Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, if more Christians practiced the words that Christ puportedly said then l would we a lot more willing to listen.
thankyou voidspirit, this statement of yours can not only be verified scripturally, but historically as well, the early Christians did not serve in the military.
However while idiots like RJHinds can't even see that they are going completely against the very words they are suppose to begin in l will stay as far away as possible.
Originally posted by nook7But you can't fault the message of Jesus, but only those who do not honor it.
Robbie, if more Christians practiced the words that Christ puportedly said then l would we a lot more willing to listen.
However while idiots like RJHinds can't even see that they are going completely against the very words they are suppose to begin in l will stay as far away as possible.
Originally posted by nook7I know, it seems hard to reconcile, diametrically opposite some would say. The point of
Robbie, if more Christians practiced the words that Christ puportedly said then l would we a lot more willing to listen.
However while idiots like RJHinds can't even see that they are going completely against the very words they are suppose to begin in l will stay as far away as possible.
course is as you rather astutely observe is that what Christ taught and what Christians
practice are two different things. Rather than condemn RJH, would it not be better to
try to understand why he professes the things he does irrespective of whether we
agree with them or not. Why let what others say and do influence your own interest in
Christ's teachings? It seems a great pity for perhaps you shall find something of real
practical value after an valuation with your own mind - regards Robbie.
Originally posted by galveston75Howdy my Texan cousin! things are getting back to normal, if life in this system can be described as normal! I have really tried to understand RJH and other Christians stance on the issue of war and have resolved myself to the idea that it must be cultural, for as we know, we can find no precedent for it in the teachings of the Christ. Its easy to say as Manny has done, what about this scenario and what if that scenario, but the fact remains we are under duress to demonstrate love to all persons and we cannot be killing them and demonstrating love at the same time.
Hey Robbie. How's it going? Been on a little break but the BIG issue here that a couple such as RJ seem to miss is what would Jesus do in these situations that are offered here?
If Jesus had been born let's say in 1900, would he had offered his services to a government if ordered to join the military ranks to fight against another country especially i ...[text shortened]... we as Christianians MUST FOLLOW FIRST........
A Christian cannot follow two Masters!!!
This of course does not mean that we cannot take practical steps to defend ourselves to the best of our ability under the circumstances, but we still dont need to take life. As you know many of our German brothers and sisters chose to suffer under the Nazi regime rather than take up arms for to do so would be to disown the principles which they had come to understand and cherish and many died as a consequence, but the end was worse for those who took up arms, for they were not only killing others, but they themselves were being killed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHi Robbie and glad to hear from you and glad all is going good. And that is a good point in that even if one desides to take up arms it still puts one life in danger and then by taking another life you've now crossed that line of taking something that both Jehovah and Jesus commanded not to do. The Bible makes it very clear that by taking another life you now owe that life to God and he has every right to take yours in exchange for that. Not a good prospect for ones eternal future.
Howdy my Texan cousin! things are getting back to normal, if life in this system can be described as normal! I have really tried to understand RJH and other Christians stance on the issue of war and have resolved myself to the idea that it must be cultural, for as we know, we can find no precedent for it in the teachings of the Christ. Its easy to ...[text shortened]... who took up arms, for they were not only killing others, but they themselves were being killed.
It would seem that one should follow Jesus and his teachings in every aspect of ones life and not cave into the pressures that worldly governments put on ones to fight for their causes which usually in the long run turns out to be based on the whims of that particular King, dictator or ruler.
RJ seems to fell like this government we live in here in the USA is worth dying for. Hummmmm, I sure don't see it as all I see is imperfect men running it with no idea how to cure the myriads of problems it has and then the few that are really running it are in the background somewhere with $$$$$$$$ signs in their eyes.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo now Christians should accept an atheist's definition of what it means to be a Christian? That's rich.
you make good points.
there are no christians who support war. there are no christians in any army. no christian has ever taken a rifle and fired it at someone he is told is an enemy of the state. no christian has ever waved a national flag or sung a national hymn.
there are a hordes of people who claim to be christian who do these things, but there are no christians who do so.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneSooo lets get this, now atheists are not allowed to use their own minds to make an
So now Christians should accept an atheist's definition of what it means to be a Christian? That's rich.
evaluation of Christianity based on their observations of the conduct and
understanding of Christian morality, because they are atheists. Tragic, truly tragic!
Originally posted by galveston75Yes indeed, that old lie, 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori', it is fine and fitting to die for the fatherland!
Hi Robbie and glad to hear from you and glad all is going good. And that is a good point in that even if one desides to take up arms it still puts one life in danger and then by taking another life you've now crossed that line of taking something that both Jehovah and Jesus commanded not to do. The Bible makes it very clear that by taking another life yo ...[text shortened]... that are really running it are in the background somewhere with $$$$$$$$ signs in their eyes.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo says the one who condemns other Christians here because they don't conform to his own personal definition of Christian.
Sooo lets get this, now atheists are not allowed to use their own minds to make an
evaluation of Christianity based on their observations of the conduct and
understanding of Christian morality, because they are atheists. Tragic, truly tragic!
Do you think the atheists here would, for one second, stand for a Christian telling them what it means to be an atheist?
I could stand here all day and opine on what I think drives atheists to think what they think, but it doesn't mean I would get even one of them to agree with me. So I also think atheists have zero leg to stand on when they purport to tell Christians how they should act as Christians. That is the highest form of hypocrisy.
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneDo you think the atheists here would, for one second, stand for a Christian telling them what it means to be an atheist?
So says the one who condemns other Christians here because they don't conform to his own personal definition of Christian.
Do you think the atheists here would, for one second, stand for a Christian telling them what it means to be an atheist?
I could stand here all day and opine on what I think drives atheists to think what they think, but it doesn't ...[text shortened]... to tell Christians how they should act as Christians. That is the highest form of hypocrisy.
Why not?! The answer to that question is quite simple, atheists don't believe in God(s)/deities etc. That's all there is to it, it's not very complicated.
I could stand here all day and opine on what I think drives atheists to think what they think, but it doesn't mean I would get even one of them to agree with me.
But we're not talking about why, we're talking about what.
A Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Christ right? Anyone can read the gospels and read the teachings of Christ themselves and make a judgement on whether a Christian is following those teachings?!
Or am i missing something?
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneYes i do, for Christians can be unreasoning in their beliefs. In the past i have even
So says the one who condemns other Christians here because they don't conform to his own personal definition of Christian.
Do you think the atheists here would, for one second, stand for a Christian telling them what it means to be an atheist?
I could stand here all day and opine on what I think drives atheists to think what they think, but it doesn't ...[text shortened]... to tell Christians how they should act as Christians. That is the highest form of hypocrisy.
appealed to atheists to render an opinion on Christian controversies, because they
seem to me, to be able to demonstrate a degree of impartiality. I like them when they
are not beating me up!
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes, you are missing the main concept behind Christianity, that God sent His Son to Earth to pay for Man's sin and be the mediator for Man to God, and that "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
[b]Do you think the atheists here would, for one second, stand for a Christian telling them what it means to be an atheist?
Why not?! The answer to that question is quite simple, atheists don't believe in God(s)/deities etc. That's all there is to it, it's not very complicated.
I could stand here all day and opine on what I think drives athe ...[text shortened]... ement on whether a Christian is following those teachings?!
Or am i missing something?[/b]
Just "following Christ's teachings" is not what Christianity is all about, if it were, He'd be no better than Mohammed or Buddha, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, thus I would not accept any atheist's ideas on what it means to be a Christian. Period.
Also, you have your definition of what it means to be an atheist, and you just presented that. My own ideas on that contain all my own personal bias about atheists and that is what I mean when I said you would not accept MY definition of atheists because of my personal bias. Same with the atheist and his definition of what it means to be a Christian because you've just demonstrated that you missed the entire point of what it actually means to be a Christian, because of your own personal bias that God does not exist. So how can I possibly accept your definition, flawed as it is?
Originally posted by SuzianneAlso, you have your definition of what it means to be an atheist, and you just presented that.
Yes, you are missing the main concept behind Christianity, that God sent His Son to Earth to pay for Man's sin and be the mediator for Man to God, and that "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
Just "following Christ's teachings" is not what Christianity is all about, if it were, He'd be no better than Mohammed or Bud ...[text shortened]... at God does not exist. So how can I possibly accept your definition, flawed as it is?
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, it's as simple as that. It's not my definition, it's not your definition, it's THE definition.
Can someone not follow Christ's teachings and call themselves a Christian?
Originally posted by Proper KnobAll definitions contain personal bias. We cannot help that, we're all human. Trust me, you would not agree with my personal definition of an atheist. And to head that off at the pass, no, I'm not going to get into that here. For you to give a black-and-white, cut and dried, simplistic definition of atheist is part of your own personal bias to present it as clean and tidy as you perceive your mind is without a God. Because of my own personal bias, it includes more than that. Baggage, if you will.
[b]Also, you have your definition of what it means to be an atheist, and you just presented that.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, it's as simple as that. It's not my definition, it's not your definition, it's THE definition.
Can someone not follow Christ's teachings and call themselves a Christian?[/b]
To answer your question, I would say no. Being a Christian necessarily means following Christ's teachings, but that is not ALL there is to it. Or to use your verbiage, it's NOT as simple as that. Your bias is telling you it is, because your bias is that there is no God, and that Christ was simply another man walking the earth, as any other.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy point is there is a point and time that defense or offense is justified. I don't think war is good BTW but......the alternative is just as horrible in the case of WWII and we can argue back and forth. I believe in defending those who can't defend themselves no matter who or what it is. This is indeed a Christian idea. I think as far gun ownership and crime studies have been done and where liberal whack jobs limit is where the crime is highest. Criminals will always find ways to get guns period. It keeps lawful citizens from having guns. There are places where it's wild here in USA still like Montana or Alaska and you kinda of need a gun to live. I think in the cities not so much. Lastly guns don't kill people it's stupid people who kill people. A car can be a weapon or a baseball bat or chainsaw or kitchen utensil. If someone was harming your wife or kid in your presence I would expect you to do something not just stand there and watch.
soo lets get this straight, a man robs you at gun point, you take a bullet and die and your wife and children are now safe? Really? Did you really think this out? Also what has this got to do with bombing innocent women and children in war time, an act which you sought to justify and sanction, as has jaywill, as has RJH, as has Suzzianne and other ...[text shortened]... ne? Do you think that Americas predilection towards gun ownership contributes to violent crime?
Manny