How the Lynch Stole Xmas

[jpholding]

I would like to have comments on

http://www.tektonics.org/lynchmob.html

It has several links so it would be a lot of trouble to post it whole. But perhaps we can discuss his ten points two at a time.

[BeHereNow]

Just a quick comment.

We can be pleased that this one is #10 and last; it is common, and the most fallacious of arguments used by critics. Does any of this alter in the least any factual claim of Christianity? Of course not. Does Islam become less true simply because of 9/11? And if this is valid, then can we pile on lists of persons like Joseph Lister, Mother Theresa, and Saint Francis, and make Christianity true? Shall we pile on books like Stark's For the Glory of God (written by an agnostic, no less!) documenting Christianity's positive effects on history, and Schaefer's Hasn’t the overall influence of Christianity been negative? (part of a larger essay) and call it a win or at least a draw?

Well, yes, in a way. Wasn't it Jesus who said to judge by one's fruits? Every person would indeed want to settle this matter internally by judging Christianity's fruits. Does it yield positive outcomes? In what proportion?

I, for one, am in no rush to convert to Islam after seeing what the extreme yields. Compare their actions to extreme Buddhists.

:bunny:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=213960#post213960)
BeHereNow:

Just a quick comment.



Well, yes, in a way. Wasn't it Jesus who said to judge by one's fruits? Every person would indeed want to settle this matter internally by judging Christianity's fruits. Does it yield positive outcomes? In what proportion?

I believe that it refers to fruits as a whole. A good grape vine may occasionally deliver sour grapes, but on the whole it bears good fruits.

JP: Good article :thumb:

[BeHereNow]

spl_cadet:

I believe that it refers to fruits as a whole. A good grape vine may occasionally deliver sour grapes, but on the whole it bears good fruits.


In your opinion, which is why you are a Christian. :smile: IMO, the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth." What positive it does yield, I try to harness. The sour bunches get tossed.

:bunny:

[Tophet]

09-18-2003 @ 05:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214253#post214253)
BeHereNow:
IMO, the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."
:bunny:

Examples, please?

[BeHereNow]

Tophet:

Examples, please?

Most Christians I know live defeated lives. They can't understand how to overcome sin, how to treat others with love - they are essentially the exact same as people who aren't Christians. Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.

Now- we'll chalk that up as just human nature. Fair enough. With Christians, though, we'd expect to see much more positivity than negativity, and I don't see that. It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.

That's what I meant by no good fruit, and I think it is certainly relevant in deciding whether or not to follow this doctrine.

[jpholding]

Any chance you've set the bar arbitarily high based on your own misconceptions? :ahem: Being that you didn't have the definition of agape quite right, I think it is just to ask....

[Tophet]

Yesterday @ 07:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220308#post220308)
BeHereNow:



Most Christians I know live defeated lives. They can't understand how to overcome sin, how to treat others with love - they are essentially the exact same as people who aren't Christians. Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.

Now- we'll chalk that up as just human nature. Fair enough. With Christians, though, we'd expect to see much more positivity than negativity, and I don't see that. It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.

That's what I meant by no good fruit, and I think it is certainly relevant in deciding whether or not to follow this doctrine.


Hi, BeHereNow:

I understand your frustration. I've been wronged by Christians, too, as well as non-Christians. But you know, the standard of Christianity is not other Christians. The standard of Christianity is Jesus Christ. It is to Him that believers establish a personal relationship, and in that relationship, Jesus never disappoints.

In childhood I was actually attacked in church by a bully, and those in charge did nothing about it. Should I blame Christianity -- that is, Jesus, if those who claim to follow Him decide to break His commandments to love one another? Of course not. Because their behavior is, by definition, not Christian behavior.

If a policeman breaks the law, does that invalidate the law? I would say not.

If someone bakes cookies and they choose to not follow the recipe, and the results are a bad batch of cookies, who is at fault, the cook or the recipe?

In the Christian paradigm, we take comfort that justice will be done. (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 2:2-29, 2 Corinthians 5:10) But we also keep in mind the wider concepts inherent in Romans 12:9-12, among other verses.

Yes, there have been Christians that have wronged me. But I'm not going to let their misbehavior affect my fellowship with Jesus. That would be foolish.

The standard is the standard. The standard is not those who claim to follow the standard.

Please consider that.

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Any chance you've set the bar arbitarily high based on your own misconceptions? :ahem: Being that you didn't have the definition of agape quite right, I think it is just to ask....

Yes, there is certainly a chance. I'm not perfect. But, the issue in question here is: Should the actions of Christians be used at all in determining the veracity of their message? I'm trying to show you why I think it is relevant (your article said it's not). It's not about my understanding of agape (which I never got wrong, btw, since I never defined it), it's about observing Christians and asking yourself if they set a model you'd want to imitate.

As I said before, I'm in no rush to become a Muslim based upon the actions of their extremists. Sorry, I don't need to understand all of their concepts in the original language to judge the results of their belief system. Same goes for Christianity.

So you may also be setting the bar arbitrarily high by expecting me to understand the Bible in detail when all we are looking at here is whether or not the actions of Christians should be used in deciding the veracity of their beliefs.

[BeHereNow]

Hi, Tophet.

I'm going to have to respond piecemeal to address your post cohesively.

Tophet:

Hi, BeHereNow:

I understand your frustration.

Not frustrated at all. In fact, I'm ... :yipee: !!!!

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't really care how they act. Well, I do care, but no more than I care how anyone else acts.

I've been wronged by Christians, too, as well as non-Christians. But you know, the standard of Christianity is not other Christians. The standard of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

I never said Christians were the standard. I'm responding to the point in JP's article that says the actions of adherants can't be used in judging the veracity of the message. I claimed that the "fruit" is indeed a legitimate measure, based on Jesus' teaching. It's not the standard or the ultimate measure, but it is an indicator.

Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

It is to Him that believers establish a personal relationship, and in that relationship, Jesus never disappoints.

In childhood I was actually attacked in church by a bully, and those in charge did nothing about it. Should I blame Christianity -- that is, Jesus, if those who claim to follow Him decide to break His commandments to love one another?

No, you shouldn't blame Jesus - you should blame the church. To work this into the discussion, I'd say a church that allows this type of thing probably doesn't preach a very good message, and I would not attend that church. To be more broad, I'd say if I saw this type of behavior throughout the collective church body, then I wouldn't attend the religion.

Of course not. Because their behavior is, by definition, not Christian behavior.

If a policeman breaks the law, does that invalidate the law? I would say not.

If a majority of police repeatedly broke the same laws, I would certainly question the laws, yes.

If someone bakes cookies and they choose to not follow the recipe, and the results are a bad batch of cookies, who is at fault, the cook or the recipe?

If the recipe is 1,000 pages long, written in a different language, poorly translated, and written for people who don't even have the same utensils as the cook (different context), then yeah, I'd say the recipe might be outdated.

In the Christian paradigm, we take comfort that justice will be done. (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 2:2-29, 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Why? Why do you feel like you must fill that need for vengeance? Sure, you aren't personally exacting revenge, but you are satisfied knowing God will. Why? Can't you just accept that someone wronged you and move on? Why not take comfort in the fact that you are still alive and able to praise God?

Let me ask you this: what comfort was Job to expect when he was wronged by Satan per God's permission? Was God supposed to punish himself?

But we also keep in mind the wider concepts inherent in Romans 12:9-12, among other verses.

Perhaps too many Christians forget to read on to verse 14 and see that they are to "bless those who persecute [them]."

Yes, there have been Christians that have wronged me. But I'm not going to let their misbehavior affect my fellowship with Jesus. That would be foolish.

This is where we agree. Just because I may disagree with the writers of the Bible or the modern Christians does not mean I can't still commune with Jesus' spirit. Or Buddha's. Or Maharaj-ji's.

The standard is the standard. The standard is not those who claim to follow the standard.

Please consider that.

Consider it considered. :smile:

[jpholding]

Yo BHN,

Should the actions of Christians be used at all in determining the veracity of their message?

Not really. Most of the factors you listed (like being "defeated") I can directly link to the inability of a modern, individualist orientation as we have in America to follow the demands of a rigorous collectivism (as was in the ancient world). Go to the churches in China and countries that are still collective in outlook and you will see few if any defeated Christians; you will see vibrant and living churches.

observing Christians and asking yourself if they set a model you'd want to imitate.

I take it you are an American or at least Western in outlook. Would you care to live as an agonistic collectivist?

Sorry, I don't need to understand all of their concepts in the original language to judge the results of their belief system.

I'm afraid you do. Otherwise you can make false assumptions about the cause of thr results. To just look at what you do now is exceptionally short-sighted. :bunny:

[Tophet]

Hi, BeHereNow:

For the sake of clarity my answers are in bold. I'm still trying to get used to the format of this board.

When you say

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

… it’s logical for me to assume that you have been frustrated.

When you say …

“It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.”

… then yes, you are setting human behavior as the standard for Christianity.

When you said …

the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."

… the examples you cited were human behavior that disobeyed or disregarded Christian doctrine.

Christian doctrine is not based on human behavior. In the Christian paradigm, Christian behavior is based on Christian doctrine.

When you say ...

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

... those actions are not exemplary of Christian doctrine.

I never said Christians were the standard. I'm responding to the point in JP's article that says the actions of adherants can't be used in judging the veracity of the message. I claimed that the "fruit" is indeed a legitimate measure, based on Jesus' teaching. It's not the standard or the ultimate measure, but it is an indicator.

Yes, it is an indicator. It indicates whether or not people are abiding in the commands of Jesus. It doesn’t indicate that Jesus – or His commands -- are wrong.

1 John 3:24
Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Jesus told his followers,

Matthew 5

14"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

The doctrine of the fruits of the Spirit can be found here:

Galatians 5

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Simply, if one doesn’t follow the Standard, then the Standard is not at fault.

Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

Sure. But when the fruit is bad, Jesus tells us the results here:

Matthew 7
17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

And

Matthew 7

26"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."

At his website, J.P. Holding has a webpage listing testimonies of Christians, examples of “good fruit.” http://www.tektonics.org/testimony.html

“ It is to Him that believers establish a personal relationship, and in that relationship, Jesus never disappoints.

In childhood I was actually attacked in church by a bully, and those in charge did nothing about it. Should I blame Christianity -- that is, Jesus, if those who claim to follow Him decide to break His commandments to love one another? ”

No, you shouldn't blame Jesus - you should blame the church. To work this into the discussion, I'd say a church that allows this type of thing probably doesn't preach a very good message, and I would not attend that church. To be more broad, I'd say if I saw this type of behavior throughout the collective church body, then I wouldn't attend the religion.

Once again you’re citing human behavior as the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the Standard. He is the head of the church.

Colossians 1:18

And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

His message is pure. So the problem is not with the message, and it’s not how well it’s preached. The problem is with those who ignore the message.

“ If a policeman breaks the law, does that invalidate the law? I would say not. ”



If a majority of police repeatedly broke the same laws, I would certainly question the laws, yes.

At that point, the police would be assuming an authority they legally would not have. It’s self-evident that breaking the law is illegal.

“ If someone bakes cookies and they choose to not follow the recipe, and the results are a bad batch of cookies, who is at fault, the cook or the recipe? ”



If the recipe is 1,000 pages long, written in a different language, poorly translated, and written for people who don't even have the same utensils as the cook (different context), then yeah, I'd say the recipe might be outdated.

That depends on whether the cook wants the desired results of the recipe. Page length is irrelevant. The recipe can be read in its original language. The translations are accurate. (See for yourself at www.biblegateway.com.) The utensils are the same – your eyes for reading, your brain for understanding, your heart for your willingness to follow the recipe, and love is a universal context.

Jesus said, in Matthew 22,
37Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
These commandments are as relevant today as they were centuries ago. Love is certainly not an outdated concept.

“ In the Christian paradigm, we take comfort that justice will be done. (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 2:2-29, 2 Corinthians 5:10) ”



Why? Why do you feel like you must fill that need for vengeance?

Are you saying there is no need for justice?

Sure, you aren't personally exacting revenge, but you are satisfied knowing God will. Why?

Because I believe in justice, and God’s will is perfect.

Can't you just accept that someone wronged you and move on? Why not take comfort in the fact that you are still alive and able to praise God?

I do, and I praise Jesus that my relationship with Him is not dependent upon the actions of others.

Let me ask you this: what comfort was Job to expect when he was wronged by Satan per God's permission? Was God supposed to punish himself?

The answer can be found in Job 38-42.

“ But we also keep in mind the wider concepts inherent in Romans 12:9-12, among other verses. ”



Perhaps too many Christians forget to read on to verse 14 and see that they are to "bless those who persecute [them]."

Or perhaps not. “Among other verses” does include verse 14.


“ Yes, there have been Christians that have wronged me. But I'm not going to let their misbehavior affect my fellowship with Jesus. That would be foolish. ”


This is where we agree. Just because I may disagree with the writers of the Bible or the modern Christians does not mean I can't still commune with Jesus' spirit. Or Buddha's. Or Maharaj-ji's.

Except Jesus endorsed the writers of the Bible. Modern Christians are not the standard of Christianity. Jesus is the Standard of Christianity. The Standard is not those who claim to follow the standard. And since Jesus claimed exclusivity (John 14:6), communing with the spirits of all three is not possible.

“ The standard is the standard. The standard is not those who claim to follow the standard.

Please consider that. ”



Consider it considered.

Thank you, BeHereNow. I found a good essay on this topic written by Ken Samples here:
http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/hypocris.htm

Hopefully it can help.

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Yo BHN,

Should the actions of Christians be used at all in determining the veracity of their message?

Not really. Most of the factors you listed (like being "defeated") I can directly link to the inability of a modern, individualist orientation as we have in America to follow the demands of a rigorous collectivism (as was in the ancient world). Go to the churches in China and countries that are still collective in outlook and you will see few if any defeated Christians; you will see vibrant and living churches.

IOW, Christianity was set up for a different type of society than what I live in, therefore it is outmoded unless I can somehow change my consciousness to collectivist. Yeah?

observing Christians and asking yourself if they set a model you'd want to imitate.

I take it you are an American or at least Western in outlook. Would you care to live as an agonistic collectivist?

If I were living as an collectivist, I probably wouldn't have an opinion about it. :smile: As an individual with awareness of the group, I'd say no I don't want that.

Sorry, I don't need to understand all of their concepts in the original language to judge the results of their belief system.

I'm afraid you do. Otherwise you can make false assumptions about the cause of thr results. To just look at what you do now is exceptionally short-sighted. :bunny:

The cause of the result, according to you, is that the religion was set up for a different type of society. You keep calling me short-sighted, but you haven't shown me why that is. Jesus said to judge a person by their fruits. He didn't say to do an in-depth study as to the roots and original contexts of their religious beliefs. Yeah, that is helpful if you want to understand the religion, but it is not the only factor at which to look.

:cirrobot:

[BeHereNow]

:hi:

Tophet, please give me the benefit of the doubt that what I tell you is what I really mean. I'm not trying to lie or deceive to push a point. I'm laying my thoughts out open for you to read, to see how I arrived at the point I'm at.

Now, then.

Tophet:

When you say

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

… it’s logical for me to assume that you have been frustrated.

Have been, sure. Am? nah.

Again, I'm not trying to lie to you. If I lie to you, I lie to myself.

When you say …

“It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.”

… then yes, you are setting human behavior as the standard for Christianity.

Nope, as I said, it is a measure, not a standard.

[b]When you said …

the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."

… the examples you cited were human behavior that disobeyed or disregarded Christian doctrine.

I can name other types of examples if you'd like. The main one I'd cite is the fact that most Christians are just as unhappy and unpeaceful as non-Christians. I see bitterness, inability to overcome worry and fear, greed, lust, gluttony (and this one is even joked about in church like it's acceptable), and general dissatisfaction - all things that the Bible promises God can rid you of.

Christian doctrine is not based on human behavior. In the Christian paradigm, Christian behavior is based on Christian doctrine.

When you say ...

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

... those actions are not exemplary of Christian doctrine.

They are exemplary of the result of the Christian doctrine applied in our society.

I never said Christians were the standard. I'm responding to the point in JP's article that says the actions of adherants can't be used in judging the veracity of the message. I claimed that the "fruit" is indeed a legitimate measure, based on Jesus' teaching. It's not the standard or the ultimate measure, but it is an indicator.

Yes, it is an indicator. It indicates whether or not people are abiding in the commands of Jesus. It doesn’t indicate that Jesus – or His commands -- are wrong.

Again, I did not say that. Please listen to me. Isn't there more to the Bible than the sayings of Jesus? Yes?

I know plenty of people who are devout Christians that spend every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God. They do everything they know to do to keep Jesus' commands, but somehow they fall short. Why?

My answer is that the Bible does not give practical steps for attaining the fanciful goals it sets. Sure, you can talk about marvelous fruits of the spirit all you'd like, but unless you tell people practical steps for attaining them, it's useless. Obviously, just believing and praying is not enough to get you there.

<snip for brevity>

Simply, if one doesn’t follow the Standard, then the Standard is not at fault.

I have no problem with those verses. They are applicable to any person's life, but somehow they are rarely actually applied. I'm saying the Christian doctrine is not viable to produce the results those verses speak of on a consistent basis.

On the other hand, if you were to meditate for half an hour every day, you will have far better results. Why? Because it's practical training to implement a center of peace into your core being.

At this point, once you've reached peace and found your center, you can ponder the fanciful teachings of the Bible with a calm realization of their applicability. Without the peace, it's useless.

Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

Sure. But when the fruit is bad, Jesus tells us the results here:

Matthew 7
17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

And

Matthew 7

26"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."[b]

I've got no problem with these verses, and I don't see how they invalidate what I said. If the fruit is overwhelmingly bad, cut the tree down. Start over. That's what I advocate.

[b]At his website, J.P. Holding has a webpage listing testimonies of Christians, examples of “good fruit.” http://www.tektonics.org/testimony.html

If I made a list of "bad fruit" would that convince you of anything?

What if I sent you to a Hindu site that lists their good fruit?

No, you shouldn't blame Jesus - you should blame the church. To work this into the discussion, I'd say a church that allows this type of thing probably doesn't preach a very good message, and I would not attend that church. To be more broad, I'd say if I saw this type of behavior throughout the collective church body, then I wouldn't attend the religion.

Once again you’re citing human behavior as the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the Standard. He is the head of the church.

sigh... How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not citing human behavior as the standard. We were talking about a specific instance, and I specifically laid the blame on humans. Would you rather I blamed God for the church allowing the kid to bully you?

His message is pure. So the problem is not with the message, and it’s not how well it’s preached. The problem is with those who ignore the message.

So how do you explain those people who don't ignore the message, who do study the Bible and strive to know Christ, and still end up living miserable lives?

If a majority of police repeatedly broke the same laws, I would certainly question the laws, yes.

At that point, the police would be assuming an authority they legally would not have. It’s self-evident that breaking the law is illegal.

Uh... so you are changing the question? You never asked if what they were doing was illegal. You asked if a cop breaks a law, does that make the law bad? I said that if a majority of police, enforcers of the law, continually break a law, then that law needs to be questioned. Why do you have to keep widening the goal posts instead of just accepting a point I make?

If you aren't here to understand what I'm saying, then conversation is over. If you're interested in arguing for the sake of argument, no thanks. Ok?

If the recipe is 1,000 pages long, written in a different language, poorly translated, and written for people who don't even have the same utensils as the cook (different context), then yeah, I'd say the recipe might be outdated.

That depends on whether the cook wants the desired results of the recipe. Page length is irrelevant. The recipe can be read in its original language. The translations are accurate.

Clearly we are not talking about the Bible, but literally a fictional recipe. Gotcha. (unless you thought KJV is accurate?)

Why? Why do you feel like you must fill that need for vengeance?

Are you saying there is no need for justice?

Nope. You're equating justice to vengeance. Think about that and think about where you get that concept.

Sure, you aren't personally exacting revenge, but you are satisfied knowing God will. Why?

Because I believe in justice, and God’s will is perfect.

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me. You are now equating your will to God's will. Why? Confusing doctrine, perhaps?

Can't you just accept that someone wronged you and move on? Why not take comfort in the fact that you are still alive and able to praise God?

I do, and I praise Jesus that my relationship with Him is not dependent upon the actions of others.

That's irrelevant. I didn't say anything about your relationship with Jesus. I said, why do you have to take comfort knowing you'll get vengeance when you could just accept the fact you've been wronged and move on? You said you do, but you contradict that by saying earlier that you took comfort in knowing God will take vengeance.

So which is it? Do you take comfort in vengeance or not?

Perhaps too many Christians forget to read on to verse 14 and see that they are to "bless those who persecute [them]."

Or perhaps not. “Among other verses” does include verse 14.


So you entirely missed my point? Ok. I wasn't literally saying that people stop reading at verse 13. I was trying to say that I never see verse 14 put into practice.

This is where we agree. Just because I may disagree with the writers of the Bible or the modern Christians does not mean I can't still commune with Jesus' spirit. Or Buddha's. Or Maharaj-ji's.

Except Jesus endorsed the writers of the Bible.

Really? He endorsed Paul? How do you know that? Ooooh, because Paul claimed it? What about Ram Dass, who would also claim to be endorsed by Jesus? Do you believe him?

Modern Christians are not the standard of Christianity. Jesus is the Standard of Christianity. The Standard is not those who claim to follow the standard.

I never said Christians are the standard. I explicitly said over and over again, they are a measure. Again, if you keep calling me a liar, I will stop responding to you.

And since Jesus claimed exclusivity (John 14:6), communing with the spirits of all three is not possible.

That verse doesn't claim exclusivity at all. Jesus was the way. IOW, he was like the Guru. It's like this: teachers teach the way, but gurus are the way. See?

Thank you, BeHereNow. I found a good essay on this topic written by Ken Samples here:
http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/hypocris.htm

Hopefully it can help.

This has absolutely nothing to do with hypocrisy. I'm talking about honest people, earnestly striving to follow Christ, and ultimately living unhappy, peaceless lives. I blame the doctrine for the failure of these folks.

I enjoy talking about this Tophet, but seriously I am not going to continue if you persist on ignoring what I say to push a point. If you aren't interested in understanding my view, then there is no reason for me to even try to teach you.

:whistle:

[jpholding]

Yazzah,

IOW, Christianity was set up for a different type of society than what I live in, therefore it is outmoded unless I can somehow change my consciousness to collectivist. Yeah?

More like, we are outmoded unless we realize the weaknesses inherent in out individualist society and learn to cope with them. And this goes beyond a matter of Christianity, but also reflects our psychological state as whole.


The cause of the result, according to you, is that the religion was set up for a different type of society. You keep calling me short-sighted, but you haven't shown me why that is.

I should think it is obvious: You don't make the adjustment before making judgment. However, it is not so much that it was "set up for a different type of society" as the values it offers are easier to accept in a different type of society. Take the general principle of loving one's neighbor -- I think you can agree that that is much easier to do if you think of your neighbor as an "us" rather than as a "them".

Jesus said to judge a person by their fruits. He didn't say to do an in-depth study as to the roots and original contexts of their religious beliefs.

A little simplistic, I would say, to stretch a proverbial agricultural metaphor such that it gives clearance to make snap judgments without serious excavation and consideration. If I didn't know better I would think you had become a fundamentalist. :wink: Besides, why would he need to say any such thing to his own contemporaries who had the same contexts as part of their mental furniture?

:yog:

[Tophet]

Hi, again, BeHereNow:

Well, hopefully I can clear some misperceptions.

My previous comments are italicized, my current comments are in bold.

“ When you say …

“It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.”

… then yes, you are setting human behavior as the standard for Christianity. ”


Nope, as I said, it is a measure, not a standard.

Perhaps the dictionary can help you.
Webster’s: measure. n. 1. a unit or standard of measurement.

“ When you said …

the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."

… the examples you cited were human behavior that disobeyed or disregarded Christian doctrine. ”


I can name other types of examples if you'd like. The main one I'd cite is the fact that most Christians are just as unhappy and unpeaceful as non-Christians.

Except this is not a fact, and totally unsubstantiated.

I see bitterness, inability to overcome worry and fear, greed, lust, gluttony (and this one is even joked about in church like it's acceptable), and general dissatisfaction - all things that the Bible promises God can rid you of.

Jesus said,

John 15

10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.

So, BeHereNow, you disagree with Jesus Christ. Are you therefore claiming He is a liar? Are you claiming your authority is greater than Jesus? Are you claiming you know better than Him? And upon what basis do you disagree?

The instances you cite is what happens when the cook doesn’t follow the recipe. Therefore, the recipe is not at fault.

On the other hand, I know Christians who are not bitter; they have overcome worry and fear, they are not greedy, lustful or gluttonous, nor are they generally dissatisfied with life. They have followed the recipe. Therefore, the recipe works.

“ Christian doctrine is not based on human behavior. In the Christian paradigm, Christian behavior is based on Christian doctrine.

When you say ...

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

... those actions are not exemplary of Christian doctrine. ”


They are exemplary of the result of the Christian doctrine applied in our society.

Not at all. Christian doctrine does not condone betrayal of trust, scaring, reviling, or any kind of wrongdoing to people.

“ I never said Christians were the standard. I'm responding to the point in JP's article that says the actions of adherants can't be used in judging the veracity of the message. I claimed that the "fruit" is indeed a legitimate measure, based on Jesus' teaching. It's not the standard or the ultimate measure, but it is an indicator.

Yes, it is an indicator. It indicates whether or not people are abiding in the commands of Jesus. It doesn’t indicate that Jesus – or His commands -- are wrong. ”



Again, I did not say that. Please listen to me. Isn't there more to the Bible than the sayings of Jesus? Yes?

I know plenty of people who are devout Christians that spend every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God. They do everything they know to do to keep Jesus' commands, but somehow they fall short. Why?

Quite simply, because they’re not following the recipe.
This is what Jesus says about worry:

Matthew 6

25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
28"So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31"Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.


The concept of “worry”, therefore, is not an example of Christian doctrine, nor is it the result of Christian doctrine, as you claim.
The concept of “falling short” can be found in the book of Romans, but read what it says:

Romans 3
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

My answer is that the Bible does not give practical steps for attaining the fanciful goals it sets.

What “fanciful goals” are you talking about?

Sure, you can talk about marvelous fruits of the spirit all you'd like, but unless you tell people practical steps for attaining them, it's useless.

Paul provided practical steps in the book of Romans.

Obviously, just believing and praying is not enough to get you there.

Obviously, you are mistaken, because belief and prayer are sufficient.

Note the case of the Apostle Paul:

2 Corinthians 12

The Thorn in the Flesh
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

“Simply, if one doesn’t follow the Standard, then the Standard is not at fault. ”



I have no problem with those verses. They are applicable to any person's life, but somehow they are rarely actually applied. I'm saying the Christian doctrine is not viable to produce the results those verses speak of on a consistent basis.

But the only “proof” you gave was that of people ignoring Christian doctrine. You’re ignoring Christians who do follow Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, if you were to meditate for half an hour every day, you will have far better results. Why? Because it's practical training to implement a center of peace into your core being.

At this point, once you've reached peace and found your center, you can ponder the fanciful teachings of the Bible with a calm realization of their applicability. Without the peace, it's useless.

You might want to consider

Philippians 4

1 Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved.

2 I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.
4Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!
5Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.
6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things. 9The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.

BeHereNow, are you saying this is impractical?

“ Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

Sure. But when the fruit is bad, Jesus tells us the results here:

Matthew 7

17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

And

Matthew 7

26"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."[/b] ”


I've got no problem with these verses, and I don't see how they invalidate what I said.

Because these verses demonstrate what happens when Christian doctrine is disregarded. Christian doctrine is not invalidated if people disregard it. Therefore, your contention is invalidated.

If the fruit is overwhelmingly bad, cut the tree down. Start over. That's what I advocate.

As does Jesus Christ.

“ At his website, J.P. Holding has a webpage listing testimonies of Christians, examples of “good fruit.” http://www.tektonics.org/testimony.html
”


If I made a list of "bad fruit" would that convince you of anything?

Only that it would serve as examples of works of the flesh, and not of the Spirit. It would therefore not be indicative of Christian doctrine.

What if I sent you to a Hindu site that lists their good fruit?

Only that it would be irrelevant to the Christian paradigm, which is the present discussion.

“ No, you shouldn't blame Jesus - you should blame the church. To work this into the discussion, I'd say a church that allows this type of thing probably doesn't preach a very good message, and I would not attend that church. To be more broad, I'd say if I saw this type of behavior throughout the collective church body, then I wouldn't attend the religion.

Once again you’re citing human behavior as the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the Standard. He is the head of the church. ”

sigh... How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not citing human behavior as the standard.

Take a look at your quote above. Did you or did you not say “this type of behavior”? You are judging a religion based upon the behavior of its followers ignoring its message. At the same time, you are ignoring the positive behavior of those who do follow the message.

We were talking about a specific instance, and I specifically laid the blame on humans.

You specifically said “church”, then applied it to the broader paradigm of “religion.”

Would you rather I blamed God for the church allowing the kid to bully you?

Of course not. It’s a case of followers not following Christian doctrine.

“ His message is pure. So the problem is not with the message, and it’s not how well it’s preached. The problem is with those who ignore the message. ”



So how do you explain those people who don't ignore the message, who do study the Bible and strive to know Christ, and still end up living miserable lives?

Shall I recite John 15:10-11 for you again?

Their fruits reveal that they are ignoring the message. Therefore, as I said earlier, how do you explain those people who do follow the message, who study the Bible and already know Christ, and are living happy and fulfilled lives?

More later.

[Tophet]

Hey, J.P.:

What do you think of Ken Samples' "An Answer to the Hypocrisy Excuse" at
http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/hypocris.htm?

[Tophet]

Hi, BeHereNow:

Your contention with Christianity is that

“Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."

citing, as an example

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

Therefore believing that if a Christian breaks the commandments of Jesus Christ, the commandments of Jesus Christ are invalid.

As an analogy, I stated:

If a policeman breaks the law, does that invalidate the law? I would say not.

If someone bakes cookies and they choose to not follow the recipe, and the results are a bad batch of cookies, who is at fault, the cook or the recipe?

Your response:

“If a majority of police repeatedly broke the same laws, I would certainly question the laws, yes.

At that point, the police would be assuming an authority they legally would not have. It’s self-evident that breaking the law is illegal. ” [/B]

Uh... so you are changing the question?

Nope. Just clarifying it.

You never asked if what they were doing was illegal.

I didn’t have to. Breaking the law is illegal. That’s self-evident.

You asked if a cop breaks a law, does that make the law bad?

What I said was, “If a policeman breaks the law, does that invalidate the law? I would say not.”

I said that if a majority of police, enforcers of the law, continually break a law, then that law needs to be questioned.

What you said was, “If a majority of police repeatedly broke the same laws, I would certainly question the laws, yes.”

Why do you have to keep widening the goal posts instead of just accepting a point I make?

Widening? I said “policeman” and you said “majority of police.” I said “invalidate the law” and you said “question the laws.”

Now, when you question the law, by what authority are you doing so? For police to break the law, does not mean the law is invalidated. It means the police – no matter how many – are violating their oath to defend and enforce the law.[/B]

If you aren't here to understand what I'm saying, then conversation is over. If you're interested in arguing for the sake of argument, no thanks. Ok?

I’m actually here to correct your misperceptions of the Christian faith. If you keep demonstrating an unwillingness to understand it, it is not I that’s arguing for the sake of argument.

“ If the recipe is 1,000 pages long, written in a different language, poorly translated, and written for people who don't even have the same utensils as the cook (different context), then yeah, I'd say the recipe might be outdated.

That depends on whether the cook wants the desired results of the recipe. Page length is irrelevant. The recipe can be read in its original language. The translations are accurate.”

Clearly we are not talking about the Bible, but literally a fictional recipe.

No, clearly we are talking about the Bible.

Gotcha. (unless you thought KJV is accurate?)

In terms of doctrine, yes – which is the context of this discussion. Note, please, the KJV is among the translations at www.biblegateway.com.

“Why? Why do you feel like you must fill that need for vengeance?

Are you saying there is no need for justice?”


Nope. You're equating justice to vengeance. Think about that and think about where you get that concept.

How about Hebrews 10:30-31?

“Sure, you aren't personally exacting revenge, but you are satisfied knowing God will. Why?

Because I believe in justice, and God’s will is perfect.”


Thank you for continuing to make my point for me.

And your point is? You’ve cited many.

You are now equating your will to God's will.

Not at all. I’m acknowledging God’s will is superior to mine in judgement and doling out punishment.

Why? Confusing doctrine, perhaps?

Definitely not. The doctrine is perfectly clear.

“Can't you just accept that someone wronged you and move on? Why not take comfort in the fact that you are still alive and able to praise God?

I do, and I praise Jesus that my relationship with Him is not dependent upon the actions of others. ”

That's irrelevant.

Totally relevant to this discussion. We are talking about whether Christian doctrine is dependent upon the behavior of its followers. It is not.

I didn't say anything about your relationship with Jesus.

You didn’t have to. Because that’s what Christianity is all about – whether or not you have a personal relationship with the Saviour. It’s foolish to not have that fellowship based upon the actions of those who ignore His will.

I said, why do you have to take comfort knowing you'll get vengeance when you could just accept the fact you've been wronged and move on?

What you said was,

“Can't you just accept that someone wronged you and move on? Why not take comfort in the fact that you are still alive and able to praise God?”

You said you do, but you contradict that by saying earlier that you took comfort in knowing God will take vengeance.

What I said was,

“In the Christian paradigm, we take comfort that justice will be done. (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 2:2-29, 2 Corinthians 5:10)”

Sorry, no contradiction here.

So which is it? Do you take comfort in vengeance or not?

As I said, I take comfort that justice will be done. Vengeance is the Lord’s jurisdiction, not mine.

“Perhaps too many Christians forget to read on to verse 14 and see that they are to "bless those who persecute [them]."

Or perhaps not. “Among other verses” does include verse 14.”

So you entirely missed my point?

Not at all. Apparently you entirely missed my point, which is, once again, the Standard is the standard. The Standard is not based on those who claim to follow the Standard.

Ok. I wasn't literally saying that people stop reading at verse 13. I was trying to say that I never see verse 14 put into practice.

You can if you decide to look for examples. One can be found in the case of Stephen’s martydom:

Acts 7
57Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

“This is where we agree. Just because I may disagree with the writers of the Bible or the modern Christians does not mean I can't still commune with Jesus' spirit. Or Buddha's. Or Maharaj-ji's.

Except Jesus endorsed the writers of the Bible.”

Really? He endorsed Paul? How do you know that? Ooooh, because Paul claimed it?

No, because Jesus endorsed Paul, as we read in Acts 9:1-22, and 2 Peter 3:14-16, and verified by the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles. And since Jesus worked miracles through Paul, it’s safe to say Jesus endorsed Paul. Oooooh.

I do think it would be helpful if you read the essay here:
http://www.tektonics.org/truthfulness.htm

What about Ram Dass, who would also claim to be endorsed by Jesus? Do you believe him?

Not if he promoted doctrines contrary to what Jesus taught.

“Modern Christians are not the standard of Christianity. Jesus is the Standard of Christianity. The Standard is not those who claim to follow the standard. ”

I never said Christians are the standard. I explicitly said over and over again, they are a measure.

Well, if we abide by the dictionary, a measure is a standard. This should not bother you.
Again, if you keep calling me a liar, I will stop responding to you.

Where did I call you a liar?
“And since Jesus claimed exclusivity (John 14:6), communing with the spirits of all three is not possible. ”

That verse doesn't claim exclusivity at all. Jesus was the way.

Well, let’s read what the verse says.

John 14
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Not “was the way.” It says, “I am the way.” That’s certainly exclusive.

Consider the words of the Apostle Peter:

Acts 4
10let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'12Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

It’s also good to heed the words of the Apostle Paul:

Galatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2and all the brethren who are with me,

3Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

IOW, he was like the Guru. It's like this: teachers teach the way, but gurus are the way. See?

Well, looks like Jesus has the greater authority:

Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

“Thank you, BeHereNow. I found a good essay on this topic written by Ken Samples here:
http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/hypocris.htm ”

This has absolutely nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Well, yes it does, as its opening paragraph demonstrates:

“Virtually everyone who has publicly identified himself or herself as a Christian has encountered nonbelievers who base their rejection of Christianity on the apparent moral failures of individual Christians or on the reprehensible actions of Christians corporately through the centuries. While the objection is expressed in many forms, its central thrust is that the hypocrisy of Christians invalidates Christianity. A thorough, sensitive response to this objection involves three elements: 1) identifying its illogic, 2) clarifying a common misperception about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and 3) discussing the emotional issues behind it.”

Did you even bother reading the essay?

I'm talking about honest people, earnestly striving to follow Christ, and ultimately living unhappy, peaceless lives.

You also talked about people who prompted you to say – and these are your words –

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

And you also stated,

“It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.

That's what I meant by no good fruit.”

Which is why Ken Samples’ essay is relevant.

I blame the doctrine for the failure of these folks.

And what “evidence” did you provide that demonstrated they were following Christian doctrine? Zero.

Since you didn’t indicate how following Christian doctrine leads to “failure” – nor can you -- this is your rationale:

Christians don’t follow Christian doctrine.
Therefore, Christian doctrine is wrong.

That’s like saying

Cooks don’t follow the recipe.
Therefore, the recipe is wrong.

On the other hand, I supplied online evidence of testimonies of Christians living victorious lives through Jesus Christ – which thoroughly negates your position. How many churches have you attended? There are Christians who do follow the recipe – the commands of Jesus Christ -- and live victoriously as a result.

I enjoy talking about this Tophet, but seriously I am not going to continue if you persist on ignoring what I say to push a point.

I haven’t ignored what you said. On the contrary, I’ve responded to every point.

If you aren't interested in understanding my view, then there is no reason for me to even try to teach you.

But I do understand your view. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

I wish you well.

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 05:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224889#post224889)
Tophet:

Hey, J.P.:

What do you think of Ken Samples' &quot;An Answer to the Hypocrisy Excuse&quot; at
http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/hypocris.htm?

Tophet,

SLAM DUNK! :thumb:

[BeHereNow]

Hoooooplah!!

jpholding:

Yazzah,

IOW, Christianity was set up for a different type of society than what I live in, therefore it is outmoded unless I can somehow change my consciousness to collectivist. Yeah?

More like, we are outmoded unless we realize the weaknesses inherent in out individualist society and learn to cope with them. And this goes beyond a matter of Christianity, but also reflects our psychological state as whole.

Aahhh... this is deep, I like it. This risks moving off topic, but do you think it is possible to intentionally shift society so dramatically? I'd reckon, since I haven't studied this concept, that the shift from coll. to ind. was gradual and unintentional, resulting as consequences of other advances (science, technology, etc.). What think ye?

Also, the answer you gave is basically that our society is outmoded for Christianity. So either a) a new religion needs to be molded from Christianity or b) society must somehow shift. Which of course takes us back to the preceding paragraph.

The cause of the result, according to you, is that the religion was set up for a different type of society. You keep calling me short-sighted, but you haven't shown me why that is.

I should think it is obvious: You don't make the adjustment before making judgment. However, it is not so much that it was "set up for a different type of society" as the values it offers are easier to accept in a different type of society. Take the general principle of loving one's neighbor -- I think you can agree that that is much easier to do if you think of your neighbor as an "us" rather than as a "them".

Yes, if the definition of "neighbor" is someone who is part of the group you identify with. But even in coll. societies, they had "thems", which would make it just as difficult, if not moreso, to love your enemies. This still doesn't directly answer whether or not a collectivist religion is suitable for an individualist society, though.

Jesus said to judge a person by their fruits. He didn't say to do an in-depth study as to the roots and original contexts of their religious beliefs.

A little simplistic, I would say, to stretch a proverbial agricultural metaphor such that it gives clearance to make snap judgments without serious excavation and consideration.

Two things:

1. I don't see how the fact that it was an agricultural metaphor changes its message. The message is still the same - judge someone by their fruits.
2. I'm not making snap judgements without serious excavation and consideration. In fact, quite the opposite.

If I didn't know better I would think you had become a fundamentalist. :wink:

Hey, just call me Ishmael. :geebob:

Besides, why would he need to say any such thing to his own contemporaries who had the same contexts as part of their mental furniture?

:yog:

I doubt the common people he preached to had the same kind of knowledge as the priests and scribes. Jesus' message was very simple (easy to remember, right?) - judge a person by their fruit. Stop trying to dance around your religion's culpability and admit or deny that modern-day Christianity, on average, produces bad fruit. :ddw:

[BeHereNow]

:hi: Tophet

My apologies for the belatedness.

I see that you responded to me twice, but I may only be able to get to just one for now.

My position is unique, and you seem to be addressing a similar, more popular position. Please read thoughtfully.

Tophet:

“ When you say …

“It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.”

… then yes, you are setting human behavior as the standard for Christianity. ”


Nope, as I said, it is a measure, not a standard.

Perhaps the dictionary can help you.
Webster’s: measure. n. 1. a unit or standard of measurement.

dictionary.com has 17 separate listings for "measure." I see you've chosen the one that would most likely fit your perception of my argument, rather than the one that actually would fit my argument:

7. An evaluation or a basis of comparison: “the final measure of the worth of a society” (Joseph Wood Krutch).

Obviously, a measure such as a pint or a meter would require a codified standard of measurement. We are talking about measuring character, not grams, Tophet. :smile:

So let word it like this: the fruit of Christians is indeed a measure by which the "standard" is judged.

“ When you said …

the Christian doctrine as a whole is not a good vine. It does not yield yummy grapes enough for it to be "correct" or "Truth."

… the examples you cited were human behavior that disobeyed or disregarded Christian doctrine. ”

I can name other types of examples if you'd like. The main one I'd cite is the fact that most Christians are just as unhappy and unpeaceful as non-Christians.

Except this is not a fact, and totally unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated, huh? Read up on suicide, depression, mood disorders and sociology. All different niches or societies that I have studied have shown that people of each strata have the same problems. In a culture like ours, the problems are essentially mental and monetary. I haven't seen a religion that has any overall better effect (though some cultures have higher or lower rates in certain areas - e.g. high suicide rates in China.)

Anyway, my claim is substantiated, and could be systematically proven if I had the resources to do a full on research project. Which I don't, so we'll have to rely on secondary evidence, yes?

I see bitterness, inability to overcome worry and fear, greed, lust, gluttony (and this one is even joked about in church like it's acceptable), and general dissatisfaction - all things that the Bible promises God can rid you of.

Jesus said,

John 15

10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.

This teaching by Jesus is true. He was the way, and therefore trying to share it. Read verse 11. So yeah, he's saying listen to him, he's only trying to share the way and bring light.

Now, please begin the loaded questions. :smile:

So, BeHereNow, you disagree with Jesus Christ. Are you therefore claiming He is a liar? Are you claiming your authority is greater than Jesus? Are you claiming you know better than Him? And upon what basis do you disagree?

Pharisee to Jesus: Are you saying you know better than these scriptures?!?! You mean that we should pray in a closet and keep our fasts private?

Jesus to Pharisee: No, the scriptures are the word, and have always been even when they weren't yet written. Simply following the laws won't get you to heaven. Let me show you how to grow and let the laws be your fruit, not your guide.

Pharisee to Jesus: So you are calling Moses a liar? You know better than the scriptures?

Jesus to Pharisee: :bonk:

The instances you cite is what happens when the cook doesn’t follow the recipe. Therefore, the recipe is not at fault.

On the other hand, I know Christians who are not bitter; they have overcome worry and fear, they are not greedy, lustful or gluttonous, nor are they generally dissatisfied with life. They have followed the recipe. Therefore, the recipe works.

Exactly. So you've a) admitted that there are Christians who are bitter, etc., and b) discovered that Christians are just like any other segment of society: good fruit & bad fruit. IOW, not significantly better or worse than the other.

That sounds good, I can live with a medium. Still isn't a compelling reason to follow the doctrine, but it is a compelling reason not to follow it. (Of course, this is unsubstantiated opinion! :lol:)

“ Christian doctrine is not based on human behavior. In the Christian paradigm, Christian behavior is based on Christian doctrine.

When you say ...

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

... those actions are not exemplary of Christian doctrine. ”


They are exemplary of the result of the Christian doctrine applied in our society.

Not at all. Christian doctrine does not condone betrayal of trust, scaring, reviling, or any kind of wrongdoing to people.

Didn't say what it condones. I said what it produces. :bonk: :bonk:

“ I never said Christians were the standard. I'm responding to the point in JP's article that says the actions of adherants can't be used in judging the veracity of the message. I claimed that the "fruit" is indeed a legitimate measure, based on Jesus' teaching. It's not the standard or the ultimate measure, but it is an indicator.

Yes, it is an indicator. It indicates whether or not people are abiding in the commands of Jesus. It doesn’t indicate that Jesus – or His commands -- are wrong. ”


Again, I did not say that. Please listen to me. Isn't there more to the Bible than the sayings of Jesus? Yes?

I know plenty of people who are devout Christians that spend every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God. They do everything they know to do to keep Jesus' commands, but somehow they fall short. Why?

Quite simply, because they’re not following the recipe.
This is what Jesus says about worry:

I see. So what you are saying is, that even someone who "spends every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God" is still not doing enough? Wow!!

Matthew 6

25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
28"So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31"Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

The concept of “worry”, therefore, is not an example of Christian doctrine, nor is it the result of Christian doctrine, as you claim.

That passage is wonderful. I had a non-Christian ask me the other day how that verse can be true when there are people starving all over the world. It was a great discussion about the context of that verse, and how the point is "don't worry," not "you will always have food."

Anyway, this is not the doctrine. This is the teachings of Jesus Christ. When I say Christian doctrine is bad, what I'm referring to is:

a- Anything other than the teachings of Jesus
b- Popular modern interpretations of the teachings of Jesus
c- Authority or assumed inerrancy of non-Jesus teachings

Nothing you quote me from Jesus is going to help you because I agree with you on that part. Jesus teachings were not meant to be doctrine.

The concept of “falling short” can be found in the book of Romans, but read what it says:

Romans 3

<snip for brevity>

Yeah. We do all fall short. And keep falling short. And keep falling short. And keep falling short. For two thousand years now, falling short, falling short. I'm on a path to change that. Did Jesus fall short of the glory of God? No. But we are supposed to strive to be like Jesus, right? Yes? But did he fall short? No, so why should we?

I mean, yeah that passage is accurate, but it should by no means be an excuse to continue taking the same path to the same stumblings. Right?

My answer is that the Bible does not give practical steps for attaining the fanciful goals it sets.

[B]What “fanciful goals” are you talking about? ]

I did not mean fanciful goals in a negative sense. Put down the defenses, Tophet ~ :rock:

Fanciful goals, as in peace, love, faith.

Sure, you can talk about marvelous fruits of the spirit all you'd like, but unless you tell people practical steps for attaining them, it's useless.

Paul provided practical steps in the book of Romans.

Ok, let me go read Romans again and try to find the passage you're talking about.

Obviously, just believing and praying is not enough to get you there.

Obviously, you are mistaken, because belief and prayer are sufficient.

Obviously, i'm going to have to disagree. For every case of a radiating, enlightened, peaceful Christian, I will show you at least three that are miserable wrecks. The ones that are miserable wrecks are just believing and praying. The ones that are at peace are doing more than that.

Note the case of the Apostle Paul:

2 Corinthians 12


<snip for brevity>


Although I disagree with Paul on a few issues, I will readily admit that he was a powerful witness. Looking at his success and influence, that much is impossible to deny. So mark that as one guy that probably understood Jesus. Awesome!

As per my promise above, I'll now name three that don't understand Jesus:

1. Jerry Fallwell
2. Fred Phelps
3, 4, 5. Anyone that goes to Fred Phelps' church

Wanna go again? Name someone that's like Paul :smile:

“Simply, if one doesn’t follow the Standard, then the Standard is not at fault. ”

I have no problem with those verses. They are applicable to any person's life, but somehow they are rarely actually applied. I'm saying the Christian doctrine is not viable to produce the results those verses speak of on a consistent basis.

But the only “proof” you gave was that of people ignoring Christian doctrine. You’re ignoring Christians who do follow Christian doctrine.

Is it not true that the doctrine should follow you, not vice versa? You should leave love as a footprint, wear it as a shoe, not follow it like a roadsign.

On the other hand, if you were to meditate for half an hour every day, you will have far better results. Why? Because it's practical training to implement a center of peace into your core being.

At this point, once you've reached peace and found your center, you can ponder the fanciful teachings of the Bible with a calm realization of their applicability. Without the peace, it's useless.

You might want to consider

Philippians 4

1 Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved.
2 I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.
4Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!
5Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.
6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things. 9The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.

BeHereNow, are you saying this is impractical?

I sure am, but that does not diminish their veracity. These are the outpourings of a man who has already reached that point, telling you how to be when you are there. He didn't give any actual steps or instructions for how he got there, though. He was encouraging brethren, not teaching.

Also, you didn't address my issue of meditation. Look at it like this: If I told you to meditate to find true happiness, that would be impractical. But, if I gave you specific instructions on how to sit, how to breathe, and how to clear your mind, that would be practical.

“ Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

Sure. But when the fruit is bad, Jesus tells us the results here:

Matthew 7

17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Which is why I say cut it down. If it produces bad fruit, as you've admitted earlier, then cut it down. Why do you resist? What do you fear if you have the Spirit as your guide?

And

Matthew 7

26"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall." ”

Not untrue.

I've got no problem with these verses, and I don't see how they invalidate what I said.

Because these verses demonstrate what happens when Christian doctrine is disregarded. Christian doctrine is not invalidated if people disregard it. Therefore, your contention is invalidated.

So you are contending that every person who follows the Christian doctrine will be at the level Jesus was? So my question to you is, why aren't you following the doctrine?

If the fruit is overwhelmingly bad, cut the tree down. Start over. That's what I advocate.

As does Jesus Christ.

So you agree with me. I'm happy to hear that. :egad:

If I made a list of "bad fruit" would that convince you of anything?

Only that it would serve as examples of works of the flesh, and not of the Spirit. It would therefore not be indicative of Christian doctrine.

It would be examples that the Spirit alone is not enough to conquer the flesh. They must learn to work together.

What if I sent you to a Hindu site that lists their good fruit?

Only that it would be irrelevant to the Christian paradigm, which is the present discussion.

I see. So if you found the exact same results in every religion, you'd find that to be irrelevant to the veracity of any specific religion?

Once again you’re citing human behavior as the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the Standard. He is the head of the church. ”

sigh... How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not citing human behavior as the standard.

Take a look at your quote above. Did you or did you not say “this type of behavior”? You are judging a religion based upon the behavior of its followers ignoring its message.

Yes, judging the tree by its fruit. Glad we're on the same page.

At the same time, you are ignoring the positive behavior of those who do follow the message.

I'm not ignoring the positive behavior - it's just that the bad behavior won't sit down so I can see behind it. Why don't you reread the verse you quoted me about if a tree produces ANY bad fruit, cut it down? Seriously, you don't see the connection here between Jesus' teaching and its direct application?

We were talking about a specific instance, and I specifically laid the blame on humans.

You specifically said “church”, then applied it to the broader paradigm of “religion.”

It was an analogy that you proposed. I was doing the best I could with understanding it. If you didn't want your story to serve as an analogy to the broader "church", you shouldn't have used it like that. You are starting to rely on deceitful tactics to make your point. Why do you keep doing that? You like lying to yourself?

So how do you explain those people who don't ignore the message, who do study the Bible and strive to know Christ, and still end up living miserable lives?

Shall I recite John 15:10-11 for you again?

Their fruits reveal that they are ignoring the message. Therefore, as I said earlier, how do you explain those people who do follow the message, who study the Bible and already know Christ, and are living happy and fulfilled lives?

LOL. You are now talking yourself in circles, Tophet! Good grief! Let me try again: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PEOPLE LIKE THOSE JESUS STIPULATED ABOVE WHO STILL END UP MISERABLE? :rofl:

[b]More later.

Not from me. You've got enough to digest for now, and I suggest you reread my post a few times. You've been missing my point big time, which is understandable because it's a unique position. Please take the time to reread what I've typed here, and then we can continue.

:thumb:

As an aside, you may be interested in knowing that throughout my life, from being a baby to just a few years ago, I've had over a dozen separate Christians prophecy that I "beat to a different drum," "will be a maverick," "will take the church in a new direction." As much as I've resisted this prophecy, I can't escape it. I'm not in a position where I'm confident to lead others yet, so don't take my words as gospel, ok? :smile:

[jpholding]

Rama lama ding dong,

BTW I have time now to deal with Campbell. Shall I post?

This risks moving off topic, but do you think it is possible to intentionally shift society so dramatically?

Ask MLK and Gandhi. It may NOT be possible, but I think someone who doesn't make the effort will be held responsible for not trying.

I'd reckon, since I haven't studied this concept, that the shift from coll. to ind. was gradual and unintentional, resulting as consequences of other advances (science, technology, etc.). What think ye?

That is so. Individualism came as a result of us having more leisure time for introspection.

So either a) a new religion needs to be molded from Christianity or b) society must somehow shift.

How about c) we need to just recognize the differences keep them in mind? This is what I do. I have a foot in both worlds, so to speak.

Yes, if the definition of "neighbor" is someone who is part of the group you identify with.

Jesus of course said to make everyone your neighbor, including groups you do NOT identify with....to view them not as "thems" beyond your disagreements. As I like to say, Jesus may have attacked the Pharisees, and Paul the heretics, but if one of them had dropped near dead, do you think they would not have given them CPR?

This still doesn't directly answer whether or not a collectivist religion is suitable for an individualist society, though.

I think I have said it isn't more or less. And that we have to adjust our thinking.

1. I don't see how the fact that it was an agricultural metaphor changes its message. The message is still the same - judge someone by their fruits.

Because you can't know all person's fruits at all times, just as a tree may produce bad fruit for one season or on just one branch. This is rule of thumb, not rule of law; that is IS an agri-met tells us it is proverbial in nature and for the practical use of agrarians, not atomizers.

2. I'm not making snap judgements without serious excavation and consideration. In fact, quite the opposite.

We'll see.... :smile:

I doubt the common people he preached to had the same kind of knowledge as the priests and scribes.

It's not that the common people did not have it so much as WE do not have even what the common people had.

religion's culpability and admit or deny that modern-day Christianity, on average, produces bad fruit.

There's no fox trot to be had. Applying "on average" to such a broad spectrum, if you wish to do so, means evaluating actions from every corner of the globe, from the Chinese church in the small village to the one on the mountaintop of Peru; from actions on the macro level (huge charities) to the micro level (giving a bum a dime); and then you have to read minds to get motivations into the picture. The best you can really do is evaluate fruit from one particular branch of the tree -- unless you have 45 years to spare. :shocked:

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Rama lama ding dong,

Ooo-eeee, oooh ah ah?


This risks moving off topic, but do you think it is possible to intentionally shift society so dramatically?

Ask MLK and Gandhi. It may NOT be possible, but I think someone who doesn't make the effort will be held responsible for not trying.

I agree with you, but I don't think it's possible to intentionally go from individualist to collectivist. People do try, as seen in communes and such, but this is a bit different from the ancient perspective.

So either a) a new religion needs to be molded from Christianity or b) society must somehow shift.

How about c) we need to just recognize the differences keep them in mind? This is what I do. I have a foot in both worlds, so to speak.

Can you expound on this a bit?

This still doesn't directly answer whether or not a collectivist religion is suitable for an individualist society, though.

I think I have said it isn't more or less. And that we have to adjust our thinking.

Then you agree that Christianity is not suited for our society?

1. I don't see how the fact that it was an agricultural metaphor changes its message. The message is still the same - judge someone by their fruits.

Because you can't know all person's fruits at all times, just as a tree may produce bad fruit for one season or on just one branch.

This contradicts Jesus' teaching in Matt. 7 that Tophet quoted:

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Jesus said a good tree can not bear any bad fruit. Would you agree that Christianity does produce at least one instance of bad fruit? Now, this can also apply to my argument, since Jesus said that a bad tree can't produce good fruit. I would agree that there has been good fruit produced from the tree of Christianity. So I really don't know where to go from here.

2. I'm not making snap judgements without serious excavation and consideration. In fact, quite the opposite.

We'll see.... :smile:

I was a Christian for about 15 years and studied, still study, the religion. I have a B.A. in sociology, so I've also studied different groups of humans and their behavior. I really don't think my opinions in this area are snap judgements.

religion's culpability and admit or deny that modern-day Christianity, on average, produces bad fruit.

There's no fox trot to be had.

Sure there is. You've yet to declare whether or not you think Christianity bears bad fruit. You keep saying there's no way to tell, rather than answering.

Applying "on average" to such a broad spectrum, if you wish to do so, means evaluating actions from every corner of the globe, from the Chinese church in the small village to the one on the mountaintop of Peru; from actions on the macro level (huge charities) to the micro level (giving a bum a dime); and then you have to read minds to get motivations into the picture. The best you can really do is evaluate fruit from one particular branch of the tree -- unless you have 45 years to spare. :shocked:

By on average, I am referring to our society. If you were to study Christians in every corner of the globe, you'd find that their behavior, mentality, and problems are a result of their culture and group conscious, and that Christians and non-Christians alike have the same struggles. IOW- "fruit" is more often a result of the society, and religion is typically not enough to overcome this, i.e. it's useless.

In looking at "fruit," you want to look at the behaviors and attitudes of the Christians. As I've said, you will find Christians are on average no different than non-Christians. Some are rotten, some are pristine. So what's the good in this tree?

:shocked:

[jpholding]

Ooo-eeee, oooh ah ah?

Band Aid?

I agree with you, but I don't think it's possible to intentionally go from individualist to collectivist. People do try, as seen in communes and such, but this is a bit different from the ancient perspective.

Heck, that's not even a mental orientation. People who "go commune" but are still individualists inside will get their rears kicked. It takes concentrated thought.

Can you expound on this a bit?

On how I have a foot in both worlds, you mean? If so, it's just an aptitude I have for putting myself in the place of others.

Then you agree that Christianity is not suited for our society?

Not without being filtered through our lenses. Understand that I do not think that this means one should reject it. I would also say it is more that our society is not suited for Christianity, of course.

This contradicts Jesus' teaching in Matt. 7 that Tophet quoted:

Only if you read it like a fundamentalist with overliteralism rather than proverbially.

Jesus said a good tree can not bear any bad fruit.

You know the citrus groves. Is that ALWAYS true? Come now. :shocked:

Would you agree that Christianity does produce at least one instance of bad fruit?

No. I would agree that some Christians do, though.

I was a Christian for about 15 years and studied, still study, the religion. I have a B.A. in sociology, so I've also studied different groups of humans and their behavior.

Bachelors? That wouldn't have involved much field work, would it?

Sure there is. You've yet to declare whether or not you think Christianity bears bad fruit. You keep saying there's no way to tell, rather than answering.

You may as well ask how many stars are in the sky and what the composition of the sand grain just to the left of the fifth rock in the Sea of Tranquility is. Such questions are not answerable unless you have 500,000,000 years and nothing else to do.

By on average, I am referring to our society.

Then make it just 15 years.

If you were to study Christians in every corner of the globe, you'd find that their behavior, mentality, and problems are a result of their culture and group conscious, and that Christians and non-Christians alike have the same struggles.

Ah. You took 45 years, then, and figured that out? :eek: Seems a rather broad brush to be painting with. "Same struggles"? Hmm. How about, do they have the same answers? (Beyond what is naturally practicable, anyway.) How about, the same attitudes? How about, keeping in mind that you'd have to measure each individual for how they would be in non-Christian vs Christian mode? As Lewis once said, the old Christian grouch may have been an even worse grouch as a pagan.

IOW- "fruit" is more often a result of the society, and religion is typically not enough to overcome this, i.e. it's useless.

Do you wash that broad brush in turpentine? :hrm:

[BeHereNow]

jpholding:

Ooo-eeee, oooh ah ah?

Band Aid?

Ahh.... I thought we were singing a song!

Ooo-eee, ooh ahah, rama lama ding dong, ooo-eee! Oh well :jaltus:

I agree with you, but I don't think it's possible to intentionally go from individualist to collectivist. People do try, as seen in communes and such, but this is a bit different from the ancient perspective.

Heck, that's not even a mental orientation. People who "go commune" but are still individualists inside will get their rears kicked. It takes concentrated thought.

It would take (individual) concentrated thought and individual motivation, as opposed to the ancients who were that way unintentionally.

Can you expound on this a bit?

On how I have a foot in both worlds, you mean? If so, it's just an aptitude I have for putting myself in the place of others.

Do you have any specific examples of what you mean by keeping a foot in the individualist world and a foot in the collectivist world?

Then you agree that Christianity is not suited for our society?

Not without being filtered through our lenses. Understand that I do not think that this means one should reject it. I would also say it is more that our society is not suited for Christianity, of course.

A-ha. Therefore, Christianity is not suitable for our society (or vice versa). So why would anyone in our society want to bother with it instead of just using the Holy Spirit to work out something new?

This contradicts Jesus' teaching in Matt. 7 that Tophet quoted:

Only if you read it like a fundamentalist with overliteralism rather than proverbially.

Jesus said a good tree can not bear any bad fruit.

You know the citrus groves. Is that ALWAYS true? Come now. :shocked:

I assume you aren't calling Jesus a liar, so can you explain what you think the proverb means? One-liners are snappy, but don't really explain much.

Would you agree that Christianity does produce at least one instance of bad fruit?

No. I would agree that some Christians do, though.

Then you don't consider individual Christians to be the fruit of Christianity? What, then, is the fruit?

I was a Christian for about 15 years and studied, still study, the religion. I have a B.A. in sociology, so I've also studied different groups of humans and their behavior.

Bachelors? That wouldn't have involved much field work, would it?

Obviously not, but this is irrelevant, JP. Are you saying that unless one has done direct observation case studies, one is making snap judgements? This is irrational. As I said, I've studied enough about humans and Christianity to form an educated opinion. Doesn't mean my opinions are accurate, per se, but they aren't snap judgements as you exclaimed.

Let me ask you this: how many field studies have you done in the ANE? Oh, none? And yet you'd consider yourself knowledgeable enough to form an educated opinion on their lifestyles, right?

Sure there is. You've yet to declare whether or not you think Christianity bears bad fruit. You keep saying there's no way to tell, rather than answering.

You may as well ask how many stars are in the sky and what the composition of the sand grain just to the left of the fifth rock in the Sea of Tranquility is. Such questions are not answerable unless you have 500,000,000 years and nothing else to do.

No way, bad analogy. I didn't ask you to count the number of Christians, I asked you to judge the fruit of the tree. But you won't do it, and that's fine.

"Same struggles"? Hmm. How about, do they have the same answers?

The differences in answers are irrelevant if the results are the same.

How about, keeping in mind that you'd have to measure each individual for how they would be in non-Christian vs Christian mode? As Lewis once said, the old Christian grouch may have been an even worse grouch as a pagan.

Any person that has Christian and non-Christian modes can be considered non-Christian.

IOW- "fruit" is more often a result of the society, and religion is typically not enough to overcome this, i.e. it's useless.

Do you wash that broad brush in turpentine? :hrm:

Did you study jazz dance at semitary?

:mononoke:

[jpholding]

Howzah,

Do you have any specific examples of what you mean by keeping a foot in the individualist world and a foot in the collectivist world?

The best one is that I practice true agape and put the interests of the group before the interests of individuals in the ministry effort.

So why would anyone in our society want to bother with it instead of just using the Holy Spirit to work out something new?

Why would anyone not want to use a Yugo to drive across a burning desert (rather than try to walk) just because a Lexus is not available?

I assume you aren't calling Jesus a liar, so can you explain what you think the proverb means?

It means the good tree = good fruit, bad tree = bad fruit is a general inclination or rule of thumb, not a mathematical formula. Just like every proverb has exceptions, like "He who hesitates is lost" does not apply to people using chainsaws.

Then you don't consider individual Christians to be the fruit of Christianity? What, then, is the fruit?

What is produced by those individuals as a whole.

Obviously not, but this is irrelevant, JP. Are you saying that unless one has done direct observation case studies, one is making snap judgements? This is irrational.

It is a fact. Can you honestly say that you have observed more than a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of all Christian behavior, from 33 AD to the present, worldwide? That's "enough" for an educated opinion? Snap....

Let me ask you this: how many field studies have you done in the ANE? Oh, none? And yet you'd consider yourself knowledgeable enough to form an educated opinion on their lifestyles, right?

No. I consider my source material so knowledgable, however.


No way, bad analogy. I didn't ask you to count the number of Christians, I asked you to judge the fruit of the tree.

One cannot be done without the other in a very real sense. You want to examine a tree with a lifespan of over 2000 years, and look at just one branch out of billions, and declare a verdict because you found a rust spot on one piece of fruit.

The differences in answers are irrelevant if the results are the same.

That's a remarkbly simplistic claim if I do say so. :erm:

Any person that has Christian and non-Christian modes can be considered non-Christian.

I am not saying they switch between modes. I am saying that you need to consider the the former mode, even if subjectively "bad," may be better even so than the person when they were in the latter mode prior to conversion.

Did you study jazz dance at semitary?

Nope. Rap. :tongue:

[Tophet]

Dear BeHereNow:

OK, so we’ll continue our discussion. My comments are in bold.


dictionary.com has 17 separate listings for "measure." I see you've chosen the one that would most likely fit your perception of my argument, rather than the one that actually would fit my argument:

7. An evaluation or a basis of comparison: “the final measure of the worth of a society” (Joseph Wood Krutch).

You left out the following: “See Synonyms at standard.”

“Measure” is synonymous with “standard.” To wit:

stan•dard Pronunciation Key (st n d rd)
n.
An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion.

Synonyms: standard, benchmark, criterion, gauge, measure, touchstone, yardstick
These nouns denote a point of reference against which individuals are compared and evaluated: a book that is a standard of literary excellence; a painting that is a benchmark of quality; criteria for hiring an excellent teacher; behavior that is a gauge of self-control; donations from the public, a measure of the importance of the arts; the program's success, a touchstone of cooperation in the community; farm failures, a yardstick of federal banking policy.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Obviously, a measure such as a pint or a meter would require a codified standard of measurement. We are talking about measuring character, not grams, Tophet.

Indeed we are, and the definition of “measure” is compatible with “standard.”
Standard. n 1: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work" [syn: criterion, measure, touchstone] 2: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community" [syn: criterion]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


measure
4. To adjust by a rule or standard.

To secure a contented spirit, measure your desires by your fortunes, not your fortunes by your desires. --Jer. Taylor.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.



Measure
6: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work" [syn: standard, criterion, touchstone]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


So let word it like this: the fruit of Christians is indeed a measure by which the "standard" is judged.

That would be an inaccurate statement. More accurately, is that the fruit of Christians is indeed a measure at how well they follow the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the standard. The standard is the standard, not those who claim to follow the standard.

“ most Christians are just as unhappy and unpeaceful as non-Christians.

Except this is not a fact, and totally unsubstantiated. ”



Unsubstantiated, huh? Read up on suicide, depression, mood disorders and sociology. All different niches or societies that I have studied have shown that people of each strata have the same problems. In a culture like ours, the problems are essentially mental and monetary. I haven't seen a religion that has any overall better effect (though some cultures have higher or lower rates in certain areas - e.g. high suicide rates in China.)

Anyway, my claim is substantiated, and could be systematically proven if I had the resources to do a full on research project. Which I don't, so we'll have to rely on secondary evidence, yes?

Your opinion is still not fact, and still unsubstantiated.

When I cited,

“ Jesus said,

John 15

10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. ”


You said,

This teaching by Jesus is true.

Your statement contradicts your earlier claim, which was

“I see bitterness, inability to overcome worry and fear, greed, lust, gluttony (and this one is even joked about in church like it's acceptable), and general dissatisfaction - all things that the Bible promises God can rid you of.”

Since Jesus’s teaching is true, your statement above is therefore false.

He was the way,

Not “was.” “Is.”
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

and therefore trying to share it. Read verse 11. So yeah, he's saying listen to him, he's only trying to share the way and bring light.

No, that’s not what the verse says. Read it again: John 15:11"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.

“ So, BeHereNow, you disagree with Jesus Christ. Are you therefore claiming He is a liar? Are you claiming your authority is greater than Jesus? Are you claiming you know better than Him? And upon what basis do you disagree? ”


You failed to directly answer these questions. Given your disagreement with Jesus, we can then regard your criticism as irrelevant, since Jesus is not a liar, that His authority is greater than yours, and that you do not know better than Him.

Your alleged Pharisee-Jesus dialogue is not found in Scripture, and demonstrates your continued misperception.

You also allege the following:

So you've a) admitted that there are Christians who are bitter, etc., and b) discovered that Christians are just like any other segment of society: good fruit & bad fruit. IOW, not significantly better or worse than the other.

Nowhere in this thread have I advocated this position, as any rational mind can perceive.

That sounds good, I can live with a medium. Still isn't a compelling reason to follow the doctrine, but it is a compelling reason not to follow it. (Of course, this is unsubstantiated opinion! )
Since unsubstantiated opinion is irrelevant, we will turn to substantiated fact:

Acts 4
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Since there is no salvation in any other name under heaven, then participation in other religions is a waste of time.
“ “ Christian doctrine is not based on human behavior. In the Christian paradigm, Christian behavior is based on Christian doctrine.

When you say ...

“Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.”

... those actions are not exemplary of Christian doctrine. ”

They are exemplary of the result of the Christian doctrine applied in our society.

Not at all. Christian doctrine does not condone betrayal of trust, scaring, reviling, or any kind of wrongdoing to people. ”



Didn't say what it condones. I said what it produces.

Logically, if it doesn’t condone, it therefore doesn’t produce.
“Betrayal of trust, scaring, reviling or any kind of wrongdoing” are examples of sin. Since Jesus does not advocate sin, those acts are therefore not Christian acts.

“ I know plenty of people who are devout Christians that spend every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God. They do everything they know to do to keep Jesus' commands, but somehow they fall short. Why?

Quite simply, because they’re not following the recipe.
This is what Jesus says about worry: ”



I see. So what you are saying is, that even someone who "spends every waking moment worrying about whether or not they please God" is still not doing enough? Wow!!

Wow, indeed. Because
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Romans 4
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Galatians 2
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1
8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

When I say Christian doctrine is bad, what I'm referring to is:

a- Anything other than the teachings of Jesus

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the definition of “Christian.” Let’s see if The American Heritage Dicitonary of the English Language can help:


Chris•tian Pronunciation Key (kr s ch n)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Do you understand, BeHereNow? “Based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” If it’s anything other than the teachings of Jesus, it therefore is not Christian.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

Do you understand, BeHereNow? “Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.” If it’s anything other than the teachings of Jesus, it therefore is not Christian.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

From
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition



Christian
\Chris"tian\, n. [L. christianus, Gr. ?; cf. AS. cristen. See Christ.] 1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. --Acts xi. 26.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.




b- Popular modern interpretations of the teachings of Jesus
“Popular modern interpretation” is irrelevant, since one can still access the teachings of Jesus in its original language.

c- Authority or assumed inerrancy of non-Jesus teachings
By definition, BeHereNow, if the teachings are not of Christ, it is therefore not Christian.


Nothing you quote me from Jesus is going to help you because I agree with you on that part.

Except when you disagree with Jesus and his statements, as you continue to demonstrate.

Jesus teachings were not meant to be doctrine.

First, let’s check on some definitions:

doc•trine Pronunciation Key (d k tr n)
n.
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.


[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin doctr na, from doctor, teacher. See doctor.]
Synonyms: doctrine, dogma, tenet
These nouns denote a principle taught, advanced, or accepted, as by a group of philosophers: the legal doctrine of due process; church dogma; experimentation, one of the tenets of the physical sciences.



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


doctrine
\Doc"trine\, n. [F. doctrine, L. doctrina, fr. doctor. See Doctor.] 1. Teaching; instruction.

He taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, Hearken. -- Mark iv. 2.

2. That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge; any tenet or dogma; a principle of faith; as, the doctrine of atoms; the doctrine of chances. ``The doctrine of gravitation.'' --I. Watts.

Articles of faith and doctrine. -- Hooker.

Usage: -- Doctrine, Precept. Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others. Precept is a rule down to be obeyed. Doctrine supposes a teacher; precept supposes a superior, with a right to command. The doctrines of the Bible; the precepts of our holy religion.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


teach•ing Pronunciation Key (t ch ng)
n.
1. The act, practice, occupation, or profession of a teacher.
2.
a. Something taught.
b. A precept or doctrine. Often used in the plural: the teachings of Buddha.
adj.
1. Of, involving, or used for teaching: teaching materials; teaching methods.
2. Working as a teacher or in teaching: teaching assistants.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


gos•pel Pronunciation Key (g s p l)
n.
1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.
2.
a. Gospel Bible. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching.
b. A similar narrative.
3. often Gospel A lection from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service.
4. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.

adj.
1. Of or in accordance with the Gospel; evangelical.


[Middle English, from Old English g dspel(ultimately translation of Greek euangelion) : g d, good; see good + spel, news.]

[
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


gospel
\Gos"pel\, n. [OE. gospel, godspel, AS. godspell; god God + spell story, tale. See God, and Spell, v.] 1. Glad tidings; especially, the good news concerning Christ, the Kingdom of God, and salvation.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. --Matt. iv. 23.

The steadfast belief of the promises of the gospel. --Bentley.

Note: It is probable that gospel is from. OE. godspel, God story, the narrative concerning God; but it was early confused with god spell, good story, good tidings, and was so used by the translators of the Authorized version of Scripture. This use has been retained in most cases in the Revised Version.

Thus the literal sense [of gospel] is the ``narrative of God,'' i. e., the life of Christ. --Skeat.

2. One of the four narratives of the life and death of Jesus Christ, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

3. A selection from one of the gospels, for use in a religious service; as, the gospel for the day.

4. Any system of religious doctrine; sometimes, any system of political doctrine or social philosophy; as, this political gospel. --Burke.

5. Anything propounded or accepted as infallibly true; as, they took his words for gospel. [Colloq.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


gospel
n 1: four books in the New Testament that tell the story of Christ's life and teachings [syn: Gospel, Gospels, evangel] 2: an unquestionable truth; "his word was gospel" [syn: gospel truth] 3: the body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group [syn: religious doctrine, church doctrine, creed] 4: a doctrine that is believed to be of great importance; "Newton's writings were gospel for those who followed"
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


Yes, BeHereNow, doctrine is synonymous with teaching. Therefore we can safely conclude that Jesus’s teachings, and his gospel, are meant to be doctrine.

Matthew 22
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
And yet you say,

I'm talking about honest people, earnestly striving to follow Christ, and ultimately living unhappy, peaceless lives. I blame the doctrine for the failure of these folks.

Meaning, once again, you disagree with Jesus. Do you believe you have greater authority than He does?

We do all fall short. And keep falling short. And keep falling short. And keep falling short. For two thousand years now, falling short, falling short. I'm on a path to change that.

Well, since Jesus has already remedied the situation, and salvation does not come by human works, I would say follow the path that leads to Jesus.

More later.

[jpholding]

Heya Tophet,

Welcome back. How were the fish and chips? :smile:

[Tophet]

Hi, J.P.!

The fish was delicious; the chips were so-so. What I learned to like was blackwell tarts, drenched in custard, served in the Tea Room at the Cambridge University Library. Mmmmm. "Good fruit."

[Tophet]

Dear BeHereNow:

To continue our discussion, my response is in bold.


“ My answer is that the Bible does not give practical steps for attaining the fanciful goals it sets.

What “fanciful goals” are you talking about? ”

Fanciful goals, as in peace, love, faith.

On the contrary, the Bible does give “practical steps” to these concepts.

Philippians 4, for peace; 1 John 2:5 for love; Romans 10:17 for faith. There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

“ Obviously, just believing and praying is not enough to get you there.

Obviously, you are mistaken, because belief and prayer are sufficient. ”

Obviously, i'm going to have to disagree.

Therefore, you disagree with Jesus Christ, as the following verses indicate.

John 3
15that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 6:47
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
Jesus told Paul, in the verse that you ignored, “ My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

2 Corinthians 3:5
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Acts 10:43
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Acts 13:39
and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

1 John 1
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

For every case of a radiating, enlightened, peaceful Christian, I will show you at least three that are miserable wrecks. The ones that are miserable wrecks are just believing and praying. The ones that are at peace are doing more than that.

Again, the opinion you cite is unsubstantiated, and neither is it fact, and neither is it true. Especially if you’re unfamiliar with the definition of “Christian,” as you continue to demonstrate.

Although I disagree with Paul on a few issues,

Paul preached the gospel of Christ. Therefore, you would once again be disagreeing with Jesus.

Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 15:19
Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Romans 15:29
And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

As per my promise above, I'll now name three that don't understand Jesus:

1. Jerry Fallwell
2. Fred Phelps
3, 4, 5. Anyone that goes to Fred Phelps' church

Wanna go again? Name someone that's like Paul

Don’t need to, since Jesus is the standard for Christianity. Your red herring argument therefore fails.

Is it not true that the doctrine should follow you, not vice versa?

Not at all. As Paul notes,

2 Timothy 3
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me.

You should leave love as a footprint, wear it as a shoe, not follow it like a roadsign.

Jesus is the source of love. Therefore we should follow Him.

“ On the other hand, if you were to meditate for half an hour every day, you will have far better results. Why? Because it's practical training to implement a center of peace into your core being.

At this point, once you've reached peace and found your center, you can ponder the fanciful teachings of the Bible with a calm realization of their applicability. Without the peace, it's useless.

You might want to consider

Philippians 4

1 Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved.
2 I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.
4Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!
5Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.
6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things. 9The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.

BeHereNow, are you saying this is impractical? ”



I sure am, but that does not diminish their veracity. These are the outpourings of a man who has already reached that point, telling you how to be when you are there. He didn't give any actual steps or instructions for how he got there, though.

Hello, BeHereNow, Philippians 4:1-8 are the instructions.

He was encouraging brethren, not teaching.

Apparently you don’t know what “teaching” means. Therefore, it’s definition time again:

teaching

Teach \Teach\, v. t. [OE. techen, imp. taughte, tahte, AS. t?cean, imp. t?hte, to show, teach, akin to t[=a]cn token. See Token.] 1. To impart the knowledge of; to give intelligence concerning; to impart, as knowledge before unknown, or rules for practice; to inculcate as true or important; to exhibit impressively; as, to teach arithmetic, dancing, music, or the like; to teach morals.

If some men teach wicked things, it must be that others should practice them. --South.

2. To direct, as an instructor; to manage, as a preceptor; to guide the studies of; to instruct; to inform; to conduct through a course of studies; as, to teach a child or a class. ``He taught his disciples.'' --Mark ix. 31.

The village master taught his little school. --Goldsmith.

3. To accustom; to guide; to show; to admonish.

I shall myself to herbs teach you. --Chaucer.

They have taught their tongue to speak lies. --Jer. ix. 5.

Note: This verb is often used with two objects, one of the person, the other of the thing; as, he taught me Latin grammar. In the passive construction, either of these objects may be retained in the objective case, while the other becomes the subject; as, I was taught Latin grammar by him; Latin grammar was taught me by him.

Syn: To instruct; inform; inculcate; tell; guide; counsel; admonish. See the Note under [I]Learn.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


teaching
n 1: the profession of a teacher; "he prepared for teaching while still in college"; "pedagogy is recognized as an important profession" [syn: instruction, pedagogy] 2: a doctrine that is taught; "the teaching of religion"; "he believed all the Christian precepts" [syn: precept] 3: activities that impart knowledge; "he received no formal education" [syn: education, instruction, pedagogy, educational activity]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



Also, you didn't address my issue of meditation.

Actually, I did, with Philippians 4:1-8, which for some reason you apparently ignored. If the objective is to find peace, then “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” is far superior to any peace man can attempt on his own.

Once again, Philippians 4:
6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Look at it like this: If I told you to meditate to find true happiness, that would be impractical. But, if I gave you specific instructions on how to sit, how to breathe, and how to clear your mind, that would be practical.

Philippians 4 is pretty specific, and practical.

“ “ Now, let's say perhaps the message isn't bad, but people just don't understand it or don't know how to apply it to their lives. That's a possibility, and it is why the fruit isn't the only measure. It's just a measure that I think is relevant.

Sure. But when the fruit is bad, Jesus tells us the results here:

Matthew 7

17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them. ”



Which is why I say cut it down. If it produces bad fruit, as you've admitted earlier, then cut it down.

But we’re speaking of the Christian paradignm. Since Jesus doesn’t produce “bad fruit,” there is no need for cutting.

Why do you resist? What do you fear if you have the Spirit as your guide?

Since there is no resistance, your statement is irrelevant.

“ I've got no problem with these verses, and I don't see how they invalidate what I said.

Because these verses demonstrate what happens when Christian doctrine is disregarded. Christian doctrine is not invalidated if people disregard it. Therefore, your contention is invalidated. ”



So you are contending that every person who follows the Christian doctrine will be at the level Jesus was?

No, I am contending that every person who follows Christian doctrine exemplifies Christianity.

So my question to you is, why aren't you following the doctrine?

My question to you is, how do you know I’m not following the doctrine? You don’t, since

(a. you earlier demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the term “doctrine.”
(b. I’m following Christ and His doctrine, anyway.

“ If the fruit is overwhelmingly bad, cut the tree down. Start over. That's what I advocate.

As does Jesus Christ. ”



So you agree with me. I'm happy to hear that.

Do we agree? Our discourse so far indicates otherwise.

“ If I made a list of "bad fruit" would that convince you of anything?

Only that it would serve as examples of works of the flesh, and not of the Spirit. It would therefore not be indicative of Christian doctrine. ”



It would be examples that the Spirit alone is not enough to conquer the flesh. They must learn to work together.

Nonsense. Considering:

Romans 8

Salvation from Sin, Death, and Suffering
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.


12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors--not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

“ What if I sent you to a Hindu site that lists their good fruit?

Only that it would be irrelevant to the Christian paradigm, which is the present discussion. ”


I see. So if you found the exact same results in every religion, you'd find that to be irrelevant to the veracity of any specific religion?

You’ll find your answer here:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP1201W4.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0102W4.htm

“ Once again you’re citing human behavior as the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the Standard. He is the head of the church. ”

sigh... How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not citing human behavior as the standard.

Take a look at your quote above. Did you or did you not say “this type of behavior”? You are judging a religion based upon the behavior of its followers ignoring its message. ”


Yes, judging the tree by its fruit. Glad we're on the same page.

Me too. Therefore, you must believe that since good fruit comes from good trees, Christianity is therefore exempt from criticism.
Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. When you criticize Christianity, you criticize Him.

“ At the same time, you are ignoring the positive behavior of those who do follow the message. ”



I'm not ignoring the positive behavior - it's just that the bad behavior won't sit down so I can see behind it. Why don't you reread the verse you quoted me about if a tree produces ANY bad fruit, cut it down?

Quite simply, because Jesus Christ doesn’t produce bad fruit.

Seriously, you don't see the connection here between Jesus' teaching and its direct application?

Of course. It’s the same as the cooking analogy. If one ignores the recipe, it’s not the fault of the recipe. You're blaming the recipe when the cook doesn't follow it.

“ We were talking about a specific instance, and I specifically laid the blame on humans.

You specifically said “church”, then applied it to the broader paradigm of “religion.” ”

It was an analogy that you proposed.

That’s right.

I was doing the best I could with understanding it. If you didn't want your story to serve as an analogy to the broader "church", you shouldn't have used it like that.

And the problem is -- what?

You are starting to rely on deceitful tactics to make your point.

Deceitful? Nonsense. The analogy simply demonstrates that human behavior is not the standard for Christianity.



Why do you keep doing that? You like lying to yourself?

Since I haven’t lied, your contention is therefore false.

Only editted because it quoted a portion of a previously edited post.

“ So how do you explain those people who don't ignore the message, who do study the Bible and strive to know Christ, and still end up living miserable lives?

Shall I recite John 15:10-11 for you again?

Their fruits reveal that they are ignoring the message. Therefore, as I said earlier, how do you explain those people who do follow the message, who study the Bible and already know Christ, and are living happy and fulfilled lives? ”

LOL. You are now talking yourself in circles, Tophet! Good grief!

That’s a pretty poor explanation. Since there are people who do follow the message, study the Bible, know Christ, and live happy and fulfilled lives, their existence negates your position.

Let me try again: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PEOPLE LIKE THOSE JESUS STIPULATED ABOVE WHO STILL END UP MISERABLE?

Nonexistent. Are you suggesting one can be happy and miserable at the same time? My friend, that’s not how reality operates.

See you next time.

[BeHereNow]

Hi, Tophet. I'd like to respond to your new statements, but I will not until I get an answer from "a moderator" about something. Why was this edited:

It was an analogy that you proposed. I was doing the best I could with understanding it. If you didn't want your story to serve as an analogy to the broader "church", you shouldn't have used it like that. Edited by a moderator.

I was just browsing through my post and saw that, and I can't figure out who the moderator was, or why they did that. I also can't figure out why this moderator didn't edit your response to it, where you even quoted the edited portion:

You are starting to rely on deceitful tactics to make your point.

Deceitful? Nonsense. The analogy simply demonstrates that human behavior is not the standard for Christianity.

Why do you keep doing that? You like lying to yourself?

Since I haven’t lied, your contention is therefore false.

The fact that this moderator failed to edit your quote of the edited portion demonstrates that they were not thoughtfully reading or understanding the thread, but rather skimming through. If they really cared to erase my accusation from this thread, they would have edited it from your post as well, but they did not, which is not only quite short-sighted, but moreso flippant - a careless disregard for my position.

If a moderator would like to move this post to Locker Room, fine, but I expect an answer. I anticipate the usual "You can't make a claim like this without supporting it," blah blah... to which I'd question why Tophet is allowed a defense, while my initial proposition has been censored? How can I support my position if I'm being randomly and anonymously edited?

Tophet, If I do not receive a satisfactory answer to this, please don't expect a response from me. If there's one thing that I detest, it's censorship, and I will not put my words out here for them to be arbitrarily and whimsicaly mutilated.

Thank you, and may Ea bless you.

[dizzle]

Our rules state:

"Please respect any comments/warnings by the Forum Leadership. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Owners in Private Message or Email and not in the thread."

If you have a question about moderator action please follow the proper protocol.

The prior post was edited as a violation of this rule:

"If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. When an inflammatory post is reported, it may be edited with a moderator notice which shall remain until the inflammatory characterization has been sufficiently backed up. "

The "edited by a moderator" is the moderator notice, and any further clarification should have been requested in the proper manner.

We do not allow persons to be called deceitful or liar without strong proof appearing right then in detail with quotes and links if possible where the accusation is made, the burden is relaxed somewhat in the Locker Room.

[Undomiel]

BeHereNow,

Your argument reminds me of something I've had trouble with in the last few years and that something is MEN, not people in general, but MEN - any flavor. I could very easily compile a list of grievances against MEN and use it to explain the reasons I should never listen to MEN, believe a word they say, read their books or support their causes and henceforth declare that humanity needs a new species to replace MEN [sorta like your assertion that because christianity is filled with humans who are less than satisfactory from your perspective, this means christianity should be replaced in your opinion]. Fortunately, Jesus was also a MAN, and He is the model I look to, not MEN. Should I look to MEN to judge the validity of Jesus' message or should I look to Jesus to determine it?

Want to justify for me, the screw ups of the males of the species? This is essentially what you are requiring of christians. Like we christians are supposed to explain away and justify the screwups of humanity at large. Well start with yourself, if you're a man, and explain and justify MEN specifically, for me.

It's all about forgiveness and long suffering, isn't it? Or are you prepared to provide me with a new approach to it? And do you honestly think that approach would be superior to Jesus' teachings?

[BeHereNow]

Undomiel, this will be brief as I am uncomfortable posting on TWeb.

Essentially, my answer is that no one looks to "men" for spiritual guidance, no one claims that "men" are infallible, and no one claims that "men" are THE word of God.

I think you misunderstood my position. You made a lot of claims about men that I did not make about Christians.

If you care to discuss this at any length, please email me.

*be* here now

[Undomiel]

You said:

Essentially, my answer is that no one looks to "men" for spiritual guidance, no one claims that "men" are infallible, and no one claims that "men" are THE word of God.

The problem with this statement is, you are assuming no one claims men are infallible, and yet you expect christians to be. What are they if not men, human beings, just like you? You claim you aren't trying to say that you expect christians to be perfect, correct? You don't expect them to be perfect, I hope?


09-25-2003 @ 07:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220308#post220308)
BeHereNow:



Most Christians I know live defeated lives. They can't understand how to overcome sin, how to treat others with love - they are essentially the exact same as people who aren't Christians. Name something that a person could do to betray your trust, scare you, revile you, etc. and a Christian has done it to me.

Now- we'll chalk that up as just human nature. Fair enough. With Christians, though, we'd expect to see much more positivity than negativity, and I don't see that. It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow. When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.

That's what I meant by no good fruit, and I think it is certainly relevant in deciding whether or not to follow this doctrine.

How does a christian live a defeated life? What is defeat? If I've overcome a brain infection that put me in a coma, nearly killed me and left me with lifelong problems and breast cancer, chemotherapy, menopause (heh heh), yet I am still alive and functioning, raising a family, caring for my elderly mother with alzheimers, etc, am I living a defeated life OR is someone just trying to mojo me into a defeated life by constantly raining on my parade and telling me I'm living a defeated life because my life doesn't match up to their expectations of a perfect christian walk?

Concerning "they can't understand how to overcome sin." That is saying a mouthful. We don't overcome sin, Jesus does. We aren't personally capable of fighting our flesh. But see, this is where the definitions come into play - what to you is sin? To some, it is sinful to debate, to call your brother/sister a fool, to be spiteful, etc. To others it is sinful to eat too much, or not correctly, or to partake in caffeinated substances, or take medicine of any kind, or give blood, or receive blood, or to judge someone without being perfect ourselves, to take or use birth control, and the list goes on and on and on and on, ad nauseum, and on. To be honest, we have no idea what depth of sin we actually house.

One day, I asked the Lord to show me each time I judged someone unfairly. Then I went to work. By the time my workshift was over, God had pointed out to me countless examples where I had unfairly, unscripturally, judged someone. Eventually I had to ask Him to stop pointing these judgemental moments out because it was getting that bad. And I thought I was so unjudgemental.. . boy was I wrong!



With Christians, though, we'd expect to see much more positivity than negativity, and I don't see that.

Beause, dear, you aren't looking for positivity. You've approached it from the skeptics viewpoint and found exactly what you wanted to affirm your suspicions that, yes indeed, christians are not perfect and are in fact, quite human. But the christian is not what saves your soul, Jesus does.

It's extremely rare, read again, extremely rare, that I meet a Christian who sets an example I'd like to follow.

You aren't supposed to be looking to christians for examples. That's Jesus' department. You aren't a baby that needs to be lead around by the hand by some silly human being. Jesus is the guide. As christians our job is to point to Jesus and say, FOLLOW HIM.

When I meet more non-Christians that practice Jesus' teachings than Christians, something is wrong.

It's easy for a non-christian to put on a happy face and a carefree, non-judgemental attitude because they aren't having to deal with the sin in their own lives. When I say sin, I mean whatever separates you from full bore communion with God, and not all this petty, nitpicky, worldly stuff that the various religions like to harp on. You could be separated from that full communion because you have some undeclared problem in your life, something you're not addressing and as a result it's poisoning your spiritual walk. While Carol Christian is dealing with things like learning to be a confident individual, perhaps she had low self-esteem and God is trying to correct this [let's ignore the fact that she's a generous, loving mother], Joe Non-Christian, who lacks no confidence, is having a beer and laughing, living the good life or so it seems. Maybe Carol's inability to raise her children to be happy, well-balanced adults, stems from the fact she had some childhood trauma that has left her lacking the self-esteem and confidence she needs to be an effective mother. She might be generous and loving, but how often does generosity and hugs alone, produce well-balanced children?

You don't know the whole story, so honestly, there's no way for you to make an informed opinion about christians and christianity, until you are one yourself and I mean sincerely, not in the eyes of the world, but in your own soul, spirit and mind, between you and your Creator.

[Lazy Agnostic]

11-17-2003 @ 07:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290578#post290578)
Undomiel:

BeHereNow,

Your argument reminds me of something I've had trouble with in the last few years and that something is MEN, not people in general, but MEN - any flavor. I could very easily compile a list of grievances against MEN and use it to explain the reasons I should never listen to MEN, believe a word they say, read their books or support their causes and henceforth declare that humanity needs a new species to replace MEN [sorta like your assertion that because christianity is filled with humans who are less than satisfactory from your perspective, this means christianity should be replaced in your opinion]. Fortunately, Jesus was also a MAN, and He is the model I look to, not MEN. Should I look to MEN to judge the validity of Jesus' message or should I look to Jesus to determine it?

Want to justify for me, the screw ups of the males of the species? This is essentially what you are requiring of christians. Like we christians are supposed to explain away and justify the screwups of humanity at large. Well start with yourself, if you're a man, and explain and justify MEN specifically, for me.

It's all about forgiveness and long suffering, isn't it? Or are you prepared to provide me with a new approach to it? And do you honestly think that approach would be superior to Jesus' teachings?
Well we don't really know whose teachings they were. Wisdom is wisdom; interpretation evolves with human thinking and understanding.

Faith sometimes works, as does the power of myth.

See Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future along with The Partnership Way: New Tools for Living and Learning for another perspective on men and mankind and how we could be.

[Renaissance Man]

I think what BeHereNow is trying to say is this: “I agree with all the Christian doctrine. I agree that it is life-transforming, making one do good works, blah blah blah. Then why aren’t there simply many Christians (the majority, not the minority) for whom this works??? I am not talking of the ones who don’t follow the Christian teachings. I am talking of many, many who are sincerely devoted to it, but still it doesn’t work for them. Why??? This makes me think that the Christian doctrine is not worth following.”

I hope that I’ve identified correctly what you are trying to say.

Here’s my answer. I admit that following the Bible/Christ does involve a conscious decision on our part to actually follow it. It isn’t easy at first, but after sometime it becomes easy.

Many Christians do believe that the Bible is true and that its history is correct and that Jesus did rise from the dead and all that…. What they don’t understand seriously is how holy (set apart) God is and how disgusted he gets with even one small sin/wrong that a person does. They don’t understand the depth of this concept, and don’t understand the magnitude of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

As a result, they are people who are sincere in their hearts and motives but it just doesn’t work out well for them. They don’t try to consciously and determinedly live a holy life. They are the people who go to church on Sundays and pray fervently, showing off their vocabulary. But on the other six days of the week their life is more like the non-Christians. If they get a phone call that they don’t want to answer, they tell their child to say, “Dad is not at home”. They don’t understand that not only are they sinning but they are also making their child do wrong. And all this is because they don’t understand God and his character (grace, justice/judgement etc.) seriously. They pray well, loud and powerfully, in the church, they have a family prayer on some evenings, but they don’t pray in their rooms in secret, or when they do they don’t break down before the holy God. They know the theory, but don’t understand its depth.

And yes, to live a life as demanded by God does require discipline and conscious effort. They don’t even try. An example: when caught by someone, say the school headmaster for something done, a student doesn’t even try to speak the truth and say sorry. He tries to lie his way out of the situation. You don’t know, but by saying what actually happened, the principal might let him go unpunished, which would be God’s way of rewarding him for telling the truth.

They ask, “Is it possible to survive in this world without lying at all or giving bribe?” They don’t know the other side of the same God: that God rewards those who live for Him. He honours those who honour Him. His blessings will be on him, his wife and children, his family, the food he eats, etc. etc.. They only see one side of the issue and then back out. Either they don’t see the good side of God or don’t believe in it.

True, prayer and belief is not sufficient. Effort on our part is needed. But Bible-reading/understanding and belief will make us want to strive harder to live a good life. And genuine, repenting prayer will give us peace and courage.

We don’t try to live for God even in the small, minute, microscopic details of out life, such as the above example of phone call. The good thing is that once you start living for God completely, it gets easier each time. You feel good, for you have just honoured God. You feel good and proud about yourself. Next time you pray, you will spontaneously want to say out, “Thank you God for enabling me to say the truth this evening when so-and-so called.” And this will gradually build your character in the sight of God.

Sadly, there are very few Christians who do this….

It is practical to follow the Bible, provided we make a deliberate effort and use our God-given sense (ex. If you know that Mr. So-and-so will repeatedly call you but you want to avoid him, simply put the phone off-hook for sometime instead of telling your son to lie. This way, your conscience won’t be pricked, and you can deal with the person next day at work or on a later date). By living practically for God, and not just by knowing and believing the theory, you do get real peace and courage to live a victorious life.