[Old Man G Funk]

Several rabbi’s including Jesus indicate you can fulfill the Torah through these two commands. Yes they can be contradictory, which is why the rabbi’s were around to determine which command was “heavier” for a given situation. Healing on the Sabbath for instance, could be violated to save a life, so protecting a life was “heavier” than keeping the Sabbath commands. We totally don’t view the Scriptures in this manner today, we view it in a very literal concrete Greek/Western understanding, not in “living” way the Jews viewed the Text.

This is my main “argument” against fundamentalism and it’s literal view of the Text, they don’t take this concept into account, nor to they understand that Jesus gave His followers the authority to do this kind of “binding and loosing”…………which is really what a denomination is, it’s a group of people how have bound (prohibited) some things and loosed (allowed) other things.

Andyman, what you aren't getting is that I'm not arguing about fundamentalism. I'm arguing that the morality that we have today, the reason that people think Christianity teaches people to love one another is because of evolving society, not from reading the Bible. If you want to criticize the god hates fags guy for not being Christian, be prepared for him to level the same criticism at you, and he has just as much basis for it as you do. Both of you can point to scripture, but neither of you strictly follows it. Both of you are following something that has evolved culturally, far beyond the Bible.

Also, if you want to speak about Jesus's teachings, those were culturally evolved from the time when the OT was first written.

Jesus does not indicate that only those 2 teachings are necessary, and the scripture you point to does not indicate that. It indicates that they are important, but not the only ones necessary. Any rabbi that indicates otherwise is interpretting scripture, and every interpretation is open to criticism that the interpretation is wrong.

 

[fluff]

Andyman, what you aren't getting is that I'm not arguing about fundamentalism. I'm arguing that the morality that we have today, the reason that people think Christianity teaches people to love one another is because of evolving society, not from reading the Bible. If you want to criticize the god hates fags guy for not being Christian, be prepared for him to level the same criticism at you, and he has just as much basis for it as you do. Both of you can point to scripture, but neither of you strictly follows it. Both of you are following something that has evolved culturally, far beyond the Bible.

Also, if you want to speak about Jesus's teachings, those were culturally evolved from the time when the OT was first written.

Jesus does not indicate that only those 2 teachings are necessary, and the scripture you point to does not indicate that. It indicates that they are important, but not the only ones necessary. Any rabbi that indicates otherwise is interpretting scripture, and every interpretation is open to criticism that the interpretation is wrong.

Well, Jesus does say stuff about 'love thy neighbour' etc that I'm sure hasn't just appeared in the bible recently, but then I've only read it in the last 40 years.

Still you're absolutely right, clearly Christanity (like every other religion) has no effect on society whatsoever.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, Jesus does say stuff about 'love thy neighbour' etc that I'm sure hasn't just appeared in the bible recently, but then I've only read it in the last 40 years.

Still you're absolutely right, clearly Christanity (like every other religion) has no effect on society whatsoever.

fluff, no one is saying that Jesus didn't say 'love thy neighbor' or some other equivalent thing (provided he existed), that's not the argument.

It's also not the argument that Christianity has no effect on society.

 

[Andyman_1970]

the reason that people think Christianity teaches people to love one another is because of evolving society, not from reading the Bible.

So Jesus doesn’t talk about loving one’s enemies, or loving other unconditionally? So His first followers didn’t teach that to proclaim to love God yet hate others makes one a liar?

These weren’t “new” concepts, Jesus’ yoke is derived from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19:18, so it’s not like He was making stuff up, these were ideas and Texts that had been around for almost a thousand years by the time Jesus was around.

If you want to criticize the god hates fags guy for not being Christian, be prepared for him to level the same criticism at you, and he has just as much basis for it as you do.

Of Jesus’ two most important, two most heaviest commands, calling someone a “fag” in the derogatory sense of the word would violate the “love your neighbor as yourself” would you agree?

My argument against this individual would be his wholesale disregard for the context of the Scriptures and his selective “cherry picking”……………while it could be said I “cherry pick” as I stated in a previous thread I apply the Scriptures in their 1st century context not as a blanket……….”it’s all the Word of God so we must obey every jot and tittle” nonsense. My “cherry picking” is based on historical context, his is based on 19th century dogma, which do you think is more “accurate” to the original authors intent?

Both of you can point to scripture, but neither of you strictly follows it. Both of you are following something that has evolved culturally, far beyond the Bible.

I’m not aware of any passage in the New Testament where it exhorts or commands believers to strictly follow the New Testament, Gentile believers aren’t even obligated to follow the Torah if they don’t want to per Acts 15. However to be a disciple, or refer to one’s self as a disciple in the 1st century had a specific understanding attached to it, which I’ve previously articulated.

You might be interested in a book by William Webb about a concept he refers to as “redemptive movement hermeneutic”……..your idea seems close to his idea.

Jesus does not indicate that only those 2 teachings are necessary, and the scripture you point to does not indicate that. It indicates that they are important, but not the only ones necessary.

Mark 12 in it’s Hebraic context, when a rabbi would ask another rabbi “what is the most important commandment” the rabbi asking the question is specifically asking which is the “heaviest” command, which command is more important that all the others, which command if there is a conflict supercedes all others……….that is what that rabbi is asking Jesus. The rabbi asking the question further reinforces this idea by saying that these two commands than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices………a rabbinic idiom indicating that those two commands are more important than the other 611 commands.

Any rabbi that indicates otherwise is interpreting scripture, and every interpretation is open to criticism that the interpretation is wrong.

Do a google search on rabbi Hillel and how he is regarded in Judaism, he’s the one who initially taught that the Torah hangs on the whole “love your neighbor” idea. All Scripture is up for interpretation, the Jews even refer to the Scripture as a gem, that when you turn it in the light it refracts and shows different colors. The whole idea of rabbi’s to begin with was to interpret the Text for people.

My basic argument against Mr. Phelps is that his interpretation of Scripture is contrary to Jesus’.

As a thinly related side note, it’s my “theory” that Jesus was the disciple of one of Hillels disciples.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So Jesus doesn’t talk about loving one’s enemies, or loving other unconditionally? So His first followers didn’t teach that to proclaim to love God yet hate others makes one a liar?

These weren’t “new” concepts, Jesus’ yoke is derived from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19:18, so it’s not like He was making stuff up, these were ideas and Texts that had been around for almost a thousand years by the time Jesus was around.

I should have said that the concept that Christianity's only command is to love thy neighbor came from societal evolution. Even if Jesus was making that distinction, it would be because he was not following the Torah completely, but putting his societal, cultural spin on the Torah, that had evolved since the writing of the OT.

Of Jesus’ two most important, two most heaviest commands, calling someone a “fag” in the derogatory sense of the word would violate the “love your neighbor as yourself” would you agree?

Once again, heaviest does not equate to only. Plus, loving god is just as heavy as loving one's neighbor. According to the scripture, god does indeed hate homosexuality, so this could be his way of loving god.

My argument against this individual would be his wholesale disregard for the context of the Scriptures and his selective “cherry picking”……………while it could be said I “cherry pick” as I stated in a previous thread I apply the Scriptures in their 1st century context not as a blanket……….”it’s all the Word of God so we must obey every jot and tittle” nonsense. My “cherry picking” is based on historical context, his is based on 19th century dogma, which do you think is more “accurate” to the original authors intent?

But, all the words are divinely inspired, so your argument is that god wrote a whole bunch of superfluous stuff?
Further, you don't know that your interpretation is more valid than his. I am glad that you admit that you are also open to the cherry picking objection. It still smacks of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but I'll detail more below.

I’m not aware of any passage in the New Testament where it exhorts or commands believers to strictly follow the New Testament, Gentile believers aren’t even obligated to follow the Torah if they don’t want to per Acts 15. However to be a disciple, or refer to one’s self as a disciple in the 1st century had a specific understanding attached to it, which I’ve previously articulated.

It doesn't say not to strictly follow it either. Of course, that's all side comment since the argument is that Mr. Phelps is not a true Christian because he doesn't follow Jesus's teachings, not because he is too literal.

Let's not rehash the Acts 15 debate please. Acts 15 is simply a bunch of guys sitting around trying to figure out how to make their theology more appealing to others. They throw out the dietary guidelines. Big deal.

Mark 12 in it’s Hebraic context, when a rabbi would ask another rabbi “what is the most important commandment” the rabbi asking the question is specifically asking which is the “heaviest” command, which command is more important that all the others, which command if there is a conflict supercedes all others……….that is what that rabbi is asking Jesus. The rabbi asking the question further reinforces this idea by saying that these two commands than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices………a rabbinic idiom indicating that those two commands are more important than the other 611 commands.

That's funny that you should bring up sacrifices....

Andyman, you don't believe in original sin, correct? Then, why did Jesus have to die? Also, you are aware that not believing in original sin puts you in the EXTREME minority among Christians, correct? In fact, most Christians would say that YOU are not a true Christian since without original sin there was no need for Jesus to die and hence no need to be Christian. So, are they not true Christians? Are they correct if they say that you aren't a true Christian?


Do a google search on rabbi Hillel and how he is regarded in Judaism, he’s the one who initially taught that the Torah hangs on the whole “love your neighbor” idea. All Scripture is up for interpretation, the Jews even refer to the Scripture as a gem, that when you turn it in the light it refracts and shows different colors. The whole idea of rabbi’s to begin with was to interpret the Text for people.

My basic argument against Mr. Phelps is that his interpretation of Scripture is contrary to Jesus’.

As a thinly related side note, it’s my “theory” that Jesus was the disciple of one of Hillels disciples.[/QUOTE]

 

[Andyman_1970]

I should have said that the concept that Christianity's only command is to love thy neighbor came from societal evolution. Even if Jesus was making that distinction, it would be because he was not following the Torah completely, but putting his societal, cultural spin on the Torah, that had evolved since the writing of the OT.

Actually Jesus as a rabbi had authority (not because He was God) to make a new interpretation of Torah.

Once again, heaviest does not equate to only. Plus, loving god is just as heavy as loving one's neighbor. According to the scripture, god does indeed hate homosexuality, so this could be his way of loving god.

Heaviest equates when there is conflict ithat command "wins"........a conflict like you articulate here is a perfect example of why we need Christian "rabbi's" today..........

But, all the words are divinely inspired, so your argument is that god wrote a whole bunch of superfluous stuff?

I don’t hold the view of divine dictation (like most fundamentalist do), the Scriptures are the inspired stories of man’s encounter with God. I believe the Bible to be the voices of many who have come before us, inspired by God to pass along their poems, stories, accounts, and letters of response and relationship with each other and the living God.

Further, you don't know that your interpretation is more valid than his.

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that an interpretation of an ancient text that seeks to discern the intent of the author as best as can be done taking into account the time gap is more valid than a more dogmatic interpretation based on ideals and understandings a mere 200 years old…………would you agree? From a historical point of view older is better and more accurate.

Let's not rehash the Acts 15 debate please. Acts 15 is simply a bunch of guys sitting around trying to figure out how to make their theology more appealing to others. They throw out the dietary guidelines. Big deal.

They were the first follwers of Jesus to exercise their authority to bind and loose…….we disagree on the significance of this Text.

That's funny that you should bring up sacrifices....

Andyman, you don't believe in original sin, correct? Then, why did Jesus have to die? Also, you are aware that not believing in original sin puts you in the EXTREME minority among Christians, correct? In fact, most Christians would say that YOU are not a true Christian since without original sin there was no need for Jesus to die and hence no need to be Christian. So, are they not true Christians? Are they correct if they say that you aren't a true Christian?

You’re incorrect to assume that the lack of “original sin” means there is no sin at all, man can choose whether or not to sin in the Hebraic mind, there is still sin to deal with.

An excerpt from the article: Theological Errors due to Separation from Hebrew Roots
By: Dan Rodriguez Posted: February 19 2004

III. A world of difference exists between Judaism and traditional Christian theology when we come to the subject of sin. Judaism teaches that man is born good. He is not born a sinner. He becomes responsible for his sins at the age of 13 (12 for girls) when he becomes a "man of duty" (Bar-Mitzvah). Until this age, a child's sins are the responsibility of the parents. From the age of 13, he is considered a responsible adult who can choose not to sin. It is taught that man is born good, but has two opposing inclinations in him: One leads to the good, and the other to the bad. Paul dealt with the concept of the good and bad inclinations in Romans 7:17-21. Even the bad inclination is not evil in and of itself. If properly directed and controlled, it serves a useful purpose.

In contrast to this biblical concept, Christianity offers the doctrine original sin, beginning with Augustine (355-430), bishop of Hippo in Africa. He was the architect of an ideology that taught that the act of sex was the vehicle of original sin. (See D.J. Bailey, "Sexual Relations in Christian Thought," pg. 53-56; D. Feldman, Marital Relation, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law, pg. 83-84) Augustine taught that the consequence of this sin is transmitted through the sexual act from one generation to the next. Because of this, a child, he said, was literally conceived in the "sin" of its parents. The connection between this idea and the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth should be obvious.

Sin should be understood as defiance and rebellion to divine law. It is not a hereditary evil. It should be clear that if there did exist such a thing as "original sin," transferred from one generation to the next, this would undermine man's divine right to a free will. Man would no- longer be a free moral agent. Man, contrary to this, has to choose the good and reject the evil; overcome the evil with good. (For an analysis of this see S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, New York: Schocken Books, 1961, pp. 242-263.)

 

[fluff]

Damn this deja vu

 

[Changleen]

I can't even read it anymore.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Actually Jesus as a rabbi had authority (not because He was God) to make a new interpretation of Torah.

And hence you admit that interpretations of Torah have changed (evolved) over time.

Heaviest equates when there is conflict ithat command "wins"........a conflict like you articulate here is a perfect example of why we need Christian "rabbi's" today..........

But is loving one's neighbor heavier than loving god?

How about this scenario. My "neighbor" kills someone. The Bible says that he should be put to death (eye for an eye and all that). But, if I put him to death, I'm not loving my neighbor, am I? Of course, by not putting him to death I'm not loving my other neighbors that he might kill in the future. Of course, I have no assurance that he will kill again. But, the only thing I have to follow is love thy neighbor and love god. So, I have no idea what to do here. Are you starting to see the absurdity of saying that those two ideas are the ONLY thing that a Christian needs?

(Note: I almost went with a new version of the Bible that would just have those two laws in it, but I came up with this other hypothetical and I liked it better.)

I don’t hold the view of divine dictation (like most fundamentalist do), the Scriptures are the inspired stories of man’s encounter with God. I believe the Bible to be the voices of many who have come before us, inspired by God to pass along their poems, stories, accounts, and letters of response and relationship with each other and the living God.

Like most fundamentalists do, or most Christians do? Truth be told, it's the latter case. I don't know of a single Christian (besides you) that doesn't hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and infallible.

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that an interpretation of an ancient text that seeks to discern the intent of the author as best as can be done taking into account the time gap is more valid than a more dogmatic interpretation based on ideals and understandings a mere 200 years old…………would you agree? From a historical point of view older is better and more accurate.

But, your interpretation doesn't do that. You are completely glossing over many aspects of the Bible, like many of the rules and laws of Leviticus for example. Hell, you are glossing over many of Jesus's teachings, like how to treat slaves and when divorce is allowed. Plus, didn't Paul come after Jesus and didn't Paul have the power to change interpretation? Jesus said that divorce should only be allowed in the woman cheats. Paul changed that interpretation and said divorce should never be allowed. So, which one do you follow? According to you, you should follow Paul, correct?

They were the first follwers of Jesus to exercise their authority to bind and loose…….we disagree on the significance of this Text.

See above my comment about Paul exercising that authority on marriage. Besides, if people have the power to bind and loose, then going back to the original words of Jesus is not necessarily the best method of following the scripture. Shouldn't one follow what has been binded and loosed?

You’re incorrect to assume that the lack of “original sin” means there is no sin at all, man can choose whether or not to sin in the Hebraic mind, there is still sin to deal with.

That's nice and all, but why did Jesus have to come and die? Are you the true Christian, or is it those people that hold the doctrine of original sin?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Damn this deja vu

Not my intent from the beginning. I was only pointing out a logical fallacy.

 

[fluff]

I can't even read it anymore.

That's because you don't care enough...

 

[Changleen]

You're right. God shmod.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You're right. God shmod.

So, you're apatheistic?

 

[Changleen]

I call it 'enlightened'. But I have a big head.

 

[BurlyShirley]

you two homos knock it off.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I’ll keep this brief to spare my monkey brothers………..feel free and PM me OMGF if I don’t address any issues you bring up to your satisfaction……

You are completely glossing over many aspects of the Bible, like many of the rules and laws of Leviticus for example.

As a Gentile follower of Jesus I’m not obligated to follow those, see Acts 15.

Hell, you are glossing over many of Jesus's teachings, like how to treat slaves and when divorce is allowed.

Who’s the audience? Jesus says a lot of things to the Pharisee’s and to others that may or may not be relevant to a follower today depending on the context.

Plus, didn't Paul come after Jesus and didn't Paul have the power to change interpretation? Jesus said that divorce should only be allowed in the woman cheats. Paul changed that interpretation and said divorce should never be allowed. So, which one do you follow? According to you, you should follow Paul, correct?

Did you read my comments about Paul’s letter to Timothy and how I view that in relation to the context and as a follower of Jesus? That should give you a starting point for this……..

That's nice and all, but why did Jesus have to come and die? Are you the true Christian, or is it those people that hold the doctrine of original sin?

There’s still the issue of sin, didn’t you read that article……..just because one doesn’t believe that sin is hereditarily passed down via intercourse doesn’t mean that sin does not exist or need to be dealt with.

Holding or not holding the doctrine of original sin doesn’t make or not make one a Christian. Striving to be a disciple and acknowledging Him as the Messiah on the other hand does……….

 

[fluff]

I call it 'enlightened'. But I have a big head.

XXXL Burberry then?

 

[Changleen]

In small, actually.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I’ll keep this brief to spare my monkey brothers………..feel free and PM me OMGF if I don’t address any issues you bring up to your satisfaction……

I'll just drop a quick note right now.

As a Gentile follower of Jesus I’m not obligated to follow those, see Acts 15.

Which literally says, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." So, apparently one doesn't have to love one's neighbor afterall according to Acts 15. Once again you are imparting your own interpretations and criticizing others when they don't follow YOUR interpretations. How is that different from what evangelicals do?

Who’s the audience? Jesus says a lot of things to the Pharisee’s and to others that may or may not be relevant to a follower today depending on the context.

That's a total cop-out.

Did you read my comments about Paul’s letter to Timothy and how I view that in relation to the context and as a follower of Jesus? That should give you a starting point for this……..

Nice dodge. Now answer the question. Do you follow Jesus's teachings on divorce or Paul's binded (or loosed?) interpretation?

There’s still the issue of sin, didn’t you read that article……..just because one doesn’t believe that sin is hereditarily passed down via intercourse doesn’t mean that sin does not exist or need to be dealt with.

Holding or not holding the doctrine of original sin doesn’t make or not make one a Christian. Striving to be a disciple and acknowledging Him as the Messiah on the other hand does……….

Are babies born with sin? If one does not sin in one's life, does one not need Jesus?
Also, you are flat wrong about needing the doctrine of original sin according to many if not most Christians. Without original sin, there is no reason for Jesus to die for our sins. So, once again, who is the true Christian here, them or you? Keep dodging.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'll just drop a quick note right now.

Which literally says, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." So, apparently one doesn't have to love one's neighbor afterall according to Acts 15. Once again you are imparting your own interpretations and criticizing others when they don't follow YOUR interpretations. How is that different from what evangelicals do?

That is not what Acts 15 is regarding, it was a yeshiva to decide if Gentile followers of the Messiah needed to become Jewish. The issue they are dealing with is Torah and what parts of it a Gentile follower of the Messiah should obey, it’s not addressing the teachings of Jesus. You seem to be argumentative on this subject of Acts 15, and a bit cynical it seems as well. If you want to PM about it that’s fine, but I’m not interested in an argument or your cynicism in this discussion on the thread.

If we’re going to use you’re argument then you’re interpretation is not correct either, so I can tell you to go “pound sand” just as much as you tell me that…………correct?

That's a total cop-out.

Dude we’ve been civil for the bulk of this discussion, let’s try to keep it that way.

It’s not a “cop out” it’s how I frame and understand the Scriptures, and the way most scholars do as well. So is it your assertion that we should throw out context? Do you have an alternate method of interpreting the Scriptures? If so please share with us.

Nice dodge. Now answer the question. Do you follow Jesus's teachings on divorce or Paul's binded (or loosed?) interpretation?

It wasn’t a dodge..............

My answer was to frame how I view Paul’s writings. That said, I’m not familiar with the passage you are referring to, but it should be placed in the context of the people Paul was writing to who had a specific problem or issue. Paul’s letters are to specific people with specific issues, that may or may not pertain to a particular community of believers today, which is why context is so important in determinig if they are relevant.

Are babies born with sin? If one does not sin in one's life, does one not need Jesus?

Did you not read this:

III. A world of difference exists between Judaism and traditional Christian theology when we come to the subject of sin. Judaism teaches that man is born good. He is not born a sinner. He becomes responsible for his sins at the age of 13 (12 for girls) when he becomes a "man of duty" (Bar-Mitzvah). Until this age, a child's sins are the responsibility of the parents. From the age of 13, he is considered a responsible adult who can choose not to sin. It is taught that man is born good, but has two opposing inclinations in him: One leads to the good, and the other to the bad. Paul dealt with the concept of the good and bad inclinations in Romans 7:17-21. Even the bad inclination is not evil in and of itself. If properly directed and controlled, it serves a useful purpose.

In contrast to this biblical concept, Christianity offers the doctrine original sin, beginning with Augustine (355-430), bishop of Hippo in Africa. He was the architect of an ideology that taught that the act of sex was the vehicle of original sin. (See D.J. Bailey, "Sexual Relations in Christian Thought," pg. 53-56; D. Feldman, Marital Relation, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law, pg. 83-84) Augustine taught that the consequence of this sin is transmitted through the sexual act from one generation to the next. Because of this, a child, he said, was literally conceived in the "sin" of its parents. The connection between this idea and the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth should be obvious.

Sin should be understood as defiance and rebellion to divine law. It is not a hereditary evil. It should be clear that if there did exist such a thing as "original sin," transferred from one generation to the next, this would undermine man's divine right to a free will. Man would no- longer be a free moral agent. Man, contrary to this, has to choose the good and reject the evil; overcome the evil with good. (For an analysis of this see S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, New York: Schocken Books, 1961, pp. 242-263.)

So no I don’t believe babies are “born” with sin, sin is not hereditary sin is a choice.

Are Also, you are flat wrong about needing the doctrine of original sin according to many if not most Christians. Without original sin, there is no reason for Jesus to die for our sins. So, once again, who is the true Christian here, them or you? Keep dodging.

Seriously did you read that except from that article I posted?

It is my view that children are not responsible for their sin until about the age of 13, they still sin before that but according to the Jewish tradition that the authors of the Scriptures came from their parents are responsible for that sin before the age of 13. To deny the Augustine concept of “original sin” does not deny that sins are committed by individuals and that those sins need to be dealt with, thus Jesus and His work comes into play. You either misunderstand the Augustine doctrine of original sin, or I’ve not been clear, because I can’t understand how you come to the conclusion that because I deny that concept of original sin that negates the need for Jesus’ work regarding forgiveness.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If we’re going to use you’re argument then you’re interpretation is not correct either, so I can tell you to go “pound sand” just as much as you tell me that…………correct?

Exactly, now tell that to Mr. Phelps. That's the whole point. I'm glad you're getting it now.

Dude we’ve been civil for the bulk of this discussion, let’s try to keep it that way.

It’s not a “cop out” it’s how I frame and understand the Scriptures, and the way most scholars do as well. So is it your assertion that we should throw out context? Do you have an alternate method of interpreting the Scriptures? If so please share with us.

My calling it a cop out is not intended to be offensive, but I didn't feel like you addressed my point at all. The whole point is that you are criticizing people for not following YOUR interpretation and calling their Christianity into question.

Did you not read this:

So no I don’t believe babies are “born” with sin, sin is not hereditary sin is a choice.

Seriously did you read that except from that article I posted?

It is my view that children are not responsible for their sin until about the age of 13, they still sin before that but according to the Jewish tradition that the authors of the Scriptures came from their parents are responsible for that sin before the age of 13. To deny the Augustine concept of “original sin” does not deny that sins are committed by individuals and that those sins need to be dealt with, thus Jesus and His work comes into play. You either misunderstand the Augustine doctrine of original sin, or I’ve not been clear, because I can’t understand how you come to the conclusion that because I deny that concept of original sin that negates the need for Jesus’ work regarding forgiveness.

Did you read it? It quite specifically says that Christianity includes the doctrine of original sin. If you do not follow that doctrine, what is to keep another Christian from saying that YOU are not a true Christian? Also, why did Jesus have to die? I've asked at least three times now and gotten no where near a peep of an answer from you on that score. Most Christians say Jesus had to die in order for us to be absolved from original sin as well as the chance to be absolved from regular sin.

But, let's look at your idea here. A baby is born then dies after 10 minutes. That baby obviously didn't sin, but that baby also never became a Christian (let's say the baby was born to Islamic parents.) Is that baby saved? How does your answer square away with other Christians? Should you really be calling people un-Christian if they don't agree with you on this point? Should they call you un-Christian? Do you really feel you have the right to call Mr. Phelps un-Christian? He believes in Jesus just as much as you do.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Did you read it? It quite specifically says that Christianity includes the doctrine of original sin. If you do not follow that doctrine, what is to keep another Christian from saying that YOU are not a true Christian? Also, why did Jesus have to die? I've asked at least three times now and gotten no where near a peep of an answer from you on that score. Most Christians say Jesus had to die in order for us to be absolved from original sin as well as the chance to be absolved from regular sin.

Most Christians don’t even realize that Jesus was Jewish, so what “most Christians” believe is of little consequence to the various theology I hold.

One’s “correct” understanding of sin and it’s origin is not an essential for being a Christian or being a follower of Jesus. This in itself is a Greek way of thinking about faith, that one must intellectually assent to XYZ "correctly" instead of a relationship with the living God as the Hebraic mindset understands it. To a Hebrew faith is experintial, to a Greek it's creeds and doctrines.........again I choose the Hebraic understanding.....IMO it's more accurate Biblically.

I posted in my last post this about why Jesus had to die:

To deny the Augustine concept of “original sin” does not deny that sins are committed by individuals and that those sins need to be dealt with, thus Jesus and His work comes into play

So yes there is a “peep” on your question. Additionally the concept of “original” and “regular” sins in the Hebraic understanding is foreign…….sin is sin. IMO the Hebraic understanding is the more accurate.

But, let's look at your idea here. A baby is born then dies after 10 minutes. That baby obviously didn't sin, but that baby also never became a Christian (let's say the baby was born to Islamic parents.) Is that baby saved? How does your answer square away with other Christians?

Most Evangelical Protestant Christians would indicate that baby would “go to Heaven”, just watch the Left Behind movie……….LOL. Catholics on the other hand don’t hold this, thus they practice infant baptism, the Augustine doctrine of original sin is very Catholic in it’s background. Again I hold the Hebraic understanding, that baby would go to Heaven.

Should you really be calling people un-Christian if they don't agree with you on this point? Should they call you un-Christian? Do you really feel you have the right to call Mr. Phelps un-Christian? He believes in Jesus just as much as you do.

I don’t call people “unchristian” on a point such as original sin, I do however question when people who claim to speak for Jesus act in a hateful manner to other humans (who bear the image of God) on the basis of the whole love your neighbor business and when John ties loving others to how we love God.

 

[fluff]

I think we need sweepstake on how many pages this will run to.

I reckon 7

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Most Christians don’t even realize that Jesus was Jewish, so what “most Christians” believe is of little consequence to the various theology I hold.

I'd be willing to bet that most Christian do realize Jesus was Jewish, but hold that he started a new religion that was and is separate from Judaism. What you believe is of little consequence, but maybe not to them, especially since you call yourself a Christian. They might be inclined to say that you are not a true Christian.

One’s “correct” understanding of sin and it’s origin is not an essential for being a Christian or being a follower of Jesus. This in itself is a Greek way of thinking about faith, that one must intellectually assent to XYZ "correctly" instead of a relationship with the living God as the Hebraic mindset understands it. To a Hebrew faith is experintial, to a Greek it's creeds and doctrines.........again I choose the Hebraic understanding.....IMO it's more accurate Biblically.

And many Christians would disagree about whether original sin is essential or not.

I posted in my last post this about why Jesus had to die:

So yes there is a “peep” on your question. Additionally the concept of “original” and “regular” sins in the Hebraic understanding is foreign…….sin is sin. IMO the Hebraic understanding is the more accurate.

I didn't realize that that was your answer. So, it was a blood sacrifice in order to do something that he could have just forgiven people for?

Most Evangelical Protestant Christians would indicate that baby would “go to Heaven”, just watch the Left Behind movie……….LOL. Catholics on the other hand don’t hold this, thus they practice infant baptism, the Augustine doctrine of original sin is very Catholic in it’s background. Again I hold the Hebraic understanding, that baby would go to Heaven.

But, you do admit that there are interpretational differences.

I don’t call people “unchristian” on a point such as original sin, I do however question when people who claim to speak for Jesus act in a hateful manner to other humans (who bear the image of God) on the basis of the whole love your neighbor business and when John ties loving others to how we love God.

So, you draw the line there, others don't. You draw the line there because of YOUR interpretation. So, you are still calling Mr. Phelps unchristian because he does not follow YOUR interpretation when it seems that many interpretations on many subjects are possible.

Besides, Jesus acted in a hateful manner when he fashioned a whip and beat people in the temple with it. He said he came here with a sword. Perhaps you are being simplistic in your interpretation? There's no way for you to know. If you somehow knew beyond all shadow of a doubt that YOUR interpretation was the correct interpretation, then you would be fully justified in saying that Mr. Phelps is not a true Christian. But, since you don't know, you shouldn't make that claim, because it can just as easily be turned on you.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think we need sweepstake on how many pages this will run to.

I reckon 7

It can end the minute Andyman agrees that he shouldn't base his definition of a "true Christian" on his own interpretations without knowing if those interpretations are correct or not.

 

[fluff]

It can end the minute Andyman agrees that he shouldn't base his definition of a "true Christian" on his own interpretations without knowing if those interpretations are correct or not.

If it's his definition surely he can decide the criteria?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If it's his definition surely he can decide the criteria?

Not without being fallacious and using it as an apologetic.

 

[fluff]

Not without being fallacious and using it as an apologetic.

Sorry I'm not communicating in words using more than three syllables today. What did you say?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Sorry I'm not communicating in words using more than three syllables today. What did you say?

In using the argument that Mr. Phelps is not a true Christian, he is employing the No True Scotsman fallacy in an attempt to make his religion look better.

 

[Andyman_1970]

It can end the minute Andyman agrees that he shouldn't base his definition of a "true Christian" on his own interpretations without knowing if those interpretations are correct or not.

I've stepped out of the steel cage and slowly and quietly closed the door behind me..............

 

[Andyman_1970]

in an attempt to make his religion look better.

*peers back through he chain link cage* I'll thank you not to make assumptions about my motivations............

 

[fluff]

In using the argument that Mr. Phelps is not a true Christian, he is employing the No True Scotsman fallacy in an attempt to make his religion look better.

I know not of the No True Scotsman fallacy though I can hazard a guess.

How would you define a Christian?

 

[ohio]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

*peers back through he chain link cage* I'll thank you not to make assumptions about my motivations............

OK, so what is your motivation for disavowing Mr. Phelps? How about Pat Robertson?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I know not of the No True Scotsman fallacy though I can hazard a guess.

How would you define a Christian?

Here's a good reference for you:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

3. Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.

My definition of a Christian is irrelevant to the discussion, but since you asked, it is one that professes belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I bent my wookie.

 

[fluff]

Here's a good reference for you:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm



My definition of a Christian is irrelevant to the discussion, but since you asked, it is one that professes belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Should it not also encompass living one's life by the tenets that he preached? If I believed in God, Christ, Heaven, Hell, and sin yet I chose to follow an unrighteous path would I be a Christian?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Should it not also encompass living one's life by the tenets that he preached? If I believed in God, Christ, Heaven, Hell, and sin yet I chose to follow an unrighteous path would I be a Christian?

According to the dictionary definition (the one I found online anyway), yes, you would still be a Christian.

In my mind, the reason for that is because it's so dependent on interpretation. Somebody could go out on a killing spree on "unrighteous" people and find support for it in the Bible. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists of the IRA were Christians. Do we simply say that this person or that person is not a true Christian based on some arbitrary line in the sand? And, who gets to draw that line?

 

[fluff]

According to the dictionary definition (the one I found online anyway), yes, you would still be a Christian.

In my mind, the reason for that is because it's so dependent on interpretation. Somebody could go out on a killing spree on "unrighteous" people and find support for it in the Bible. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists of the IRA were Christians. Do we simply say that this person or that person is not a true Christian based on some arbitrary line in the sand? And, who gets to draw that line?

The problem is that I was for a time what you would have defined a Christian (due to what you could term indoctrination as a child) yet deliberately chose to pursue a non-christian life and most definitely would not have described myself, or thought of myself as Christian.

I see your point that if someone professes to be Christian and uses biblical justification to undertake what would be viewed as evil 'non-christian' acts then how would they not be Christian. However I have known 'vegetarians' who eat chicken...

 

[Andyman_1970]

Fluff, I like your "location"............funny.