Adam and 4000 BC

You were saying that we should be compassionate as God is compassionate. How does God show us what is compassionate?

There is nothing wrong with questioning, but we are sinners and need God's guidance.

Why should it be rejected? What does Jesus say and do? Why do we say we believe in his teachings, ignore his actions? A while ago you said it was not wrong to show anger and that those that display no anger ever are people that may not have a good head on their shoulders. God teaches us to hate what he hates and hating things God hates is actually a good thing.

I believe this because that is what Jesus says and does. I want to believe it because I want to get closer to Jesus and God.

 

Hope you're successful. I'm outa here.

 

There are other things that Jesus did say and he said to show mercy, to forgive seven times 77, to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, whoever accepts you accepts me and one of my favorite verses:

Love

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Edit: I said this just to note that the things that you have already accepted to be good is still all there and that I wasn't disagreeing with you, only that Jesus describes what is good through deeds and sayings.

 

True Believers can sometimes seem downright Orwellian. Remember 1984 in which the Ministry of Love operated the torture chambers? Ultimately, the hero came to believe that two plus two equals five--the ultimate triumph of Big Brother. Once you come to doubt your own judgment and are lost in verbiage, you become an easy mark for the next charlatan who can quote scripture--a propensity that even the Devil has been credited with. The Prince of Peace wants war? Love is Hell for non-believers. Where does it end?

"How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing." Luke 13:34. That's my Jesus.

 

That's right. As the fundies say: Love the sinner, hate the sin. And what sin did Jesus hate? He reserved his white hot anger for legalism. Nothing got Jesus angrier. He attacked the fixation on meaningless doctrinal distincetions, trivial laws, judgmentalism, blind attachment to tredition. "Snakes! Vipers' brood!" Jesus called them. If you don't believe me, check out the twenty-third chapter of Matthew.

 

The sinner is loved in a lack of judging Him for presence of other judgments unjustly applied in the particular social environment. So far; so positive; nevertheless does Christ follow a compassionate ideology for his (as it were omnipotently put) genius of reconciling at his Father's needs? Positively, you are right; but How do laws receive compassion for the losers, the prodigals, the misunderstood thieves, essentially the property devisers of tyranny for their advantage and their progressive encouragement of deceit?

The system is unjust, and for it to work to certain peoples' advantage and others' failures in the negative sense of correcting the situation of infidelity there must be a state of defense against the threats. In other words, was it inevitable that the compassionate working Father occur in heaven rather than on Earth? And the question of this Genius is Why would He have to.

 

He also called them robbers and thieves, the money changers, mammon, payment for what was already given in creation. The legalist sits at the door of the temple, neither going in nor letting any one else in, accepting payment instead. Just as the idea of confessing sins and doing penance. I would say that love does not seek its own, coming by invitation only. That which you would hide from the holy spirit, it will not take from you.

 

It is evidence of a split mind. It is not necessary.

 

Except to the philosopher King, who was Herod at the time.

 

I hate those things as well because I am none of those things.

I am not a literalist otherwise I would believe that God has a white beard and that revelations is not a symbolic book. I am not a legalist because I don't believe that I am better than anyone else and don't shy away from others that don't agree with me. I don't follow traditions but try to follow the principals of Jesus.

 

Do you think adam and eve were the first people to ever cook meth?

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6qNZbMujuo&playnext=1&videos=yNdbsqv8i0E

 

I laughed my ass off about the first 13 seconds.. after that not so much

 

That's great; that's exactly what you should be doing.

 

Should Christians (or anyone else for that matter) who don't believe that everything in the bible(s) is literal fact be posting in this 'Sanctuary' forum?

 

i don't know. i know i wouldn't be, if the sanctuary forum topics didn't come up in the general area of philosophy and religion, where they could be clicked on as topics to which i may have some input, without knowing in advance that was the specific sub forum they were in.

i do know though, that even if you take the creation of everything other then humanity, to have take a literal six days, or a literal six thousand years, there are still literally 24,000 years of human 'history' in it.

 

Whoops, that leaves out Saint Augustine. I think he'd have been a great member if he were still alive, but he was a non-literalist. That also would leave out all the Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant seminarians. Should we let the Mormons in? The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints uses a funny Bible. What about Jehovah's witnesses? Bible-believing Southern Baptists tell us the JWs aren't Christian; they reject the Trinity and the full divinity of Jesus. We even have a dude who posts regularly here who thinks Jesus is the Archangel Michael. Should we keep him. Should Christians (or anyone else for that matter) who do believe that everything said in the bible (s) is a literal fact be posting in this 'Sanctuary" forum? Since there is nothing in the Bible that says it must be read as a literal fact, I'd say those who believe it must be are being un-biblical and should be excluded. I realize the fundies have a habit of thinking of themselves as the only Christians, and I have a habit of thinking of them only as Latter Day Pharisees, but I think the Sanctuary is for all Christians. Should the Sanctuary Forum be limited to people who believe that Jesus is God, coequal to the other persons of the Trinity? I bet if we played this game for awhile, we could empty this entire ghetto. We'd need some sort of screening committee, and we'd have to call it something. Inquisition carries too much baggage, but we could go with the contemporary Catholic moniker: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Alas, such has been the history of Christianity.

 

There was a reason I put in the pluralizing option. Which bible do you have in mind to be the only one allowable?

 

Actually turning the house of God into a den of thieves seems to have gotten Jesus angrier,

And in Matthew, Jesus attacked making the word of God invalid because their traditions. The word of God Jesus was talking about having been made invalid was the law of Moses that said you must honor Father.

And if you are saying that the Law of Moses, part of God's word, was something that Jesus hated then you are way off base.

 

Your point being?

Yes but I'm sure you have your own definition.

Yes, it is.

If I have a question about the Bible, I find Bible has the answer, if you just look for it.

Yes.

Nope.