Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it was prophecy not to mention, not very practical......Jesus was talking about idolatry rather than money. Money or "mammon" tops the list of idolatry.
To you mean Jesus had to follow prophecy? He had no free will? Ain't that putting the cart before the horse?
You mean when Jesus said "rich" he didn't mean "rich"? How come the bible means exactly what it says unless it's inconvenient for it to mean exactly what it says?
To you mean Jesus had to follow prophecy? He had no free will? Ain't that putting the cart before the horse?
You mean when Jesus said "rich" he didn't mean "rich"? How come the bible means exactly what it says unless it's inconvenient for it to mean exactly what it says?
That's why it's called prophecy......why would He go against, when it is he who wrote it.
There is nothing wrong with money, there are many rich people who will go to heaven, it is the love for money that's a sin. Putting money before your God, or putting your children, your car, your TV. It is idolatry Jesus was getting at, it just so happens the rich young ruler's sin was money.
Jesus asked him, have you been following the commandments? He said, yes. Jesus said, no, bringing this to his attention, "Thou shalt not commit idolatry"
http://uaw.org/solidarity/05/1205/feature04.cfm
There is nothing wrong with money, there are many rich people who will go to heaven, it is the love for money that's a sin. Putting money before your God, or putting your children, your car, your TV. It is idolatry Jesus was getting at, it just so happens the rich young ruler's sin was money.
A camel can't pass through a needle's eye. If Jesus said it's easier for a camel to do so than for a rich man to enter heaven he was saying that no rich man can enter heaven. Simple. Inconvenient for the rich and their apologists but simple.
A camel can't pass through a needle's eye. If Jesus said it's easier for a camel to do so than for a rich man to enter heaven he was saying that no rich man can enter heaven. Simple. Inconvenient for the rich and their apologists but simple.
He was saying, that having money makes it difficult but its not impossible. If you are a rich man that puts God first
I'm a moderate-liberal Baptist myself so of course I vote Democrat, but I do not understand why so many Christians vote Republican. What is it about the Republican party that attracts so many Christians to that way of thinking?
Is it the abortion issue? (GWB has been in office for 8 years and it's still legal)
Tax breaks for the wealthy? (all Christians can't be rich?)
Are you voting for the lesser of two evils? (in your opinion)
Is it something else? What?
Do you think I'm wrong for thinking along sides with Carter, Gore, Clinton in my Christian beliefs? Why?
Jesus would be a modern day conservative on many issues. If Jesus had a job, I think he would be an economic conservative that saves most of his money. He wouldn't go blow it on items that are unnecessary. He would donate most of it to the poor probably, and to charity.
On most social issues, he would also be a conservative, at least in Catholic doctrine. Abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, etc. He is liberal on the issue of the death penalty though.
I don't think Jesus ever once said, "Thy government shall take your money and distribute thy wealth as seen fit."
I like how you quoted Christian. I'm a Baptist who leans to the left on certain issues. I guess that makes me a phony, right?
I'm not anti-war or pro-abortion. Some wars are needed (WW2) but others are a complete waste of human life (Iraq). My hate mongering comment was about SOME (not all) "Christians" who constantly every chance they get attack and condemn other people. It makes me ashamed to even admit that I am a Christian. Luckily my beliefs are not the same as theirs.
I don't want anyone to get an abortion but there are some instances where that may be the better option for them. It's not my place to judge or make decisions for others, therefore I am pro-choice but anti-abortion.
I also believe gay people are HUMANS and should have the same rights, benefits, and privileges as everybody else.
Greetings Lakeland Yankee! I do not seek to judge your Christianity. I don't know you. I put Christian in quotes because everybody and his brother is a Christian today--just because he says so! Also, you may very well be a Christian, but saying you're a Baptist does not establish that.
But I can be suspect of someone's relationship with Christ when he says things that seem so opposed to the principles of Christianity. That very much includes those you believe to be Christians who engage in hate-mongering. Again, and as I'm sure you know, not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is. I also have to ask what you consider hate-mongering. It is not hate-mongering to condemn that which the Bible and God Himself condemn. And that is not limited to homosexuality. Heterosexual promiscuity and sex outside of marriage is also heinous in His sight. It is a perversion of His precepts concerning male-female relationships.
Why do Christians speak out about it--because God hates it and because we know that such lifestyles lead to eventual hardship and suffering not only for the individual but for society as a whole.
Respectfully, you are not consistently pro-choice. If you were pro-choice, you would first of all take into consideration the choice of that developing child. Does it choose to die? You say that you do not make decisions for another, but are you not supporting the right for the mother to make decisions for another--her unborn child? I am pro-choice too--I believe that if people do not want to have a baby they should simply keep their clothes on! That's the real choice.
Furthermore, I do not begrudge or seek to deny the rights of homosexual citizens. They have the right to work and feed their families just as we all do. But they do not have the right to impose upon our society the long-held and overwhelming majority biblical belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You seem to be led by your principles and feel justified in them--why do not allow others to do he same? Furthermore, it is not always the "high ground" to simply let people do as they will--sometimes the loving thing is that which incurs dislike and hatred upon the one who strives for another a good thing that he often does not realize he needs!
You seem to be led by your principles and feel justified in them--why do not allow others to do he same?
I do my best to obey the Golden_Rule but I will defend myself or others when needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
Furthermore, it is not always the "high ground" to simply let people do as they will--sometimes the loving thing is that which incurs dislike and hatred upon the one who strives for another a good thing that he often does not realize he needs!
Preterist
I'll continue to follow what Jesus said about judging others. If I get labeled "Worldly", so be it.
. . . I can be suspect of someone's relationship with Christ when he says things that seem so opposed to the principles of Christianity. That very much includes those you believe to be Christians who engage in hate-mongering. Again, and as I'm sure you know, not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is. I also have to ask what you consider hate-mongering. It is not hate-mongering to condemn that which the Bible and God Himself condemn. And that is not limited to homosexuality. Heterosexual promiscuity and sex outside of marriage is also heinous in His sight. It is a perversion of His precepts concerning male-female relationships.
Why do Christians speak out about it--because God hates it and because we know that such lifestyles lead to eventual hardship and suffering not only for the individual but for society as a whole.
This . . . probably more than anything confuses me about self-professed Christians and "judgers" of Christians and all others not like them . . . the notion that God HATES. NOTHING about Jesus remotely indicated the trait of HATE. God hates no one and nothing. The self-righteous judging of others based on "LAWS" created by the precepts and doctrines of men claiming to have captured and understood the Word of God . . . is the very antithesis of godliness!
Paul . . . in Corinthians 10:23,
. . . All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
"All things are lawful . . ." How has that quote been so effectively ignored, rejected, or otherwise rendered insignificant in Christian teaching?It says NOTHING about hateful or evil or . . . whatever! Not edify means doesn't elevate or inform the spirit . . . not expedient means it does not aid spiritual maturity and growth.
It was during my most rebellious years, because of my strict Catholic upbringing, that I grew to really appreciate the curious language phenomenon of slang. It was then that I first learned that the "laws" and rulings in the Catholic Church were issued under a special classification called, "Papal Bull."
The fanatics or immature would-be dictators who create, interpret, and administer "laws" should reflect on these words from Paul in Colossians 2:19,
. . . If you have died with Christ to the elements of the world, why, as if still living in the world, do you lay down the rules . . . Things that must all perish in their very use? In this you follow the 'precepts and doctrines of men.
And from Jeremias, 8:8
. . . How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the Scribes hath wrought falsehood. The wise men are confounded, they are dismayed and taken . . . and there is no wisdom in them. They are confounded because they have committed abomination: yea rather they are not confounded with confusion.
Jesus would be a modern day conservative on many issues. If Jesus had a job, I think he would be an economic conservative that saves most of his money. He wouldn't go blow it on items that are unnecessary.
He'd probably be an economic liberal in that he'd be in favor of unions and favor the interests of workers over the interests of wealthy and powerful employers. He'd probably believe in OSHA too.
Note that it's the economic conservatives that encourage people to borrow money and then blow it on unnecessary things, the profit from which transactions then goes in the pockets of conservative businessmen. I've never seen a liberal banker, have you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
