Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Bennett.]

Agreed, would believe they are talking about food, clothes, shelter, that kinda stuff. In that community money would be a low priority, sounds like a less complicated way to live!

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

communism done right?

 

[skilts]

I think a Church needs to do all they are commanded. Go and make disciples of the nations includes attracting people then sharing the gospel, and this could be old school or new school, as long as the message is the same. Paul said he is all things to all men (method) to bring people to Christ (message). 1Cor9:19 onwards.

But they need to also heal the sick, cast out demons, feed the poor and raise the dead. Jesus said what you do for the least, you do for him. Any Church that doesn't preach the need to be community focused, is missing the heart of Jesus.

They also need to preach the truth, setting the captives free and yes giving the people of God keys to living a joyful and fulfilling life with the purpose God has for them. That's the whole foot, arm, head discussion.

Do you detect any element of arrogance, or at the very least, over-weaning, unrealistic ambition in your utterances here? Do you detect any begged questions in your discussion of truth, demons and the purpose of god? Are you thinking at all when you write such things, or merely reciting mindless vacuities?

 

[evo]

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

 

[The Scales]

The stuff you find in BF threads ( shakes head in amazement ). I was born and raised in a Christian ( Catholic ) environment. Both parents were Irish, from large depression era families. Indoctrination in the faith was second nature - families chock full of Christian Brothers, nuns and priests. I underwent the standard protocols, baptism, confession, first communion and confirmation. I became an altar boy until the age of reasoning kicked in, around the age of 13.

I started referring to church as "synchronised superstition", I rang a bell, people "crossed" themselves. Priest said stand - they stood, kneel - they did, sit down - no problem, shake ( hands ), done deal boss. I equated this to the training of my labrador. Like many posters here, I was unable to reconcile how people I knew to be arseholes outside of God's domicile, were semi-revered within its walls.

Due to secular influences in my family, I was relatively conversant with the Bible - and the apocrypha. Seeking deeper meaning I determined that Christianity as we accept it, was founded on political expediency and threats ( Constantine, council of Nicea ). The kicker for me was Von Danniken's "Chariots of the Gods". Fundamental Christianity suddenly looked fraudulent and hypocritical, more a faith based on a power-trip and power grab, than an inherent message delivered by the son of God.

I feel the underlying message of the Bible is a reasonable basis for civilised co-operation, but strenously query the papal edicts on contraception, not eating meat on Fridays, the pseudo, Judaic sabbath celebrated on Sunday, Holy days of observation, fasting and Leviticus, as must adhere too doctrines.

My own faith is based around what I refer to as the "Dictates of Conscience". I am not conflicted with the existence of a Supreme Being, nor that a biological representative may have walked this planet. I feel we all know our actions are either right or wrong, and that helping where possible is a good thing, ignoring anothers plight sucks. It is a Karmic faith, inasmuch as if the better deeds outweigh the bad, and there exists the concept of an after-life, you have earned the right to partake of its pleasures. If you go against the good over evil trend, off to the pit of eternal damnation with you, until you repent. If there is nothing after this mortal coil, I tried to leave this place in a better state, my conscience is clear.

A much fairer system,imo, than having to accept Christ as your saviour, if you live in Swaziland and the missionaries failed to rock up.

To any I have offended, I turn the other cheek. To any I have touched base with - keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Moti]

communism done right?

Without the pyjama military clothes! I prefer to think more like Star Trek, with pajama clothes.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

 

[Moti]

Do you detect any element of arrogance, or at the very least, over-weaning, unrealistic ambition in your utterances here? Do you detect any begged questions in your discussion of truth, demons and the purpose of god? Are you thinking at all when you write such things, or merely reciting mindless vacuities?

I guess am called to have faith, that's my part. God handles the rest. I have seen what is accomplished in the natural and supernatural so I just believe that the things I haven't seen are just around the corner. A bit like a Richmond supporter and a flag

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

 

[skilts]

The stuff you find in BF threads ( shakes head in amazement ). I was born and raised in a Christian ( Catholic ) environment. Both parents were Irish, from large depression era families. Indoctrination in the faith was second nature - families chock full of Christian Brothers, nuns and priests. I underwent the standard protocols, baptism, confession, first communion and confirmation. I became an altar boy until the age of reasoning kicked in, around the age of 13.

Typical bloody product of a catholic education - expresses self confidently and eloquently. I've thought about this a bit recently, and agree that this is an extraordinary thread, not necessarily great for that though. Your contribution is welcome. I too was an altar boy, but I never managed to change a thing.

 

[Moti]

I have always wondered what you do as an altar boy? Is it just on match days or is there other duties? I came from a non-Christian family and never been involved with Catholic Church for the most part.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I think it depends on whether or not you are lucky enough to be an ugly alter boy.

 

[Cooldude]

There are two parts, first it said the believers shared everything they had, indicating together between themselves, and then they sold property and shared with those in need. Sharing would indicate they only gave a part of their resource otherwise it would have said give. Also, in several places in Acts it talks about every believer having every need met, which does not necessarily point to be being poor.

Yet again poor misquoting and spinning of the scriptures

The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

So they shared EVERYTHING, thanks for proving my, all of their possessions, no one claimed ANYTHING as their own. Those who owned land and houses brought the money from the sales and distributed to anyone who had need. Thanks, your scriptures actually support me

The dead couple came immediately after that paragraph, they weren't killed because they just lied, they were killed because they lied in order to withhold a part of the money for themselves

3 and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Thank you for proving my point yet again, and you have yet to care about the many verses Jesus told you to sell everything you have and give to the poor, but what Jesus says doesn't matter when it doesn't suit you, yet you wanna proclaim the "truth" of the gospels, is this truth the truth convenient to you or the actual truth?

I believe that shows that the disciples did not believe that it was compulsory to sell all to give to the poor. Also, the reason they were chastised was due to the lie. I have mentioned this before, the death part is one of I have yet to gain much wisdom on even though various commentaries talk about it being an example.

Selling all and give to the poor, sharing everything they have and not claim anything as their own is exactly what they're doing. You don't believe they do because you don't want to believe that they do, coz otherwise you'd have to do it as well

 

[skilts]

I have always wondered what you do as an altar boy? Is it just on match days or is there other duties? I came from a non-Christian family and never been involved with Catholic Church for the most part.

There are usually two of them (failing that, one will do at a pinch), but there can be as many as six. They assist the priest in robing himself. They get to fill vessels with (hideous) wine, and with water for the Communion. The best part of this is the name of these vessels - cruets - such a word. They get to dress in a surplice (white loose-fitting garment), hung over a cassock (usually black, of heavier material). They also light candles and distribute prayer books among the pews, if necessary.

They assist the priest during Communion, ring 'dem bells when appropriate, and in general, provide a reliable and informed lead to the congregation as to what posture (kneel, stand, sit) they should adopt at any given moment of the service. They do this by physical example.

After the service, they may be required to assist the priest with disrobing. This is usually where the trouble starts. Nah, I'm only serious.

Edit: It worries me profoundly how much of this s**t I remember, more than 50 years after I last I did it, though it's probably completely different nowadays.

 

[evo]

They get to fill vessels with (hideous) wine, and with water for the Communion.

The other day my son asked me where they get the 'holy water'. I laughed and said probably from the tap out the back. Is that actually true?

 

[Moti]

The other day my son asked me where they get the 'holy water'. I laughed and said probably from the tap out the back. Is that actually true?

I would think it is, they just bless it. Would be funny if it can from a spring in Rome!

 

[Moti]

There are usually two of them (failing that, one will do at a pinch), but there can be as many as six. They assist the priest in robing himself. They get to fill vessels with (hideous) wine, and with water for the Communion. The best part of this is the name of these vessels - cruets - such a word. They get to dress in a surplice (white loose-fitting garment), hung over a cassock (usually black, of heavier material). They also light candles and distribute prayer books among the pews, if necessary.

They assist the priest during Communion, ring 'dem bells when appropriate, and in general, provide a reliable and informed lead to the congregation as to what posture (kneel, stand, sit) they should adopt at any given moment of the service. They do this by physical example.

After the service, they may be required to assist the priest with disrobing. This is usually where the trouble starts. Nah, I'm only serious.

Edit: It worries me profoundly how much of this s**t I remember, more than 50 years after I last I did it, though it's probably completely different nowadays.

Sounds like child labor! I guess if you liked doing it and it was in your heart to serve it would be good.

 

[Moti]

There are usually two of them (failing that, one will do at a pinch), but there can be as many as six. They assist the priest in robing himself. They get to fill vessels with (hideous) wine, and with water for the Communion. The best part of this is the name of these vessels - cruets - such a word. They get to dress in a surplice (white loose-fitting garment), hung over a cassock (usually black, of heavier material). They also light candles and distribute prayer books among the pews, if necessary.

They assist the priest during Communion, ring 'dem bells when appropriate, and in general, provide a reliable and informed lead to the congregation as to what posture (kneel, stand, sit) they should adopt at any given moment of the service. They do this by physical example.

After the service, they may be required to assist the priest with disrobing. This is usually where the trouble starts. Nah, I'm only serious.

Edit: It worries me profoundly how much of this s**t I remember, more than 50 years after I last I did it, though it's probably completely different nowadays.

Sounds like child labor! I guess if you liked doing it and it was in your heart to serve it would be good.

 

[The Scales]

I have always wondered what you do as an altar boy? Is it just on match days or is there other duties? I came from a non-Christian family and never been involved with Catholic Church for the most part.

Speaking from my experiences only, it was a better gig than that. As funerals were held on weekdays the Priest would request altar boys to leave class to serve. On a good week ( sorry mourners ) you might get two or three. Some families also wanted a graveside service, that was rare.

Kind of like match-day, employees got priority parking(ish), due to early arrival. Probably sucked for the olds, but it was their faith they imposed upon me. Other facets were lighting and snuffing of the biggest freaking candles ever, lighting the incense censer, carrying crosses ( heavy ), ringing the altar bells, sticking communion plates under peoples chins, and on a real good day you got to finish off the communion wine not drunk by the priest.

 

[The Scales]

Typical bloody product of a catholic education - expresses self confidently and eloquently. I've thought about this a bit recently, and agree that this is an extraordinary thread, not necessarily great for that though. Your contribution is welcome. I too was an altar boy, but I never managed to change a thing.

My catholic education was only primary school, then off to bogan high. Thanks for the welcome - and agreed, truly a weird thread for this site. Have only read a portion, and I'm freaked at the amount of God-botherers arguing scriptures here at each other.

 

[The Scales]

I think it depends on whether or not you are lucky enough to be an ugly alter boy.

The priests I served under had the Irish affliction, more concerned with booze than boyos. Or I may have been inherently ugly.

 

[The Scales]

The other day my son asked me where they get the 'holy water'. I laughed and said probably from the tap out the back. Is that actually true?

Absolute fact, the blessing is the only thing that make holy water. Stock standard tap water is used in 99.9% of cases.

Some people will request holy water from specific sites such as Lourdes, or blessed by the pontiff, or other high ranking official within the church. This is usually based on faith that this water has additional properties, specific for their affliction.

 

[tesseract]

You said in a definitive statement that Jesus wants Christians to help the poor only when it's within your means and when the opportunity arise, and you're gonna argue you were taken out of context. Do you even know what context is? I have quoted the post, you can click the arrow to have a look at it, but I'm not gonna spoon feed a baby, you know what you said, you can be in denial all you want, but you clearly know stuff all about your own bible to be able to say the things that you do.



Here comes a guy that doesn't know his scriptures and is apparently a student of the bible. The rich guy wasn't asking to follow Jesus, you goose, you asked Jesus what achieves eternal life, Jesus told him to obey all the commandment, then when the rich guy said he already did that, Jesus told him to go sell all your possessions and give to the poor instead then. So basically Jesus values shredding worldly possessions to help the poor one of great importance when it comes to eternal life in this spiritual kingdom of yours, but you are gonna sit there and tell me helping the poor isn't a priority for him.

I could tie your shoelaces for you and you'd still reckon your shoes are still untie, what more do I need to do to expand it really? It's exactly as it says. Any scriptures that don't suit your agenda must be wrong, any scriptures that don't suit your prejudice must be out of context, because you are delusional like that. Jesus says it black and while in the sheeps and the goats that those who didn't do for the least of those they did not do for him, and they will suffer eternal damnation. Basically if you don't help the poor or oppressed you aren't partaking in his kingdom, but yet again you are gonna sit there and tell me the poor isn't a priority for him.

You know what? This is the 20th time that I've provided ample evidence, but you're gonna sit there in denial and try to delude your way out of facts and reality and truth. I know exactly what you're gonna do, you're gonna pretend I didn't give any evidence or rubbish like that, how can you even reason with someone who is blatantly stupid crazy and insane?



I bloody have, Jesus has made it perfectly clear that one of the main things that brings salvation is to help the poor, it was in the sheeps and the goats, it was in the sermon on the mount, he said exactly the same thing to the rich guy. I have established and build a bloody metropolis, you are just too much of an idiotic barbarian to be able to know how flush a toilet even when it's conveniently there in front of you, so you end up crapping on the floor and blame others for not giving you a convenient place to poop.



Here it is again, here it is again! And you're telling me you're quoted out of context? You absolute freakin' clown! Jesus clearly tells Christians to proactively seek out and help the poor and the oppressed, I have quoted ample evidence for that, but you're gonna still sit there and tell me you only need to do it when the opportunity arise, you complete and utter clown. I would love to see how you spin your way out of this one, you delusional twit

The reason why Jesus tended to the poor and the sick is because He loved them, and his kingdom is about love, and he told his followers to love others as He has loved them (Which is in both Corinthians), that's why he keeps stressing them to sell all they have and help the poor, because it's a display of our love for the oppressed. But you're gonna sit there and try to spin Jesus like some sorta mystic who's only interested in the spiritual being of others, you are nothing other than a delusional lunatic




FFS I have quoted scriptures that black and white says that's exactly how it is, but you are gonna say that's unbiblical, you have no idea what is biblical and unbiblical, you don't know Jesus, you are just an imposter boastful of your own fabricated knowledge, you aren't even a Christian, you have no idea Jesus's purpose nor his Kingdom. You are nothing other than a false "teacher", a fake.



So basically Jesus tells people to sell all their possessions and give it all to the poor, and don't worry about tomorrow, what you eat and drink, how you cloth yourself, but you are gonna sit there and tell me, he doesn't want people to bankrupt themselves and help others?

It sounds more like you are trying to spin and twist the bible in such a way so that you don't have to help the poor when you don't want to, you don't have to follow Jesus when you don't want to. So you are one of those fake delusional Christians? Oh wait we already know that. But you're the one who's gonna have a go at other people for interpreting the bible the way they see fit and not see the irony, how is this not projection? Do you understand what projection means?



It's only lacking in your mind because you are completely delusional, and you calling other people for arrogantly using their subjective opinion and calling themselves as an arbiter of truth is the greatest projection in the history of projection

I provided ample evidence which many other people seem to agree with at the time I made it, if you are too stupid to understand them then it's not the argument that's lacking, it's you.




Like when Jesus dined with sinners and tax collectors and how don't judge for you would be judged. Let those without sin cast the first stone. Yeah okay, this completely proves it, you are a fraud, a fake Christian who doesn't even follow Christ, nor do you know him.

You said I was rationalizing the condoning of homosexuals, when I did no such thing (because yet again you are being delusional), but seeing how you yet again twist the bible for your own selfish bigotry/prejudice, I can see why now you are so bat droppings insane.






So you were the one having a go at someone for using subjective opinion, and now you're gonna say no one can tell you what you know that's objective or subjective? You are a terrible double standard projecting hypocrite. You have no idea what's objective and subjective, none at all



You have backed up nothing, in fact everything you've done has proven to me that you are an arrogant projecting hypocrite that is a fake Christian who doesn't even know the bible. Yet you were arrogantly claiming you are a student of the bible, which automatically means you know more about the bible than anyone else who all have the wrong interpretations (when on examination it's clear that you know nothing about it), you talk a lot, type a lot of non-sense, but at the end of the day it still doesn't change the fact that I have provided ample evidence to show you are a delusional arrogant hypocrite who accuse others or doing the very thing you are far more guilty of.




You know saying "my friend" is a figure of speech, right? It's pretty damn insane to concentrate on it like it means something, but I ain't surprise with anything from you anymore. Btw it's not name calling if it's true, it'd just be an accurate description.

Like if I say you are a complete double standard hypocritical fake Christian who boasts knowledge of the bible when in fact you have none, you twist it for your own selfish purposes and prejudice yet has the guts to have a go at someone else for doing it, yeah that's not name calling, that's an accurate description

Again, please provide the whole quote. No paraphrasing. You can't make your point without it, especially when I've already provided context for my post. This is why I've previously said that "context is your enemy".
You have not quoted the post, you've merely paraphrased it and applied your own context.
You don't want to dish up, "spoon feed", in this instance, for context doesn't help your argument. No wonder that you keep ignoring this request for a quote. It's inconvenient for your argument.


I never said "the rich guy asked to be Jesus' follower". Get your facts straight. I said: "The rich guy wanted to be Jesus' follower and was going to be, but he couldn't leave behind his worldly possessions as was required to follow Jesus." It was inferred from the wealthy young man's obedience in all other things as well as his inquiry of how to gain salvation that that's what he wanted, except he couldn't bring himself to leave behind his many worldly possessions.
Helping the poor is of importance to Jesus, but it just wasn't the main purpose of his time on earth. You haven't established that helping the poor and needy was the main point of Jesus' time on earth.

What more could you do to link the two scriptures you've cited? Expand to show some actual understanding of the scriptures instead of attempting to tie it in to your 'helping the poor in a physical sense' narrative. You've taken the sheep and goats analogy from Matthew 25 literally. Verse 37, 38 and 39 of that chapter indicate that physical needs aren't being spoken of here. This is shown by means of the questions the righteous asked Jesus continually beginning with "when did we". The reference spoken about is Jesus' preaching commandment to his followers, known as the 'sheep'. Jesus set out as his main goal to make disciples. The illustration of the sheep and goats - the righteous and unrighteous - is about the commandment at Matthew 28:19,20. This is what I've been pointing you toward - Jesus' main goal of disciple making.

As I've said before, you know how to point out scriptures, but your understanding of them is what's lacking.


Given that Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 "‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" shows it was about rounding up the sheep, (making disciples), not physically helping the poor, as you think is being referred to. Not all people are considered "brothers and sisters" of Jesus. It's also another reason why the sheep and goats analogy isn't about physical needs.


I asked for you to quote the original text of mine, not something I've used since during our discussion. The use of the words "when opportunity arises" isn't the issue, but what it means in context to what's being said is. You're trying to make this an issue of its mere use, and not what it reflects in context. Seems intellectually dishonest on your part.
In the Matthew 28:19,20 scripture I've previously provided is the main commandment for all Christians. Helping the poor is fine and good, but is secondary to this, just as it was for Jesus. Your not understanding the scriptures means you start with a false premise and thus continue to base your subsequent conclusions on this. It's no wonder - misguided conclusions are the only thing that can stem from false premise's.

I agree that Jesus loved the poor and wanted to help them, but he was also fulfilling prophecy and showing what he'd do on a larger scale when king of the kingdom in the future.
Never have I stated that Jesus' interest in humans is only of a spiritual nature. I point to Jesus' priority is that of spiritual matters, not the physical. Jesus is well aware of mans physical needs. Jesus speaks regarding the need for spiritual things over physical things when he states at Matthew 4:4, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"


"One of the key matters" isn't what we're discussing in regards to Jesus helping the poor. You claim that the purpose of Jesus' time on earth was to help the poor, needy and oppressed. "One of the key matters" isn't the same as 'main goal/priority', as I'm claiming.
You spew a whole lot of bile. When you can't back what you're saying, as well as apply understanding to scriptures, it seems that's all you have - a whole paragraph of bile without substance. You even get "One of the key matters" and "main goal" confused.


What I said regarding Jesus' commandment to his disciples of the time has already been covered in my previous posts. The words "of Jesus' time" and "today" speak as to the context. Paraphrasing has done your argument little service, for it's already been answered. Are you intellectually dishonest or, just don't understand context?

"It sounds more like" speaks volumes as to your premise. You forget what I'm actually saying and instead replace it with "it sounds more like". No wonder you have such a weak grasp on what the bible says when you can't even grasp what I'm saying.


It's lacking in your case because you've taken an analogy in the bible literally when it wasn't meant to.
Btw, it's not projection on my part because I haven't been tossing around words like "delusional" and the many other name-calling labels that you have toward me. So, clearly you don't understand projection, nor hypocrisy. You are acting like a princess for even going down the path of calling someone on supposed projection after what you've been doing with regards to name-calling. It's good for a chuckle.

I understand why many agree with you, for as I've previously pointed to: many on here can throw about scriptures, but few are the one's understanding them. It's a good thing that consensus isn't what makes for right.


I asked previously for you to quote me when you claim that I 'agree/"disagree with Christians being able to turn gays away because they are gay"'. Where have I even commented on this one way or the other? Without a quote, how can you rightfully speak for me? You haven't answered this question which I posed to you previously. You ignored it, and instead went the straw-man route by means of this answer: "Like when Jesus dined with sinners and tax collectors and how don't judge for you would be judged. Let those without sin cast the first stone. Yeah okay, this completely proves it, you are a fraud, a fake Christian who doesn't even follow Christ, nor do you know him." Hahahahaha! A "fraud", supposedly proven by means of a straw-man? I'm laughing as I type this. Hahahahahaha!.

I've previously shown by means of posting the name of the thread and post number of your using scripture to show that Christians should embrace homosexuality under the being hospitable rationalization. You've twisted and distorted the bible for your own ends.


Yes, I'm having a go at you for using subjectivity and claiming it as something objective.
Where have I said that "no one can tell you [me] what you know that's objective or subjective?" Show me where I've supposedly been a hypocrite by means of a quote. A piece of evidence showing how you use the subjective and claim it to be objective is your lack of quotes when you claim something of me. Hence your claims are easily dismissed.


I've shown you/proved how you call me "my friend" yet call me many many derogatory names, even when you said you treat your friends "very very nicely". That's but one example. That's what I mean by backing it up. I've done that, as exemplified here, you have not. You make subjective claims and pass it off as objective, due to not backing it up by example.
It's not an arrogant claim to say that I'm a "student of the bible" if it's so. Show how it's arrogant? As I've previously said, you inferred my "superior knowledge". You've gone off half cocked.
You've made a presumption in regards to "automatically means you know more about the bible than anyone else who all have the wrong interpretations", too. You make this up and run with it, seemingly because it fits your narrative. Your presumption is arrogance.
You haven't established that I'm arrogant. You've mere claimed it... without base.


Amusing choice of spin using 'my friend' and calling it a "figure of speech". My example showed you as the hate-monger you are, and no amount of spin can undo that.
Now you're trying to justify all the name-calling you dished out as "it's not name calling if it's true, it'd just be an accurate description". Yet you attempted to point the finger at me and use the "hypocrite" tag on me. Speak for yourself.

Coming from someone trying to rationalize the embrace of homosexuality as Christian under the guise of 'hospitality'! I can live with you not thinking much of my knowledge. Given such an non-biblical view as yours, I'm glad we differ.

 

[Moti]

Again, please provide the whole quote. No paraphrasing. You can't make your point without it, especially when I've already provided context for my post. This is why I've previously said that "context is your enemy".
You have not quoted the post, you've merely paraphrased it and applied your own context.
You don't want to dish up, "spoon feed", in this instance, for context doesn't help your argument. No wonder that you keep ignoring this request for a quote. It's inconvenient for your argument.


I never said "the rich guy asked to be Jesus' follower". Get your facts straight. I said: "The rich guy wanted to be Jesus' follower and was going to be, but he couldn't leave behind his worldly possessions as was required to follow Jesus." It was inferred from the wealthy young man's obedience in all other things as well as his inquiry of how to gain salvation that that's what he wanted, except he couldn't bring himself to leave behind his many worldly possessions.
Helping the poor is of importance to Jesus, but it just wasn't the main purpose of his time on earth. You haven't established that helping the poor and needy was the main point of Jesus' time on earth.

What more could you do to link the two scriptures you've cited? Expand to show some actual understanding of the scriptures instead of attempting to tie it in to your 'helping the poor in a physical sense' narrative. You've taken the sheep and goats analogy from Matthew 25 literally. Verse 37, 38 and 39 of that chapter indicate that physical needs aren't being spoken of here. This is shown by means of the questions the righteous asked Jesus continually beginning with "when did we". The reference spoken about is Jesus' preaching commandment to his followers, known as the 'sheep'. Jesus set out as his main goal to make disciples. The illustration of the sheep and goats - the righteous and unrighteous - is about the commandment at Matthew 28:19,20. This is what I've been pointing you toward - Jesus' main goal of disciple making.

As I've said before, you know how to point out scriptures, but your understanding of them is what's lacking.


Given that Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 "‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" shows it was about rounding up the sheep, (making disciples), not physically helping the poor, as you think is being referred to. Not all people are considered "brothers and sisters" of Jesus. It's also another reason why the sheep and goats analogy isn't about physical needs.


I asked for you to quote the original text of mine, not something I've used since during our discussion. The use of the words "when opportunity arises" isn't the issue, but what it means in context to what's being said is. You're trying to make this an issue of its mere use, and not what it reflects in context. Seems intellectually dishonest on your part.
In the Matthew 28:19,20 scripture I've previously provided is the main commandment for all Christians. Helping the poor is fine and good, but is secondary to this, just as it was for Jesus. Your not understanding the scriptures means you start with a false premise and thus continue to base your subsequent conclusions on this. It's no wonder - misguided conclusions are the only thing that can stem from false premise's.

I agree that Jesus loved the poor and wanted to help them, but he was also fulfilling prophecy and showing what he'd do on a larger scale when king of the kingdom in the future.
Never have I stated that Jesus' interest in humans is only of a spiritual nature. I point to Jesus' priority is that of spiritual matters, not the physical. Jesus is well aware of mans physical needs. Jesus speaks regarding the need for spiritual things over physical things when he states at Matthew 4:4, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"


"One of the key matters" isn't what we're discussing in regards to Jesus helping the poor. You claim that the purpose of Jesus' time on earth was to help the poor, needy and oppressed. "One of the key matters" isn't the same as 'main goal/priority', as I'm claiming.
You spew a whole lot of bile. When you can't back what you're saying, as well as apply understanding to scriptures, it seems that's all you have - a whole paragraph of bile without substance. You even get "One of the key matters" and "main goal" confused.


What I said regarding Jesus' commandment to his disciples of the time has already been covered in my previous posts. The words "of Jesus' time" and "today" speak as to the context. Paraphrasing has done your argument little service, for it's already been answered. Are you intellectually dishonest or, just don't understand context?

"It sounds more like" speaks volumes as to your premise. You forget what I'm actually saying and instead replace it with "it sounds more like". No wonder you have such a weak grasp on what the bible says when you can't even grasp what I'm saying.


It's lacking in your case because you've taken an analogy in the bible literally when it wasn't meant to.
Btw, it's not projection on my part because I haven't been tossing around words like "delusional" and the many other name-calling labels that you have toward me. So, clearly you don't understand projection, nor hypocrisy. You are acting like a princess for even going down the path of calling someone on supposed projection after what you've been doing with regards to name-calling. It's good for a chuckle.

I understand why many agree with you, for as I've previously pointed to: many on here can throw about scriptures, but few are the one's understanding them. It's a good thing that consensus isn't what makes for right.


I asked previously for you to quote me when you claim that I 'agree/"disagree with Christians being able to turn gays away because they are gay"'. Where have I even commented on this one way or the other? Without a quote, how can you rightfully speak for me? You haven't answered this question which I posed to you previously. You ignored it, and instead went the straw-man route by means of this answer: "Like when Jesus dined with sinners and tax collectors and how don't judge for you would be judged. Let those without sin cast the first stone. Yeah okay, this completely proves it, you are a fraud, a fake Christian who doesn't even follow Christ, nor do you know him." Hahahahaha! A "fraud", supposedly proven by means of a straw-man? I'm laughing as I type this. Hahahahahaha!.

I've previously shown by means of posting the name of the thread and post number of your using scripture to show that Christians should embrace homosexuality under the being hospitable rationalization. You've twisted and distorted the bible for your own ends.


Yes, I'm having a go at you for using subjectivity and claiming it as something objective.
Where have I said that "no one can tell you [me] what you know that's objective or subjective?" Show me where I've supposedly been a hypocrite by means of a quote. A piece of evidence showing how you use the subjective and claim it to be objective is your lack of quotes when you claim something of me. Hence your claims are easily dismissed.


I've shown you/proved how you call me "my friend" yet call me many many derogatory names, even when you said you treat your friends "very very nicely". That's but one example. That's what I mean by backing it up. I've done that, as exemplified here, you have not. You make subjective claims and pass it off as objective, due to not backing it up by example.
It's not an arrogant claim to say that I'm a "student of the bible" if it's so. Show how it's arrogant? As I've previously said, you inferred my "superior knowledge". You've gone off half cocked.
You've made a presumption in regards to "automatically means you know more about the bible than anyone else who all have the wrong interpretations", too. You make this up and run with it, seemingly because it fits your narrative. Your presumption is arrogance.
You haven't established that I'm arrogant. You've mere claimed it... without base.


Amusing choice of spin using 'my friend' and calling it a "figure of speech". My example showed you as the hate-monger you are, and no amount of spin can undo that.
Now you're trying to justify all the name-calling you dished out as "it's not name calling if it's true, it'd just be an accurate description". Yet you attempted to point the finger at me and use the "hypocrite" tag on me. Speak for yourself.

Coming from someone trying to rationalize the embrace of homosexuality as Christian under the guise of 'hospitality'! I can live with you not thinking much of my knowledge. Given such an non-biblical view as yours, I'm glad we differ.

I haven't managed to read the whole thing but great endurance to write a post that long! I do everything on my iPhone so hopefully u r on a computer!

 

[sabre_ac]

I have always wondered what you do as an altar boy? Is it just on match days or is there other duties? I came from a non-Christian family and never been involved with Catholic Church for the most part.

I think if you have to go to church week in and week out, it makes the experience more interesting.

 

[skilts]

I think if you have to go to church week in and week out, it makes the experience more interesting.

Alternatively, it could just as easily make the experience unutterably boring.

 

[Cooldude]

Again, please provide the whole quote. No paraphrasing. You can't make your point without it, especially when I've already provided context for my post. This is why I've previously said that "context is your enemy".
You have not quoted the post, you've merely paraphrased it and applied your own context.
You don't want to dish up, "spoon feed", in this instance, for context doesn't help your argument. No wonder that you keep ignoring this request for a quote. It's inconvenient for your argument.

My goodness me, what is the point of talking to someone who is blatantly insane and blind?

I've already agreed a number of times that helping the poor when an opportunity arises and it's within our means to do so is what Christians should do, for it's just as Jesus did.

And I have already explained, Jesus clearly proactively seeked the poor and helped them, he tells his followers to do exactly that, he also tells his followers to sell everything they have for the poor, for you can't become his follower without giving up everything. You do some denial deflection massive bury head in the sand technique to try to Jedi mind trick yourself out of what you actually said, then you did it again:

Christians will help the poor and unfortunate when opportunity arises.

And I have already shown plenty of proof why that is not the case, but of course you'll completely deny that

I never said "the rich guy asked to be Jesus' follower". Get your facts straight. I said: "The rich guy wanted to be Jesus' follower "

And this is the guy saying other people are arguing semantics? You are the biggest Christian hypocrite I have ever dealt with. Btw if you actually know the scriptures of that, you know he asks Jesus how he gets eternal life, right? Not about wanting to be his follower, so you've already proven that you know jack stuff all. And you're gonna sit there arguing the semantics of wanted and asked? What is the point of dealing with someone who clearly doesn't know the bible, and just knows how to type a lot and make denials and complete hypocritical statements?

Given that Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 "‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" shows it was about rounding up the sheep, (making disciples), not physically helping the poor, as you think is being referred to. Not all people are considered "brothers and sisters" of Jesus. It's also another reason why the sheep and goats analogy isn't about physical needs.

You are either a nefarious liar of the scriptures or you know nothing of a book you supposedly follow, I am voting both. These are the people Jesus talked about

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

So hungry and thirsty people aren't about physical need, so you dont' have to help people who aren't brothers and sisters in Christ, which you can somehow distinguished before even knowing who they are since they are strangers. Lets not even mention how the people in prison thing shows how full of crap you are

You completely took one verse out of the entire 15 of them talking about the sheeps and the goats, completely and utterly out of context, twisted it in a completely stupid manner to justify your own prejudice, when the entire thing already proves you completely wrong. So hunger and thirst aren't physical needs? HAHAHAHAHA. You are complete clown, what is the point of talking to someone who is blatantly asking to be in a mental asylum? I repeat, you are just a nefarious liar

I asked for you to quote the original text of mine, not something I've used since during our discussion. The use of the words "when opportunity arises" isn't the issue, but what it means in context to what's being said is. You're trying to make this an issue of its mere use, and not what it reflects in context. Seems intellectually dishonest on your part.

If anyone here is intellectually dishonest, it's you, you are the most dishonest man in this entire thread. Do you understand the phrase pot calling the kettle black? At least you understand something right

So you are here arguing semantics again? Which btw you're gonna hypocritical accuse other people of doing, because you have no self awareness and is completely insane

When opportunity arises is completely the issue, coz it's completely imbiblical, which I ain't gonna bother explaining again because I've done it many times. You've shown you know nothing about Jesus and his commandments and yet you're gonna sit here just typing loads of words and hope people think you might actually know something, what a fool

You spew a whole lot of bile. When you can't back what you're saying, as well as apply understanding to scriptures, it seems that's all you have - a whole paragraph of bile without substance. You even get "One of the key matters" and "main goal" confused.

I back what I am saying, all the time, with cold hard facts, the bile comes when the insane person keeps playing denial, playing semantics, playing Jedi mind tricks, blatantly lie, blatantly being hypocritical, and somehow he calls himself a Christian. The bile is very much justified

The only bloke confused is you, yet again you talk about other people making claims on you without evidence, then you did it there, for an entire post, what's the point of even responding to someone who blatantly and hypocritically lie?

What I said regarding Jesus' commandment to his disciples of the time has already been covered in my previous posts. The words "of Jesus' time" and "today" speak as to the context. Paraphrasing has done your argument little service, for it's already been answered. Are you intellectually dishonest or, just don't understand context?

There is a lot of crap to read, I ain't gonna bother coz honestly I do not have the time nor the patience to read the same bat droppings insane repetitive rubbish again. But honestly the above is more than enough to show why it isn't worth the time arguing with someone who is just blatantly a liar, throwing word turds everywhere, play little pettyfogging semantics and be a hypocrite. And you are a Christian? Thanks for repeatedly proving me right and proving to everyone in the thread that you really are the most insane person going around in this forum
I

 

[Cooldude]

In fact why bother with Tesseract, the bloke is blatantly insane and straight face lies without batting an eyelid, just plays little semantics, blatantly ignore what people say and make up new things in his mind, put words in your mouth, then arrogantly project his own insane behaviour on others. Now I know why people don't deal with you in this forum, coz you really are a piece of work

Seriously gonna claim hunger and thirst aren't physical needs then have a go at others for playing semantics and are intellectually dishonest? Clown

Plenty of people have already shown that you are barking up the wrong tree in regards to this topic, I have long shown it if not for the fact that you are blind physically and mentally, but you will keep going, coz that's what you do. Like Joseph Goebbels say, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true, so keep telling those lies to yourself, keep saying it, again and again