias in an attempt to make Christ equal with God where none have existed in the original Greek text. Indeed if you would like to put your money where your mouth is instead of exhibiting your prejudices as if they were dirty laundry, then we could examine these passages to discover just what bias has been shown, by whom and why.

How does any of this excuse the shameful mistranslations in the NWT? The logic you're employing here is no less fallacious than my daughter's when she tried to excuse herself for pulling Olivia's hair by declaring that so-and-so pulled Olivia's hair, too.

The day i need a nominal Christian to help me engage in idolatrous worship of a created entity, will be a sad day indeed, but hey, thanks for condescending to do so.

Ad hominem. Of course, whether or not I am a "nominal" Christian (which you couldn't possibly know one way or the other) has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of my claims or strength of my arguments.

...there are numerous instances in scripture where bias has been exhibited by the translators associated with and funded by nominal Christian denominations which demonstrate to a greater degree any bias than that which has been displayed by the translators of the New world translation. In fact i can refer you to many instances where the translators h ther) has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of my claims or strength of my arguments.[/b]

Its not an excuse nor is it illogical as you erroneously claim, ALL TRANSLATIONS exhibit a degree of bias, which somehow you negated to mention, but then again it takes a certain degree of honesty to admit that. It then follows that if all girls really have pulled Olivia's hair, to what extent and why should really be our focus of interest, for all girls are guilty! So why have you singled out the New World translation? because its seeks to distinguish Christ from God, which we know is contrary to your own theological bias Mr Veracity! Well well, who'd have thought it. In fact i suggest you read Professor Jason David BeDhuns rather excellent book on the subject, Accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament, for he made a comparison of nine well known translations, which is quite obviously more than you have done. In doing so it may, dare i say it, go some way to actually informing you of what bias exists and to what extent, until you do so, your prejudices and the ignorance which formed them remain, despite any pretensions you harbour or rhetorical arguments than you have attempted to utilise to the contrary.

Originally posted by moon1969
Also, didn't the Christians kill more people in the crusades than both world wars combined.

No chance, the crusades were a blimp compared to the two world wars, which, interestingly enough involved not only Christians, but both the religious and irreligious. Ol Joe Stalin, wasn't he an atheist?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not an excuse nor is it illogical as you erroneously claim, ALL TRANSLATIONS exhibit a degree of bias, which somehow you negated to mention, but then again it takes a certain degree of honesty to admit that. It then follows that if all girls really have pulled Olivia's hair, to what extent and why should really be our focus of interest, for all nsions you harbour or rhetorical arguments than you have attempted to utilise to the contrary.

You've merely doubled down on your fallacious reasoning, robbie, and have yet to answer for the NWT's obvious mistranslations. You've admitted the fact that the NWT is a mistranslation of the original manuscripts, so how do you justify using it to inform your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dont you mean like the Second world war, when millions of Catholics and Protestants
from America and her allied forces killed millions of other Catholics and Protestants
from Germany and other parts of Europe. Does that mean that all those millions of
Christians were showing love? How about the loving act of bombing Dresden and
killing hund ...[text shortened]... am giving you a new commandment that you
love one another. . . .just as I have loved you'.

Yeah the better option would have been to let Hitler take over the world. Sounds good yeah I think that's what the world should have done. 😉 We the allies had to break Germany's back otherwise you and I both might be speaking German now.





Manny

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You've merely doubled down on your fallacious reasoning, robbie, and have yet to answer for the NWT's obvious mistranslations. You've admitted the fact that the NWT is a mistranslation of the original manuscripts, so how do you justify using it to inform your religious beliefs?

I think they like it because it simplfies Jesus and makes Him easier to
understand and they don't have to give Him the same respect that
they give God the Father. It also gets rid of the Trinity idea by making
the Holy Spirit refer to God the Father and not a separate person, but
only the force coming from God. So Jesus to them was the first spirit
angel, Michael, created by God. God called this angel His first born
son and let Him have the thrill of creating the heavens and the earth.
Etc., etc., etc.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You seem to be advocating something more than just tolerance; what you seem to be suggesting is that the truth cannot be known at all.

Perhaps that IS what I am saying....

Or at least, something along these lines: "with my current understanding and knowledge of the Bible, THIS is what I understand truth to be. However, I readily admit that I may, at a future date, by the grace of God, experience more insights and better understanding."

My views of the following doctrines have changed drastically over the years: heaven and hell, creation, the Holy Spirit, predestination, not to mention eschatology, which changed frequently!

And at any time when I believed differently, I was prepared to argue to the point of exhaustion my then-held point of view!

Honest question: Have YOU ever experienced it that either sitting in a meeting, or reading a book, or talking to someone, that you have had an AHA! moment and new things opened up to you?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You've merely doubled down on your fallacious reasoning, robbie, and have yet to answer for the NWT's obvious mistranslations. You've admitted the fact that the NWT is a mistranslation of the original manuscripts, so how do you justify using it to inform your religious beliefs?

no, what i have done is expose your own prejudices and why you harbour those prejudices. You singled out the New world translation, why?, because it conflicts with your dogma, that is why. This has nothing to do with accurate translation, it has to do with your religious convictions which may be right or wrong.

I cited an independent reference work which has examined the New world translation and various others and made a comparison based upon accuracy and bias concerning the translation of the original language, the findings of the author, an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, were and I quote, from the appendix, page 169 paragraph one, 'having concluded that the New world translation is one of the most accurate English translations of the New testament currently available. . .', and yet here you are, willing to deny that claim and on what basis? nothing more than your religious prejudices. Is this really what we have come to expect ? Please turn up the tone, you do yourself an injustice by continuing the charade.