|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 23, 2015 13:14:11 GMT -5
Bert, Bert, Bert. I think you're hopelessly trapped in your unChristlike Jesus lol.
Do you accept that Jesus came proclaiming the Jubilee year? This isn't about spiritual needs, it's about justice and equality in this life. It's about meeting daily needs, our "daily bread." Matthew might say "don't lay up for yourselves treasure on earth" but Luke is very specific: sell what you have and give alms. In Luke, Jesus even presents money itself as evil, calling it "unrighteous mammon". Here are Luke's beatitudes:
Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate and persecute you … for behold, your reward is great in heaven.
Now I understand that you take these verses and others like them and think "all this will happen in heaven, it isn't meant to instruct us how to live on earth." But again, here we will disagree on the purpose of Jesus.
From my perspective, it sux that Matthew turned these into spiritual lessons. That seriously dampened what Jesus taught. Maybe Matthew really was written by a tax collector, with lots of money he couldn't give up, haha. If so, he wouldn't have found much satisfaction in the Kingdom the way Jesus taught.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 16:32:57 GMT -5
Quote - Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Is the kingdom of heaven on earth?
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. Do you think He was prophesying when He fed the 5,000? Can't think of any others in Israel who were fed.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Maybe Jesus instituted comedy festivals?
Blessed are you when people hate and persecute you … for behold, your reward is great in heaven. Compensation for people persecuted.
Quote - "We will be rewarded for how we treated those who are without (i.e. food, clothing, liberty, etc.) Do you think the Salvation Army personnel have more reward than say, Roman Catholics? Do you think Oxfam, with its secular and socialist charity, has more reward in heaven than the Salvos? Do you think former Communist rulers, with their "equality" ethos, have more reward than Oxfamers?
Quote - "it sux that Matthew turned these into spiritual lessons. That seriously dampened what Jesus taught." Often say it - if we repudiate Paul then its a very short distance to repudiating the Apostles.
Ever read anything on Liberation Theology? That would be more up your alley.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 23, 2015 20:43:44 GMT -5
Is the kingdom of heaven on earth? Of course it is. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus didn't teach us to pray that we would go to heaven, he taught us to pray that God's will would be done here on earth. I believe Jesus was pointing to the prophets' many promises of an age when there would be plenty of food and drink for everyone. His miracle here, I believe, was meant as a sign of the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God...the age of God's rule on earth. Now who is ridiculing scripture? As Tom ___ (help me, somebody, what's his name?) would say, "If God has special treasures for me in heaven, does that somehow imply that they'll be sitting up there until I die and float up? If my wife bakes me a cake, do I have to crawl in the oven to eat it?" I think that we are rewarded with the joy of sharing in the Kingdom. But if you want the answer from Jesus' lips, it's in Matthew 25: Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’Who is repudiating the apostles? So far as I know, we have inadequate evidence to believe anything has been preserved that was written by any of the apostles except the self-proclaimed apostle Paul. Yes, if we are discussing what Jesus taught, liberation theology is on target in many ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 0:25:37 GMT -5
Quote - 'Who is repudiating the apostles? So far as I know, we have inadequate evidence to believe anything has been preserved that was written by any of the apostles except the self-proclaimed apostle Paul."
There is no evidence for anything in the Gospels, or even the Epistles. It is all faith based.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 1:31:00 GMT -5
God permits evil because God permits free will. ps I read in Luke's Gospel today that incident where he told his own townsfolk that only one woman was helped when there was a famine in Israel - and she wasn't even a Jew. Those people tried to kill Jesus for that. Saying that Jesus came to feed the physically hungry is a bizarre reading of even Luke's Gospel. I would say God ordains freewill, whereas responsibilities are clearly devolved. Permitting freewill sounds like permissiveness, wherein God could be held liable.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 1:39:16 GMT -5
I don't know what world you live in but in the world I live in God is sovereign. There must be a cosmic-scale reason God allows evil. You and I do not grasp those reasons just yet, but then we're not God. Yes, I'm very glad to NOT live in your "God is sovereign" world where someone can call themselves god & who not only allows evil but commits quite a bit of evil himself. But you're not an atheist simply because you've reacted to the alleged, various and sundry misrepresentations of God. You're an atheist because you have God's access to objectivity, right?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 3:43:45 GMT -5
Yes, I'm very glad to NOT live in your "God is sovereign" world where someone can call themselves god & who not only allows evil but commits quite a bit of evil himself. But you're not an atheist simply because you've reacted to the alleged, various and sundry misrepresentations of God. You're an atheist because you have God's access to objectivity, right? Poor Lee, -I doubt you will ever understand what the term atheist means.
I don't think that your brain is wired to understand that simple idea.
Either that, or you don't want to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 21:20:20 GMT -5
Right. One moment they believe there is no God, the next, they claim to assert nothing in regards to God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 28, 2015 1:13:52 GMT -5
Right. One moment they believe there is no God, the next, they claim to assert nothing in regards to God. You are quite an enigma, Lee.
You seem to be constantly putting your own words into the mouths of atheists. Then you insist that they are their words.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 30, 2015 16:34:31 GMT -5
dmmichgood, why the personal attacks on Lee? Aren't humanist's supposed to be kind, caring, etc? Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, and Michel Foucault recognized that in the absence of God, there is "no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. The experience of atheistic meaninglessness is recorded in Sartre’s book Nausea. Without God, these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing." -Ravi Zacharias Ravi at Princeton University - Why I'm not an Atheist
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 30, 2015 17:07:11 GMT -5
Quote - 'Who is repudiating the apostles? So far as I know, we have inadequate evidence to believe anything has been preserved that was written by any of the apostles except the self-proclaimed apostle Paul." There is no evidence for anything in the Gospels, or even the Epistles. It is all faith based.Bert Are you a man if faith. Do you believe in the power of your god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 17:14:57 GMT -5
Power of god(s) or God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 18:56:16 GMT -5
dmmichgood, why the personal attacks on Lee? Aren't humanist's supposed to be kind, caring, etc? Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, and Michel Foucault recognized that in the absence of God, there is "no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. The experience of atheistic meaninglessness is recorded in Sartre’s book Nausea. Without God, these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing. " -Ravi ZachariasRavi at Princeton University - Why I'm not an Atheist Why should I as an atheist, pay any attention to this one man, Zacharias who is just another Christian apologist of traditional evangelical belief?
Zacharias makes assertions about Sartre, Nietzsche, and Foucault that suits his own Christian beliefs.
Have you ever read Sartre’s book Nausea?
I have.
As for Lee, why don't you try to understand his posts & answer him?
He repeatedly gives his own definition of atheism that suits what he wants to believe.
No matter how many times you tell him what it means.
It gets tiresome after awhile & would try the patience of a "saint" and a "humanist' as well!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 13:20:25 GMT -5
The theme of showing compassion to the poor and needy is very clearly and obviously interwoven throughout the ENTIRE Bible. Moses directed his people how to treat those less fortunate among them in Deuteronomy 15:10. And there is a TON in Proverbs: 11:4, 14:31, 17:5, 19:17, several verses in chapter 22, 28:8, 29:7, 31:8-9. Here's one: "“If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Prov 21:13). And another: "He who closes his eyes to the poor receives many curses.” (Prov. 28:27).
There's also a lot in the NT, such as in I John 3:17-18: "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with action and in truth." And the verses others have mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46. When Jesus talks of the separation of the sheep from the goats, the sheep are praised for their care of the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc...while the goats are called out for their lack of concern and action. And even more importantly, Jesus tells them that whatever we do for the "least of these brothers of mine", we do for HIM.
The danger comes when we, or a collective church, give to the poor for wrong reasons. One being for attention and glory for ourselves (instead of glorifying God through our actions)...OR with the expectation that by giving to the poor we are somehow doing something that earns us more of God's favor, or earns us salvation. Care for the poor is a "fruit" or an evidence that we have been saved by grace. A commitment to Christ MUST be accompanied by a changed life and good works...after all, the Bible tells us we were created for good works (Eph. 2:8-10), some of which I absolutely believe are caring for the poor and needy. Faith without works IS dead afterall.........
I am absolutely convinced that the Church (the Body of Christ) should be concerned with reaching out to the poor and needy around us. Scripture makes that VERY obvious, both in the OT and in what Jesus Himself said in the NT. That can be accomplished in many different ways, both through individual persons reaching out and by collective churches reaching out. When it's done out of real love and a genuine desire to glorify God, how can you condemn that?!?!!?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:07:09 GMT -5
I am not so sure of that. I don't see any charity organization set up in the NT. The one time which comes to mind was the collection for the Christians who were suffering during the Roman Jewish war. I don't even see an ethos for collective, social responsibility. The charity of the Gospels was shown in the Good Samaritan parable. This didn't mean we set up a church called the Good Samaritans and cruise around looking for someone to help. That is co-opting faith to serve our own ideas of what a church should be, as opposed to the church we find in the bible.
And if we ARE happy to have a charity based church, why not also have an Environmental Based Church, or a Peace Based Church? Seriously, that's not what God asked us to do.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 19:23:29 GMT -5
If Lee actually believed something - anything - he would write in a common language.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 19:26:47 GMT -5
I am not so sure of that. I don't see any charity organization set up in the NT. The one time which comes to mind was the collection for the Christians who were suffering during the Roman Jewish war. I don't even see an ethos for collective, social responsibility. The charity of the Gospels was shown in the Good Samaritan parable. This didn't mean we set up a church called the Good Samaritans and cruise around looking for someone to help. That is co-opting faith to serve our own ideas of what a church should be, as opposed to the church we find in the bible. And if we ARE happy to have a charity based church, why not also have an Environmental Based Church, or a Peace Based Church? Seriously, that's not what God asked us to do. One excuse is as good as any other if you don't want to care about the poor! However , Bert, I know of one church which is named the Peace and Justice Baptist Church. There many churches named Good Samaritan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:37:32 GMT -5
"Caring about the poor" and incorporating poor into worship are two different things. Again, people who "care about the poor" often don't care about the environment. Or should we care about the eco side of things and not worry about world peace? Or should the church help with drug abuse? What true religion does is change us within - making many social problems self correcting.
Personally I find well-meaning church people who want to "help the poor" don't really understand the nature of what we call "poverty" at all. This can be seen in Zimbabwe's Mugabe being elected to this African Union - he's the guy who created a poor Zimbabwe. Well meaning people will still shovel $135 billion dollars into such organizations every year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 21:06:37 GMT -5
Bert, you make a lot of broad, sweeping generalizations and I'm not sure at all what/who they actually apply to or are referring to. Perhaps churches in your area are drastically different from the ones I know of around here. You gave no scriptural references in your original post so I'm not even sure where you're getting a lot of your opinions from... The Bible tells us what true religion is..."pure religion", in addition to keeping yourself from being polluted by the world, also has something to do with looking after those who do not have others to provide for them, specifically orphans and widows...James 1:27.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 22:34:29 GMT -5
So one Christian "cares for the poor" another Christian "cares for orphans" and yet another "cares for the environment." They all toss in a few "hail Mary's" for good effect.
Which one did the will of God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 23:23:27 GMT -5
So one Christian "cares for the poor" another Christian "cares for orphans" and yet another "cares for the environment." They all toss in a few "hail Mary's" for good effect. Which one did the will of God? Doesn't sound as if the verse is talking about just "one Christian" doing one thing and another doing another.
It states plural as in "Religion that God our Father." James 1:27
27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
And here I had thought that you were the one that believed in God!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 23:38:52 GMT -5
That's one verse The author had an issue with other Christians who left his church. I am sure many, if not most of these Christians would have also served the orphans and widows. Jesus spoke on this subject too. He mentioned those Jews who did good works, but nothing else.
nb to the question above. I put it to you that if that is ALL they did, then none of them did God's will. Good works should flow from your service to God - not be an end in themselves.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 23:56:11 GMT -5
That's one verse The author had an issue with other Christians who left his church. I am sure many, if not most of these Christians would have also served the orphans and widows. Jesus spoke on this subject too. He mentioned those Jews who did good works, but nothing else. nb to the question above. I put it to you that if that is ALL they did, then none of them did God's will. Good works should flow from your service to God - not be an end in themselves. Good night, Bert.
I've heard quite enough excuses for not caring about others for today.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 1, 2015 0:38:32 GMT -5
I am not so sure of that. I don't see any charity organization set up in the NT. The one time which comes to mind was the collection for the Christians who were suffering during the Roman Jewish war. I don't even see an ethos for collective, social responsibility. The charity of the Gospels was shown in the Good Samaritan parable. This didn't mean we set up a church called the Good Samaritans and cruise around looking for someone to help. That is co-opting faith to serve our own ideas of what a church should be, as opposed to the church we find in the bible. And if we ARE happy to have a charity based church, why not also have an Environmental Based Church, or a Peace Based Church? Seriously, that's not what God asked us to do. What about Jesus saying when you help someone else, you do this for me. Words to that effect anyway. Seems to me that if you are given dominion over something, you are the caretaker of the earth and all on it. What else would love they neighbor be about if it didn't refer to taking care of the neighbor in need?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 1, 2015 0:40:15 GMT -5
So one Christian "cares for the poor" another Christian "cares for orphans" and yet another "cares for the environment." They all toss in a few "hail Mary's" for good effect. Which one did the will of God? All of them. Everything is God so taking care of it all is all for God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 2:08:20 GMT -5
What happens if they are all atheists and hate even what they think is of God?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 1, 2015 11:35:28 GMT -5
What happens if they are all atheists and hate even what they think is of God? What difference does it make what they believe or do not believe? They are still your neighbor and you are told to love your neighbor. He didn't say take care and love only those that share your beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 15:35:16 GMT -5
Do you think God wants fellowship with people who never believed or even hated Him?
|
|