Jesus wasn't so "great" as you guys make him out to be.

What he was referring to was the inevitable division between men. Even going down to the level of the family, when the time comes that we have to make choices between the easy life with the Antichrist (the proper translation of this term is "instead of Christ") or the HARD life with the lord.

Just like in Nazi Germany, those that have will further their positions by "turning in" believers. Children will turn in their parents. Brothers will turn in sisters.

These things are the machinations of man. Not Jesus. All he did was tell us what we're gonna do. Re: What idiots we are.

Three points here.

1. Organized religion is precisely the problem here. Which leads to number two......

2. Any division within a family, pertaining to religion, is there because of mans choices. Which leads to number three...

3. A "Christian" would never reject a non Christian for any of their beliefs, or practices. These things you refer to come about through organized religion's need to control men. One of the practices they use is to make their congregation feel that they're better than the rest of the people. And to shun non believers. Treating their congregation as if they're weak, and need to stay apart from the rest of the folks.

Didn't Jim Jones, and doesn't scientology do the same thing?

They take a few verses which say that first we are to call the person out, if that doesn't work, then they tell the precher and next they shun.

These are practices for governing WITHIN the congregation. But have been conveniently twisted into a way of managing (re: isolating) men whilst away from the congregation.

My point here is simple. What you see is not what is taught in the bible. It's just what you see. Unfortunatly it's coming from a religion. This makes it appear to be associated with the bible. It's not. It's associated with mans need to control other men. Period.


-

 

The general principle you mentioned is true, regardless of the "nature of the beliefs". Here I agree with you.
Jesus here is emphasizing the fact, that his teachings were NOT going to ever make ALL people peaceful. Instead, severe persecutions were due, even by one's family members.
However, Christian teachings THEMSELVES really help to attain to peace and love in the family as nothing else can. This is it! The problem is NOT in the lack of power in these teachings; it is due to the fact, that the active Christian position will provoke many to oppose. (Of course, this is not the case when a "Christian" in question is neither cold nor hot)

You are right here, too. But let's also consider who Jesus was talking to: the Jews had long been expecting the Messiah, the SAVIOUR. Can you imagine what it implied for THEM? Some magnificent person, who will in a skillful and demonstrative manner solve all the problems of Mankind! Think of what Moses did (which they believed to be true history); but the Messiah is "greater Moses", so what would be expected from that one, if not gloriously establishing the worldwide peace?

On the other hand, for the Jewish disciples of Jesus it was in no way "SUDDEN development of firm conviction", as what he preached was firmly based on their own Scriptures and only few chosen ones became disciples at the time he spoke these things. Neither can this be called "changing their VALUES overnight". Values remained the same: Moses, the Law, the prophets, the Messiah. That is why it was NATURAL for sincere Jews to expect, that those fine teachings (as they saw them) would, at last, solve all the problems.

Jesus had to warn, that his teachings were NOT going to do just that. This is important, because I often here people say things like:"you know, I tried to live up to Jesus' standards and people DON'T PAY BACK GOOD for the good I'm doing!!! So I'm giving up on this." What matters now, as it did back then, is people's motivation. If it is not in their plans to pursue righteousness and do the will of God in general, they will oppose, sometimes violently.

This is hard to judge (neither are we in any position to do so), for the Bible really emphasizes the importance to KEEP the family. It says over and over, that "Jehovah hates divorce". And then again, when it is YOUR son/daughter/husband -- then it will seem to your more fitting to face the challenge, then to break the family you've put so much pains to build. Then you also hope, that one fine day you will "gain" your "lost" member.

 

Oh, has this argument already been used? Sorry;-). However, in one respect this fact DOES count. Remember Matthew 24:14? "And this Good News about the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth, ... and then the end will come". Now for the Good News to be preached in "all the earth" it is crucial, that the Bible be available in the languages of "all the earth"... And here we are! It IS available, and the Good News ARE being preached worldwide today. Another argument in favour of our being "in the last days".

 

I think it's pretty shortsighted to talk as if nothing in the Bible could ever cause fission of a family group. Just as an extreme example and off the top of my head, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" would seem to indicate that not all sins are forgivable. At the very least there are enough mixed messages that one need not have the Bible's oft-alluded-to "true meaning" distorted by a preacher or pope to believe that something is unforgivable.

 

Kind of a self-referential argument though, isn't it?

By contrast, the Koran states throughout its text that it is a copy of an actual book in Heaven, and therefore should NOT be translated. I believe something similar is true of the Torah.

So I would imagine that, to them, the fact that the Bible has been translated so much would be a weakness in it. I would personally agree with them.

 

Your argument was that, if a family is divided by the presence of a Christian, it is because the non-Christians cannot tolerate the Christian; whereas if a family is divided by the presence of a non-Christian, it is not because he is a non-Christian, but because he is likely to be violent or to abuse drugs.

This is clear from your post. It is understandable that you would want to defend your religion, but you would do far better arguing that Christians who reject non-Christians are bad Christians, rather than simply trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Christians reject non-Christians. I know that you think simply saying that a Christian would "seldom" do this you are covering your arse, but it's pretty obvious and doesn't really make you seem any more reasonable given when you follow it with.

The rest of the post this quote is taken from frankly does not deserve a response.

 

All sins, but one, are forgivable. The only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

There are only a small group of folks who would even have the opportunity to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. This can only take place at the end of the sixth trump.

If you mean that someone who is dead/killed/executed/run over by a car, is therefore unforgiven. You would be wrong.

There's a huge difference between the loss of your life and the loss of your soul.


-

 

Regardless, the Bible certainly appears to leave ample room for family breakdown if one member were to transgress in one way or another.

 

Where?


-

 

Perhaps Jesus was a prophet and did have a necessary, though terrible, purpose... He certainly did fulfill his promise to break up families and to destroy peace. You're not even allowed to be too peaceful on earth, practically, or you're trying to be Jesus. And all of the hateful people...they just go to confession every so often, and a lot of them probably just get off sexually on it. It's a kinky, kinky religion.

 

There are references to sins as being "detestable", as well as the one I mentioned earlier about witches. It seems incredible to me that you can suggest that this does not allow ample leeway for a family to reject or drive out a member who it feels has sinned within the teachings of the Bible.

Maybe you feel that they should focus on the Bible's other message of forgiveness. However, this does not to me suggest that one who reacts to a detestable sin by detesting it is transgressing the Bible enough that anyone could claim that they were not Christians, or that they must be influenced by something other than the book.

 

No, there isn't. Sorry. As a matter of fact it tells us to love them more than the rest, because they need it more.

Churches/religions have twisted a few of the verses around (as I stated earlier) and through this distortion that attitude has become prevalent. But it doesn't come from the bible. It comes from man's need to control man.

This is why I asked you to point out a verse for us. I really can't think of any.

There are a few verses which deal with the order of the congregation (the ones what got distorted) which direct the congregation to shine a person on. But not for reasons other than any family would eject a member.

If your son was a motor head, you couldn't have him staying around your house stealing everything you have for his next speed buzz. Right? These thing are normal to any circumstances, not just Christianity.

So yes, there are times when the bible tells us to stay away from someone, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. It's just common sense. But it never tells us to reject someone for the protection of the church or anything like that. Just common sense stuff which applies in any situation. In fact, it specifically tells us to NEVER close that door.

Besides, once Christians are wearing the cloak of God they are protected from all that crap. So there is no need to tell someone to stay away to guard their faith. Because their faith is the strongest thing in the room. They have Jesus to protect them from stuff. Nothing to worry about.

And the Bible never instructs anybody to extract someone from the faith. They couldn't if they wanted to anyway. It's just too personal.

I don't quite get this part. If you're saying that to detest someones sin is not in line with Jesus teachings. Then I gotta tell you. Jesus detests sin. But he loves us. And we all sin....... If this is not your point, then please---> help.

Your last line is very intriguing though....

One of the things Jesus said (Imma paraphrase here cause I'm heading out the door.) while talking about what will take place when he judges us.

"Don't come to me from your far away place and say "But lord I never knew" for I have instilled in each and every one of you at birth, the knowledge between right and wrong."

This could be that "something other than the book." which you referred to.


-

 

I just wish you'd read what is written, you say “ . . . you would do far better arguing that Christians who reject non-Christians are bad Christians, rather than simply trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Christians reject non-Christians. . . . ”. Now, why would you say that when this is what I’ve already said:

Please note what is high-lighted, where I say that “if a person does not take care of his family”, he’s not just a bad Christian, “he can not be considered to be a Christian”.

This is why it’s so difficult to discuss things with you, not because your arguments are so brilliant but mostly because they have nothing to do with what being talked about and I have to keep reminding you of what has already been said.

So to paraphrase you, most of your posts, "frankly do not deserve a response" but out kindness, I try make some kind of sense of them and try to reply.

 

The Bible states that there is only one unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31-32) and being a witch is not it.

 

Actually, I did note that. And that's exactly what I was referring to when I said what I did.

 

Yeah right.

 

No, really.

You claim that Christian beliefs prevent people from casting people out of their family. When confronted with the evidence of Christians casting people out of their family, you simply dismiss it, on the grounds that, if they cast people out of their family, they can't be Christians.

This is cyclic logic, plain and simple. Since you began this line of reasoning to support a claim that Christian beliefs keep families together, it's pretty obvious why you're doing it.

You also say that, when Christians do cast people out of the family, it "will be" for a good reason, related to drug abuse and the need to protect the family rather than because of a conflict of belief. Your whole basis for this claim appears to be that anyone who cast someone out of their family for a non-laudable reason again cannot be a Christian. Whereas of course, a non-Christian can cast someone out of their family for a non-laudable reason and still be a non-Christian (because no-one's going to insist that no-one who does anything bad can ever been called a non-Christian, are they?), so there's no reason for you to add that the fact a family member might be Christian could have nothing to do with why they're being cast out of the family. It's a double standard, and a fairly transparent one, I have to say.

I think the problem here is that, while you don't accept that people who do these things that you feel violate the message of the Bible can be Christians, you are in a minority, and a very small one. That's if you genuinely believe it. Honestly though, if this is the mentality, it's hardly surprising that there's such regular schism in your religion.

 

i'd like to read a bible written b4 it was edited by the Nicean council all we have left is the version thought most politically correct at the time when christianity was made the state religion--------christ seems cool but i havnt even read the Koran yet or studied all the eastern religions---maybe Budda or Mohammad is right? Peace be with you

 

I think Buddha is right, because he said think for yourself, which shows an understanding of the human condition, which is mysterious. It is open to diversity; you never know for certain what direction someone's going to take something.

Jesus on the other hand -- don't think for yourself; think one way, or you die. Christians claim Jesus was a man, but he didn't really understand the human condition, obviously. He certainly didn't love us all, as some of us are innately incapable of bowing down to him. He doesn't want us to be ourselves -- he wants us to be something we're not.

 

thats my main problem with christians----everybody is going to hell -----except us----that is totally unbelievable to me----but if i have it wrong i apologize in advance