Talk Elections

That's right, the Festival of Lights has begun!  So go get your yarmulke, because it's Chanulkah!

Put on your yarmulke
Here comes chanukah
So much funukah
To celebrate chanukah
Chanukah is the festival of lights
Instead of one day of presents, we have eight crazy nights

When you feel like the only kid in town without a christmas tree
Heres a list of people who are jewish just like you and me
David lee roth lights the menorah
So do james caan, kirk douglas, and the late dinah shore-ah

Guess who eats together at the carnegie deli
Bowser from sha na na and arthur fonzerelli
Paul newmans half jewish, goldie hawns half too
Put them together, what a fine lookin jew

You dont need deck the halls or jingle bell rock
cause you can spin a dreidel with captain kirk and mr. spock- both jewish

Put on your yarmulke
Its time for chanukah
The owner of the seattle supersonicahs
Celebrates chanukah

O.j. simpson, not a jew
But guess who is? hall of famer rod carew- he converted
We got ann landers and her sister dear abby
Harrison fords a quarter jewish- not too shabby

Some people think that ebenezer scrooge is
Well hes not, but guess who is
All three stooges
So many jews are in showbiz
Tom cruise isnt, but I heard his agent is

Tell your friend veronica
Its time to celebrate chanukah
I hope I get a harmonicah
Oh this lovely, lovely chanukah
So drink your gin and tonicah
And smoke your marijuanikah
If you really, really wannakah
Have a happy, happy, happy, happy chanukah
Happy chanukah

Happy Chanukah

Enjoy those eight crazy nights!

Edit:  By the way, the priest offered a prayer to our Jewish brothers and sisters as they begin their celebration of Chanukah today at mass.  You aren't forgotten this time of year!

Ah, yes.  I'll raise a glass to Antiochus IV Epiphanes tonight, in celebration of his thwarted attempts to bring the benefits of Greek science and culture to the backwards, theocratic Judeans.  :P

Seriously, though, a holiday to celebrate Judah going from Hellenistic Selucid rule to...equally Hellenistic Hasmonean (home) rule?  Did the Jews really gain anything?

That is the point - home rule.
Also, he tried to force his 'culture' on them, with punishment of imprisonment or death on those who refused it.
One thing for sure, if they'd have succeeded, there wouldn't be a Jewish people around today.

I never understood how/why you would pray for people that you think are going to burn for eternity, but I guess this isn't the right venue for that

Is that what the Catholic Church says?  I don't even know. Regardless, it's not what I believe.

Happy Hanukkah, all of my Jewish brethren!

Happy Hanukkah, my friends.



No, we don't. Just more ignorance on the part of the Catholic haters.

 I was gonna say that didn't sound right.

I've always wondered if Chanukah would still be as commonly celebrated among Jews if it occured during any other time of the year. I suspect that were it not for it occuring right before Christmas, it would be about as commonly practiced as Sukkot.

Sukkot is actually a much more important holiday.

People only acre about it in the USA; they don't really care most other places.

That's what I thought.

Oh, and for people wondering about the spelling, here it is in Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה

Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking to people at final judgment), ...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night...

Revelation 20:12, 15, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I know that we celebrate Purim, but Purim hasn't become commercialized to the extent that Channukah has.

Chanukah is almost as commericalized as Christmas.

Catholics don't take every single Biblical quote literally so, again, you're misstating the belief of the Church.

None of those passages say "Jews will go to Hell." 

And Phil's right.  Catholics don't interpret the Bible the same way Protestants do. 

Almost?  I bet you 90% of Jews couldn't tell you what Hanukah's about.  (No, the oil in the lamp lasting eight days thing doesn't count)

Christmas could kick Chanukah's ass any day of the week!

I remember that when I was a kid, I got a new present every day while Chanukah lasted (ie. 8 presents).  Beat that, Christ boy. :)

Yeah but you lose to the half-Jewish, half-Italian kids who grew up across the street from me.  They got Chanukah presents AND Christmas presents. 

A great holiday, mostly because it nets me a lot of gelt.  Gelt tastes kind of crappy but it reminds me of my childhood.  Unlike Christmas, which reminds me of childhood with my relatives.  Chanukkah wins.

Oh, and also lamps that don't go out and stuff.  Love those!

You're a Jew?

This changes everything.

Happy Hannukah!

I didn't know than that was today. In my city, we never heard about it. We have a Catholic church, an Anglican church, a Pentecostal church, a Orthodox church and a Jehovah Witnesses thing, but no synagogue. We already had one, but that closed. Most of the Jews were English-speaking and the language laws pushed them out of the Quebec.

Like me :)

Although, I never got presents all eight nights of Hanukkah.  And now, I only get like one or two Hanukkah presents.

well, they say/infer that those who do not accept Jesus as their savior will go to Hell.  Jews believe Jesus was a heretic, so...


and how do Catholics interpret the above verses?  I don't see much wiggle-room, but I've been fooled before

How do you infer that?  There's nothing there that says anything about accepting Jesus.  Is there further context to suggest that?  It sounds to me like you're making an assumption, rather than an inference. 


Who was Jesus addressing when he spoke of "ye cursed"? 

Smoke from whose torment?

What is "the book of life" and who is supposed to be written in it? 

kind of annoying to answer my question with three separate questions


"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

 

You'll be okay. 

You said you didn't see much wiggle-room.  I was showing where I thought the wiggle-room was.  If you want me tell you how the Catholic Church interprets Biblical passages, I'm not gonna do it because I don't know how. 

so you don't know what you believe?

We're not talking about what I believe.  We're talking about what the Catholic Church teaches.  I don't believe everything the Catholic Church tells me to believe.  Regarding Jews burning in hell, I don't think the Catholic Church teaches that.  I went to Catholic school for 14 years and don't remember that ever being taught.  Regardless, I believe that a good person, no matter what religion they practice, will go to Heaven.

of course not - it wouldn't be expedient for them do so, regardless of what is "officially" believed.  religion will not advertise its irrationality and absurdities.  I doubt they advertise their own rabid defense of geocentrism into the 17th Century, either.


it is pretty difficult to argue that not to be in conflict with scripture, but to each his own

I'm not going into the Catechism (especially not here, of all places). I just wanted you to realize that it is not the position of the Church that all non-believers are going to Hell.

Also, it is my understanding that Jews view Jesus as a great prophet. Muslims, too. The Jewish leaders at the time viewed him as a blasphemer. It's a bit different these days.

Nope, Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet. Muslims do however.

I disagree because I've never seen where it says that in the Bible.  But you're right, to each his own.

Technically tonight already is the second day. The Jewish day starts at sunset.

Ok, well whoever told you that misunderstood. It's especially amusing because a Jesuit would have had to say that and Jesuits, of all people, don't believe that.

Happy second night.

For Ben and my other Jewish friends on the forum...

I pray for God's blessings on you and your families this season.  May health, safety and happiness be yours during the Festival of Lights and beyond!

Oh go pound sand.

The passage in Saint Matthew's Gospel has nothing to do with Jews.  It's a judgment of nations and people groups of all sorts...based on what they did and didn't do with regard to "the least of these". There is nothing in the passage you cite...or in the broader context of the passage...that says Jews burn in hell for eternity.

The two passages from The Revelation of Saint John are apocryphal and even so -- not aimed at people of the Jewish religion.

I am not sure what's worse.  Fundamentalist Christians who are sure they are the only ones going to Heaven...or insulting non-Theists who are sure they know what Christians believe about who is and is not damned.  Please try to keep in mind that milions upon millions of Christians reject fundamentalism and do not define themselves or their faith on the basis of who are the "saints" and who are the "aints".

I think that you either should accept the bible or you shouldn't.  the phrase "moderate Christians" has never made any sense to me.  what does that mean?  finding some sort of happy medium between what scripture says and what you would like it to say?

JS, your postings remind me a bit of Dubcek's "socialism with a human face".  jmfcst's arguments have always made the most sense to me.



so, instead of telling me what I shouldn't believe, why don't you share your thoughts on the following questions (and, preferably, back it up textually, but, again, I don't have a gun to your head):

1. do Jews go to Hell if they do not accept Christ?
2. do aborted fetuses go to Hell?
3. at around two months old, I was diagnosed with strep in the blood and almost died.  my fever reached 108F at one point.  if I had died in December 1990, would I have gone to Hell?
4. is Christ the only path to salvation?

etc.

1. do Jews go to Hell if they do not accept Christ?

I can give you a theological answer.  Those (Jewish or not) who do not "accept Christ" are judged on the basis of what light they have.  People often ask me if the First Americans who never heard the Gospel message went to hell when the died.  Of course not.  What's more, like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, I believe even those who heard the Gospel and rejected it because they could not or did not understand it are not damned. Ultimately, however, God decides.  And I do believe if a person hears, understands and feels the call of the Holy Spirit to receive Christ...but rejects that call over a lifetime...is certainly liable for that knowledge.  Does this mean they will burn in a literal Lake of Fire for all eternity?  Does it mean they will be in a place of eternal desolation, separated from God and love for all eternity? Does it mean they will simply wink out into some sort of oblivion we do not understand?  I am not sure.  I know God is sure...and God is just.  As an old saying goes, "When I can't trace God's hand, I shall trust God's heart."

2. do aborted fetuses go to Hell?
Of course not.  First, one has to have the discussion of whether or not they are even human or have souls.  There...I've upset both my Roman Catholic and my Protestant brothers and sisters! But seriously -- the Hebrew word for life is "breath".  And despite two specific Old Testament references to the possible personhood of fetuses in the woman...(these references more likely teach that God had a purpose for these specific pregnancies...speaking of both David and Jeremiah)...there are other Old Testament references to the fetus as having value as potential beings...yet distinct and less valuable that existing beings.  Else why the different levels of punishment in the Law of Moses for causing a miscarriage over against causing the death of a woman?

But presuming a conservative Evangelical view of the fetus, no.  They do not go to hell.  There is an historically Christian idea that each human is accountable for his acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ at a particular age.  LOL -- in the church I was raised in, it was 12.  You could be "born again" or "saved" before 12.  But if you weren't "born again" or "saved" by the age of 12...only then were you at what they called "the age of accountability".  I never much cared for the idea...but the question is a fair one.  I think my position where question one is concerned is instructive.  It's not the age, it's the understanding that matters.  And a fetus cannot understand.  And therefore...if a fetus is a human soul...it absolutely goes to Heaven


3. at around two months old, I was diagnosed with strep in the blood and almost died.  my fever reached 108F at one point.  if I had died in December 1990, would I have gone to Hell?

Absolutely not.  See my answer above.

4. is Christ the only path to salvation?

Yes.  In fact, I am among the more conservative voices in my denomination on this subject.  I am not a pure Universalist.  I do not believe that Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganis or any religion is on an equal plane with Christianity.  Before I go any further however, I have to say that every other religion has something to teach us and, more importantly, has followers who are honorable and outstanding people.  The same would be true of Atheism.

However, of every "god/God" worshiped in the history of the world...to my knowledge...only One has...

A.   Claimed to be both fully divine and fully human
B.   Freely accepted the worship of fellow humans
C.   Claimed to be sinlessly perfect, yet capable of and willing to bear the sins of every man, woman and child past, present and future.
D.    Claimed to believe that his death would atone for these sins
E.    Claimed to have literally, bodily risen from the dead (and been seen by hundreds of witnesses)

This is why I consider Christianity the one true religion.  Jesus Christ is the "nutcase" who said and did all these things.  As Lewis puts it, "He could be a liar.  He could be a lunatic.  Or he could be the Lord of Glory."

So now -- I believe Jesus is the true path.  But does that mean those who do not follow Jesus are automatically damned?  (This is where I will frustrate and anger the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.) No.  Again, Lewis is instructive...though, remarkably, his Narnia work is where we get the picture we need.  It tells a story of one who served the false god, Tash.  He had never heard of Aslan, the true savior of Narnia.  Either that, or he heard but for reasons he could not be responsible for, he could not understand Aslan or his message.  So he served Tash.  At the judgment, he too, is welcomed into the Kingdom.  Aslan says, "when you served Tash with all your heart, you were truly serving me."

Equivocation?  Possibly.  Limp-wristed, namby-pamby universalism? I understand why some say that.  But what I know of God, I learned from the example of Jesus...whose relentless mercy and ferocious tenderness were anything but weak or equivocal.  And Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.  I do what I see my Father doing." 

If a six year old who never heard of Jesus dies and goes to hell...if a Jew who has lived a life of compassion, service and love dies and, having never been able to get his mind around the idea of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, goes to hell because he just couldn't "get with the program"...then that makes the God of the Bible a sorry, brutal bastard indeed.  The Bible is a guide...and a good one.  But it is one of several legs of the stool.  We are also guided by reason, tradition and experience.  As I have said before, a one-legged stool is wobbly and prone, without a really well-padded seat, to stick straight up one's ass.

Now that I have pissed off the non-Theists, non-Christians and liberal Christians for being too exclusive...and certainly infuriated the Evangelical and fundamentalist folk for being too soft-headed and inclusive...

I shall go and pound some sand myself...  ;-)

In that case, does original sin only take effect at the age of 12? I'm not sure I can square this idea with the concept of original sin.

Most Evangelicals base this belief on King David's praise for God after the death of his infant son.  David, if memory serves, seemed confident he would be reunited with his son in Heaven.  I could have that wrong.

Of course, this is why I am more at home in a tradition where there is infant baptism.  Not so much as a guarantor against damnation...but as an initiation into the family of faith and (my Catholic friends will back me up in this) as an expression of communal participation in each child's life of faith.

Ultimately, I view the concept of original sin as a dead issue.  It was killed on the cross of Jesus Christ.  His heel was bruised, therefore he crushed the serpent's head.  "It is accomplished", he said.  I am, quite admittedly, in a place of uncertainty where the matter of salvation is concerned. The emergent Church, often a surprisingly Evangelical one in many respects, is starting to put forth some interesting (and actually quite ancient) ideas about faith.  The central question here is, "Was the death of Jesus on the cross sufficient or must some action (even mental action) of human will be required for salvation?"  If so, does this not negate Pauline teachings about salvation being exclusively the work of God, based solely on the merit of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice.

This has much to recommend it.  But, and I thoroughly expect Jmcfst to chime in here -- and I hope he will, because I have not abandoned the more modern and conservative soteriological view that some act on the part of man is required.  "With the mouth, one believes and is saved"...etc.

As I say, I am uncertain.  I do know that the opposite of faith is not doubt or curiousity.  Ironically, the opposite of faith is, IMHO, certainty.

Didn't the Catholics invent Limbo to deal with the "babies dying before baptism" thing?

I know Benedict got rid of Limbo, but it seems like a good solution.

I make a point of specifically wishing all my Jewish friends a Merry Christmas.




Well, I would if I had Jewish friends. I guess I'll just go eat a BLT bagel :D

Thank youuu! 

Go suck a Kosher sausage.

Well, then they are truly in bad shape, for they’ll have no luck finding any light apart from Jesus Christ:

John 1:4 "In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

...


Is frustrating and angering the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians some sort of stamp of approval to you? So, that, on one hand you find comfort in the acceptance of Lewis and on the other hand you find comfort in the rejection of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians?

And how is Lewis instructive?!  And, why bother to quote anyone?  Doesn't your bible give clear instruction on which paths lead to salvation?

JSJ, I think your frustration and anger is directed at the clarity of the bible, not the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.  Isn't that why you find it necessary to quote Lewis and not the bible? 

I myself have read and reread the bible, including the New Testament, and I have yet to read a single passage that claims a path to salvation apart from accepting Jesus Christ.

In fact, I find Jesus' own statement on the matter quite clear:

John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So, if you don't mind, I think I'll trust my salvation, and the salvation of anyone else, to the testimony of Jesus Christ, and not to the testimony of Lewis.  For it is written:

1John 5:9-12 "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

So, let me parse that passage and you and Lewis can tell me where I jumped the tracks...the passage means that God’s word trumps the word of Lewis.  It also means that God’s word trumps the word of JSJ, jmfcst, and the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.  And anyone that doesn’t believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has made God out to be a liar because he has not believed God’s testimony concerning Jesus.  And God’s testimony, which is found in the heart of anyone who has accepted the Gospel, is that God has given us eternal life, and this eternal life is found in Jesus, so that he who has Jesus has eternal life, and HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE JESUS CHRIST DOES NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

Sounds crystal clear to me, for that is exactly the testimony that is in my heart.  But maybe I need to read Lewis so that what is clear can become muddled so that it becomes politically correct to the world and takes away from the clarity and simplicity that is found in the One who found me, even Jesus Christ.  In him is the only hope, the only truth, the only light, the only way, the only eternal life, the only God.

But, since my interpretation isn't loved by the world, then I must be doing something wrong, for we all know that the world loved Jesus Christ to death.

Hi Jm, we've been swamped here -- power outage, holidays and stuff...so I am just now getting back to you.

I think you and I are just going to have to differ.

Based on your interpretation of the scripture, anyone who has not been "saved", "born again" or baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ is damned.  That would include, I presume, Native Americans who never heard the Gospel...billions of Chinese, Africans, Arabs and Asian who never heard the Gospel...billions of babies and children who died before "making a decision for Christ".

If that's what you're saying -- then you bet we disagree.  But as I frequently do, I may have misunderstood you.  Could you clarify?  What happens to a child or an adult who have never accepted Jesus Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior" -- thinking specifically of the billions who never had a chance to respond to the Gospel message?

Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the pre-Christian era Patriarchs and others.  I am talking about those who, after Pentecost ushered in the Church Age, either never heard the Gospel and died.  Or heard it and could not understand because of handicaps, imparities or language barriers? 

JSJ,

I noticed you offered no scripture to back up your viewpoint…could it be because it doesn’t come from scripture?

And, no, I am not including babies under the cloud of condemnation.  There is nothing in scripture that states babies have the ability to sin.  And I think your inclusion of them in this argument is to take focus off of those who have rejected Jesus.

As to American Natives and everyone else who has not heard the gospel…If they are already saved, then what is the purpose of preaching the Gospel in the first place?  If they were already saved, then the preaching of the Gospel is actually putting their salvation at risk….which makes a complete mockery of the preaching of the Gospel.

You claim that adults who haven’t heard the Gospel have an excuse, but scripture doesn’t:

Rom 1:18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So, you say certain men have an excuse, Paul says they are without excuse…I’ll think I’ll side with Paul on this one.

Also, Paul goes on to state that those without the word will perish without the word:

Rom 2:12 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

...which again makes repentance a requirement, not just belief.

---

As for those who have had the Gospel preached to them and do not believe:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

---

So, let me ask you a scriptural question:  Where does the NT state that there is any path to salvation apart from Jesus Christ?  Becaise I have yet to find one.  Instead, I find statements like:

Acts 4:12 “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Since we're asking questions, is God good? Is God love? Is God just?

Is it just to damn some African native or American Indian because he or she never heard the message of Jesus?  From AD 33 or so until 1492, a lot of people died.  And after the Gospel came to these shores, a lot more died -- still having never heard.  So according to you, they are burning in the fires of hell for all eternity.  Just because the missionaries didn't get to them fast enough.

You ask what the point is of preaching the Gospel if they are already saved.  GREAT question.  If you've been cured of a horrendous disease yet aren't aware of it, isn't it likely life would change dramatically if someone came along and told you the good news?  A person can be very well in reality, and still live and behave as though they are dying. 

Of course, if one believes the whole point of Jesus' coming to earth was simply to provide men with a fire escape from Hell and get them into Heaven -- then there's a much bigger difference in philosophy than our debate about who are the Saints and who are the "ain'ts".

Now, as to babies -- you've missed the point entirely.  Unless you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin.  Are we born in sin? Do we have a sin nature at birth or is it acquired over time?  If you believe that we are born sinners, then how can a sin-stained human being enter the perfect and holy presence of God?  Adam's sin has eternally separated all humankind from the perfection of God.  If babies are exempt from original sin, at what point do children become responsible for sin and accountable for it?

So the infant who dies goes to Heaven.  But the six year old is damned?  The 11 year old burns in Hell's flames? 

You can think all you want that I am trying to distract you or change the subject by bringing children into the equation, but I believe it's fair game.  As the parent of an eight year old, I have a vested interest. 

Just a couple of points/questions.  What Jmfcst says, in and of itself, makes sense, but to me, its pretty troubling in that one who has never heard or had the opportunity to hear the good news is condemned to eternal damnnation.  Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time squaring the plain words of the Bible with my view of a fair, loving and just God (as portrayed in the New Testament) with the literal words-if you do not believe, then you will suffer hell.

Assuming for arguments sake that we're going to, as countless generations have, weigh Paul's views so heavily (because of course they're in the NT)...that may be an issue for another day...I still find it hard to believe that 1) say for instance native americans living at the time of Christ up to the preaching of the Gospel in the new world, would have been able to know that the Son of God was born into the family of a meager carpenter in some backwater Roman province and that his crucifixtion was the saving of the world.  Those people have, in my mind, no notice that such moments have occurred and to judge them equally with those who have had the actual opportunity to believe in Christ, and still reject it seems, well...unreasonable.

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

It's not just the opinion of Paul, for I quoted from Jesus also.  In fact, one of the most famous passages of the bible says the same thing:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Sounds to me like the world was in a state of comdemnation and in need of salvation; therefore God, out of his love of the world, gave his son so that the world could be saved through Jesus.  Whoever believes it saved, but whoever does not believe remains condemned because they did not latch onto God's salvation.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

I wish.

I mean, assuming God is loving etc, why would he require those who lived on the other side of the world to believe in a man they have never heard of, never heard prophecy about, in a place they don't even know exists, to suffer and die at the hands of a man they've never heard of and in a way they probably don't know about...not to mention a history changing event at a random tomb thousands upon thousands of miles away

I realize the text of the Bible essentially says, believe and you're saved, do not believe and you're condemned...what does it mean to not believe in this circumstance...you could (and it seems you and a great deal of Christians agree) take do not believe to encompass both those who have rejected the truth, and those who have (either through inaction or inability to believe) failed to form (or even realize there was a thing to be believed) a belief. 

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

I take issue with thye use of the term 'to believe' - The Greek is pisteuo; to trust, to be persuaded of (this I believe is the definition used by the Catholic Church)

Trust is different from belief.

Trust in Jesus is, to be fair a greater attribute than just belief.

then you better get him saved.  As for babies, yes they are born with a sinful nature, but that sinful nature has not yet awakened and produced sin.  And since they haven't sinned, then they are not under condemnation.

---

And aside from your rant which basically blames God for the man's state of condemnation, even though it was man that walked away from God and not the other way around...



What?!  Did I read that correctly?!   Are you saying those who haven't heard the gospel are already cured (saved) and the purpose of the gospel for them is to simply change their earthy life for the better?!

So, instead of "bringing salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isa 49:6, Acts 13:47), the Gospel simply brings good cheer to those who already have salvation?

---

JSJ,

Let's make this very simple:

1) Does your bible offer a path of salvation?
2) If so, then what is that path in your bible?

agreed, belief in this context means to adhere to.

Acts chapter 16
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Notice that Paul and Silas did NOT respond:  "Well, you can do one of two things - a) go crawl under a rock and remain ignorant and you'll be saved, or b) believe in Jesus Christ and you'll be saved."

As hard as it is for people to accept it, unless Paul and Silas misunderstood and thought the jailer asked "What is one of the ways I can be saved?", then we “MUST” believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

I could probably line up 50 different passages which, taken at face value without paraphrasing, state no other path to salvation other than through faith in Jesus Christ.  But I have found ZERO passages stating that there is any other path for anyone in the world today.

If someone wants to throw one out, I'd love to take a look at it.

Well, once again Jm, you are making this personal.  This happens every time I try to have a serious discussion with you about anything but Sarah Palin or football for some reason!

LOL

My child IS saved.  She was baptised at the age of two (which, I realize, you don't consider of any value at all) and, later, when she asked me how I knew I would go to heaven when I died, I explained it to her this way...  She was six.

I said, "Well sweetie, I know I will go to heaven when I die because Jesus died on the cross for my sins...because he, even though he was perfect, took my sins and fault on himself.  And he paid the penalty.  I realized that no matter how good I tried to be, I could never be as good as God.  Only Jesus could.  So I told him that and thanked him for his love and invited him to be my Savior and friend."

She then asked if she could do that.  And, while I do put stock in the baptism of infants and children, I joyfully invited her to ask Jesus to be her Savior and friend, too.  She did.

I suspect you will say that if she should die, she will go to Heaven on that basis.  I hope so anyway, or we really ARE at opposite ends of the globe on this issue.  But at the end of the day, we come back to the conversation we had some weeks ago.  Did my daughter (and did I) save myself by "believing"?  No.  The salvation is the free gift of God based entirely on the work of his Son on the cross.  If I make it about who voluntarily steps across that line, then the focus is on the WORK of the individual in "making a decision" for Christ.  Rather, I am more inclined to say salvation was accomplished -- signed, sealed and delivered -- by Jesus on the cross.

What we have to determine is who the Savior was talking about when He said, "Those who the Father gives me can never be taken away from me.  No one can snatch them from my hand."  And I can tell you, you'd have a lot more fun debating the doctrine of election and predestination with Bono.  

Millions of people do, thank God, decide to follow Jesus...to accept Him as their Savior...and that's as it should be.  But that is, in my understanding, not the salvific act.  The salvific act took place on the cross, where perfection died in place of imperfection and purity took the punishment that was due corruption.  I'm glad that's how I see it.  That it was all His doing and absolutely none of mine.  Because given my ability to bollocks things up, I'd always be wondering if I had done enough, believed exactly the correct thing or said precisely the right prayer.

What you've described here, is willful ignorance, I haven't argued that willful ignorance is a permissible path to salvation...I don't think JS has either (but I can't speak for him).

What I'm wondering about are those who haven't acted like osteriches and hidden, but those who have never had the opportunity (because missionaries hadnt arrived) and could not have had constructive knowledge (should have known if not for ignorance).

That's why I brought C.S. Lewis to bear on the subject.  His idea was that those who never heard the Gospel or who heard it but, because of infirmities or other impairments, could not understand or receive it, were and are covered by the same grace that saves us all.  He did not argue that this negated the need to believe or trust in Christ on OUR part.  Only that God, being just and the very soul of love, takes into account their reality...and judges them on the basis of whether or not the follow the light they DO have.

Ironically, I first heard this doctrine put forth by a very fundamentalist preacher/teacher named John MacArthur.  Which surprised me -- because MacArthur likes him some hellfire and damnation.  I thought it was quite refreshing.

Luke 7:50 "Your faith has saved you."

So, you are wrong - your faith does indeed save you!

And to get downright technical about it, as you like to do:  even your belief (faith) is from God.  

1Tim 1:14 "Grace was poured out on me abundantly, along with faith."

Nevertheless, without faith, you are unsaved, for without faith, you can't find grace, and without grace you can't have access to Christ:

Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Rom 4:16 "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace"

Heb 11:6 "Without faith it is impossible to please God"

---

I have never stated that obtaining a faith in Jesus Christ was my own doing.  In fact, my testimony states that God simply decided to reveal himself to me one day back in Oct 1992 and that I didn't even know I was looking for God.

So, you can think of "faith" as a gift, or as evidence, or whatever category you want to place it in...the simple fact is that you can not be saved without "faith":

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and I know that I have been overly active today and have bugged the heck out of most of you...

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?  Does he hold knowledge of God's will beyond scripture?

ICor 4:6 "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

Now, granted there are differring levels of faith (one Christian may have stronger faith than another Christian), but those are differring levels within a single faith so that the object of that single faith is the same - Jesus Christ.

All about C.S. Lewis. (http://tinyurl.com/99fa32)

Just as I suspected: C.S. Lewis ain't God, even if some people like to quote him instead of scripture.

There are many learned Christians jmfcst, over the past 2000 years who have deliberated and thought and spoken and argued a whole manner of things. These people were motivated by the Holy Spirit too, you can't just dismiss them and the opinions they formed through their study of the Bible.

Why don't you read about them and see what they were on about? You never know, they might enlighten you.

that's cool, afleitch.  And I am not trying to strain at a gnat about this, but in all their study of the bible, surely they can cite a verse in the New Testament regarding the path(s) to salvation.  Because if the New Testament doesn't provide a path to salvation, then it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

It is a fundamental question for a mentally functioning adult to ask: "What MUST I do to be saved?"

Is there any question more fundamental or more important?

What is Christianity, exactly, if it can't answer that question? 

Do we, as Christians, have to have every answer to every question with all i's dotted and all t's crossed in order to give an answer to that one simple question?

Jesus and all the Apostles were able to answer that fundamental question point blank and without hesitation. 

Indeed they were, but they knew Jesus in his life and after his ressurection. They were part of his immediate close community. And even as the apostles travelled for decades after Jesus had left this earth they could only reach a few pockets of the Roman Empire. One thousand years later, Christianity hadn't even penetrated across the whole of Europe.

How on earth could people be condemned because missionaries had not yet got to them? They may not have known Jesus the Son, but they may have known God the Father, because God is self evident in his creation. If you look you can find him, though you don't have any book or any knowledge of his complexity to guide you. You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

what is the "but" trying to say?  Is it trying to say that we can NOT give the exact same answer to the same question, as if we need to come to different conclusions than Jesus and Apostles did?!

--


Well, if they're not condemned already, then why did Apostles lead missionaries?

---


You can’t know the Father apart from Jesus Christ:

Mat 11:27 “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

John 14:6 “"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

---


Again, why did Apostles lead missionaries?

Indeed I would not have come to believe without the bible.  But that is why the bible is preached:

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

I was asking you, did God only reveal himself to you because you knew there was a book called the Bible where answers could be found? What therefore made you different from someone who was not aware of this book for example? Because, unless I am mistaken and you may have to explain things here, your experience of salvation sounds as if it contrary to how you interpret salvation biblically.

Who missioned you? Because from what you've said it appears that God can only be revealed through the work of human mission ('why did the Apostles lead missionaries'), as you consider that the apostles were instructed to do and not through supernatural revelation through the Holy Spirit.

When God was revealed to you, you had the opportunity to go to any bookstore or church and pick up the Bible. If he revealed himself to some man in Kansas 800 years ago, he would not have that liberty. Therefore that man could not be damned because of the circumstances of this birth even though God through the Holy Spirit had revealed himself,

It can be held that no one may find salvation other than through Christ, but where is Christ to be found other than the Bible or from the lips of missionaries? Unless you disagree with the concept of 'homoousion' or the belief that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son and through the Spirit both Father and son can be revealed.

No, my testimony is that I received the Holy Spirit while reading the book of Galatians in the bible – the bible being the written word of God. 

So, I am not saying you need a mission to bring you the word, you can receive a written mission in the form of a bible; but whether heard from preaching or read in bible, you need the word to have faith:

Rom 10:17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”


---


That’s the point, you can’t.  The purpose of missionaries is to bring salvation through preaching and spreading the word of God.

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"… 17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

---

But, seriously, I would have thought that the purpose of spreading the gospel (to save people through faith in Jesus Christ from eternal damnation brought on as a consequence of their sin) was obvious to anyone vaguely familiar with Christianity.   ???

If the New Testament teaches anything else about the purpose of the gospel, I am still waiting to hear it.  Instead, I read:

1Pet 1:9 “You are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”

Could it be that Christians have allowed themselves to be muzzled by modern political-correctness to the point that the purpose of the gospel is not even recognized by many Christians?

1Cor 1:21 "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

So, to me, that means, it pleased God to have salvation come to people by having those very same people believe in the foolishness of a message that was preached.  Therefore, to me, that means they were NOT saved prior to believing in the word of Christ, for what was preached was the need to accept that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins, which seems like foolishness in the eyes of the world. 

Now, I ask you, how else can it be interpreted?

This isn't a 'political correctness' issue because it has been an issue of theological discussions for many many centuries.

Romans 8: But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Again this affirms the Trinity, that the spirit of Christ is also the 'sprirt of him that raised up Jesus' (god). Therefore the Spirit is the agent of God and Christ.

Romans 8:14 -  For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God

John 16:  But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of me and show it to you.

Is this truth not the Word? When this truth glorifies the Lord? If the Holy Spirit moves the heart of those who are exluded through circumstance from hearing the written word, how can that person be condemened if the Spirit carries the word of God?





Agin this shows that the Spirit is an agent of Christ.

It has ALWAYS been a PC issue:

Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.”

And where is this debate?  I’m still waiting for it:  which verses do you use to claim someone can be saved without the preaching of the word?

---

The verses you quoted simply state those who have the Holy Spirit are saved, but what you are leaving out is HOW they received the Holy Spirit to begin with. for you can NOT receive the Holy Spirit without FIRST having FAITH in Jesus Christ:

John 7:39 “By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

Gal 3:5 “Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Gal 3:14 “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

Eph 1:13-14 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.”

We have a firm example in Acts 10 of how Cornelius was saved by God telling him to go and listen to the gospel from Peter:

"A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." (Acts 10:22)

So, even when angels are set out to save those not currently hearing the preaching of the gospel, they steer them towards someone preaching the gospel.

---

Now, if you want to claim God is able to send an angel to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to those beyond the reach of missionaries, I am NOT going to say that is impossible, though I am not sure there is any recorded history of it...unless you believe Joseph Smith.

To call it a matter of political correctness is to extremely oversimplify the issue. We're not talking about referring to stewardesses as "flight attendants" - we're talking about a serious matter about what people feel with their conscience is right and wrong. We're talking about something that can shatter faith altogether.

To many people the notion that the virtuous among those who haven't heard the gospel will be sent to hell by God simply because they don't believe in a gospel they've never heard of is a blatant contradiction to the notion that God is loving and just. It's the same issue when it comes to unbaptized babies that die going to hell because they weren't baptized by their parents. Such people usually only have a few options - either they stop believing in the gospel because they see it has a rather large contradiction that can't be ignored, or they believe that the virtuous among the non-evangelized have some sort of out. This might be what afleitch is suggesting, or it might be something like having an angel or Christ himself appear to them at the moment of their deaths to give them an opportunity to accept the gospel. It doesn't always involve them being saved, either. For example in Dante's Inferno the "virtuous pagans" still go to hell, but only the first circle, Limbo, which could be considered a deficient form of heaven - the people there suffer passively in the sense that they can't achieve anything greater because God isn't there, as opposed to the other circles of hell in which people are actively suffering and being tormented for their sins.

Now, you may very well be right and the correct interpretation is that they go burn in a lake of fire like everyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a bigger issue than mere political correctness. Again, it's something that can be quite faith shattering.

I would contend that.

The Spirit came to Mary, to bear Jesus, it came to John, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth when he was conceived  (Luke 1:15) filling him with the Holy Spirit some six months before an angel of the Lord spoke to Mary. It also came to Elizabeth (Luke 1:41) when Mary simply greeted her. After Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit she then knew and believed Jesus as Christ; 'Blessed art thou...''

So the Spirit came to John before the conception of Christ, before he was made flesh. It came to Elizabeth and later to Zacharias (Luke 1:67)

In Luke 2:25-26, we can see that the Spirit had came to Simeon, we can assume before Christ's birth as it had promised him at some point, (could have been days, could have been years before) that he would not die until he had seen the 'Lord's Christ'

All these people were of great faith, but a faith in God and that God would send his son as long prohpesised. Not a faith in Jesus as Christ. Not an understanding that Mary carried the Christ. Only when filled with the Holy Spirit did Elizabeth understand whom Mary was carrying. The Spirit was an aid to her understanding.

You're basically arguing that only adults who have heard the gospel are held accountable to God, but the rest of the world isn't held accountable to God.  Which contradicts the need for the gospel in the first place.  So, the contradiction is with your logic, not the bible's.

So, either the world is held accountable to God and therefore the need for the gospel, or the world is not held accountable to God and the gospel serves no purpose.

But we know that the world is under condemnation and it is Jesus that saves us from that comdemnation:

Rom 5:18 "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

---


not my belief, not my issue

---


what about the option of trying to spread the gospel so that you help save as many as possible?

---


not my bible, not my problem :)

---


political correctness is not just external, it is also internal

but there are examples the New Testament of "faith shattering" due to not wanting to come to grips with the cold reality of what was preached by Jesus:

John 6: 60 On hearing [Jesus’s teaching], many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?”... 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.  67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

So, it is not a function of how appealing the gospel is, rather it is a function of realizing you have no where else to turn.  And if there is no alternative, walking away doesn’t help you at all.

You’re choosing examples prior to the new covenant being put into place.  No one is saying there weren’t a handful of individuals who received the Holy Spirit prior to Jesus.  In fact, I could have picked any number of prophets from the old testament and said the same thing you’re saying.

But the ushering in of the New Covenant has changed the rules:

Acts 16:29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

I argued no such thing. Your reading comprehension is lacking as usual. You'll note that I specifically used the word "virtuous" - in this context it would mean someone who would behave as you would expect a model Christian would. You know, people who devote their time and energy to helping the sick and the poor and whatnot, general good Christian behavior, doing so without having heard the gospel tell them. We're not talking about unrepentant mass murdering sociopaths getting out of hell just because they haven't heard the gospel or anything of that nature. Aside from those self-proclaimed Christians who don't believe in hell (which I'll agree is quite silly and contradictory since the Bible explicitly states hell exists) you won't find many who object to the vehement sinners among the unevangelized being sent there.

Furthermore, even if the virtuous non-evangelized can be saved, or at least not eternally tormented, it doesn't mean there's no reason to spread the gospel. Suppose you spread the word to someone who is not virtuous and they decide to change their ways when they otherwise would have not done so, saving them and lowering the overall level of sin in the world. So spreading the gospel could theoretically result in more people being saved than if things were just left as is. Thus there is no contradiction in this logic.


I never said it was your belief, I just provided a similar example.


Would you honestly try to spread the word of a being you thought was hateful and evil? That's hardly an option for a moral person. And again, these people find the notion that a loving and just deity would send people to hell for not believing a gospel they've never heard of to be a complete and utter contradiction - why is it you can't wrap your head around that? It's really quite a simple concept.


Again, it's just a f**king example. Why is it you feel the need to dismiss and belittle the ideas of others without a second thought?


Political correctness is petty. This is not. PERIOD. You can belittle the internal moral struggles of others all you want, but the fact that this is a serious issue that people have deep thoughts and considerations about does not change one iota.

You can’t be saved with good works, for “without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God” (Heb 11:6) And that “faith” is specifically defined in the New Testament as faith in Jesus Christ.

---


Yes, there is contradiction in your logic, for you’re stating that only really bad people need Christ, when the scriptures clearly state that we ALL are bad and in need of faith in Christ:

Romans 3:22 “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”

---


Smiley faces imply joking.  So, I didn’t mean to offend your affections for Dante. ;)

---

 
People are NOT condemned for not believing in Christ, rather they are condemned based on their own sin.  Faith in Christ REMOVES the wrath of God for the individual:

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him”

So, unbelief doesn’t bring condemnation. 

===


Reread the passage I posted where many disciples left Christ because they couldn’t accept the gravity of reality Jesus painted….you’ll find that Jesus did NOT attempt to cuddle the “internal moral struggles and deep thoughts and considerations” of those who walked away from God because they couldn’t handle the truth.

Those “internal moral struggles and deep thoughts and considerations” are based on people judging God and are contrary to what Jesus was teaching.

And Jesus reacted to the rejection of his stated reality by asking if any one else wanted to leave.  Those that remained put aside their own judgments of God and accepted God judgments.  And this acceptance drove them to spend their lives spreading the word in an urgent attempt to save as many as they could.

So, to lighten this conversation, I’ll quote one of my favorite movie scenes:

- “You want answers?”
                   
- “I want the truth!”
                   
- “You can't handle the truth!”

Those words might as well apply to much of Christianity in America and Europe.

That's the thing - the people that we're talking about never had any knowledge of it. They were unaware of it, they never even heard the name of Jesus before they died. You can't reject something you know nothing of.


You can try to justify it all you like, but the model is quite simple. Believe -> saved, don't believe -> hell.

It's all there in plain English:


So believe or be sent to hell through God's willful wrath is the message I'm seeing here.

Or are you saying that God doesn't make the rules? That his wrath is not under his control? That he does not decide who is saved and who is condemned?

True.  Condemnation depends on being a sinner.  The removal of condemnation depends on sinners hearing and accepting the word of Christ.

----


There’s no justification needed.  You’re just leaving out the whole picture in order to state that condemnation is the result of non-belief, when it isn’t.  Rather, it is like…

Sinner Lost and without the word:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hell

Sinner Lost and disbelieving of the word:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hearing the word->disbelief->condemnation remains->hell

Sinner Lost then saved through belief:  No Sin->No condemnation->Sin->condemnation->hearing the word->belief->faith->removal of condemnation(salvation)->heaven

Now, if you were sinless, then it wouldn’t matter if you heard the word or not, for there would be no need for it:

Sinless:   No Sin->No condemnation->Still no sin->Still no condemnation->heaven

So, it is SIN that puts you to death (brings condemnation), not disbelieving:

“The wages of sin is death” Rom 6:23.

---

The following should be obvious:  If death isn’t the result of sin, then Christ would not have had to die for our sins.  Likewise, if death is the result of disbelief, then Christ would have had to have died for our disbelief, which he did NOT.

1Cor 15:3 "Christ died for our sins"

That's the problem - the people in question are those who've never been given a chance to hear the word of Christ, making it impossible for them to accept it. How is it you can expect anyone to believe that God loves these people when he never gave them a shot at salvation? Essentially it would mean he abandoned them - would you abandon someone you love?

Dibble, how is it you can follow and understand scripture, yet fail to discern what you have witnessed within this very thread?

Mat 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

God chose fallible Christians to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and so God equipped them to do so. 

But pick up a catholic catechism, or a statement of beliefs from many major protestant denominations, and you’ll read that Muslims and Jews don’t require conversion to Christianity in order to be saved.

God didn’t abandon them, Christians did.

1 Corinthians 15:34 “Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.”

The realization that Christians have been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” to spread the gospel and save those in the world, yet refuse to spread the gospel, is harder to swallow than the fact the world is lost without Christ.

Mat 9:37 "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.”

That’s the tragedy that I see!  That is what is hard for me to accept!

And that shame Paul mentions falls also on me, for I am also to blame.

I post this as a person who was raised Catholic, but am no longer Catholic and no longer Christian or an adherent of any religion (though I do hold a doctoral degree in Religious Studies, but I specialize in Indian and Chinese traditions).  So, my biases, if I have them, are rooted in that background.

I hardly begrudge Christians the right to carry out missionary activity.  I think that devotees of all religious traditions have a right to tell others about their faith and even attempt to persuade others of their beliefs.  When one talks of condemnation, however, one is talking about judgment, and insofar as I ever had any understanding of Christianity, judging is God's job and God's job alone; human beings are not equipped to judge or condemn others, and indeed, they are prohibited by Christ from doing so ("Judge not, and you will not be judged.  Condemn not, and you will not be condemned.  Forgive and you will be forgiven.")  Certainly, Christians are enjoined to spread the gospel, but beyond that, they are enjoined to love others as God loves all.

It would be exceedingly good if this was all there was to the matter.  But, historically, this has not been the case.  Christians have taken the directive to make disciples of all nations, when they came to political power, to colonize, coerce, and covert on pain of death, exile and disenfranchisenemt.  The long and torturous history of this heritage in Europe was precisely what led the Founders of the United States, many of whom were undoubtedly sincere and devoted Christians, to ensure that the state would not be an instrument of religious conversion on behalf of any denomination, and this was done precisely to protect the religious beliefs of all.  That means that the United States is supposed to be a pluralistic society.  I always get the feeling that American Christians who take their commission to convert others seriously are at pains to live in a pluralistic society, many seem fundamentally unhappy that there are people living in the same society who do not share their religious beliefs.  Why do I get this feeling?

Because this thread started with Happy Chanukah wishes and turned into a thread about Christian missionary activity.  Why did that have to happen? 

You talk of failure to understand but it is quite clear you have no understanding of what I have been trying to tell you. I understand what you are saying quite clearly on the other hand - I just don't agree with it as being the truth, in part because I see a rather obvious contradiction.


So let me get this straight - Christians abandoned people that at the time they did not know existed and did not have the technological means at the time to reach even if they did? In case you've forgotten there was this whole big other continent that Christian missionaries could not possibly reach for well over a thousand years. Travel by land was also very limited and dangerous, limiting the ability to spread the gospel. It's not like today when you can hop on an airplane and go almost anywhere in under a day.

You claim that God equipped the Christians to spread the gospel to the ends of the Earth, but when did he give them boats capable of traversing the vast and stormy seas that separate the major landmasses? Heck, when did he tell them that there was another major landmass that had millions of people upon it that they needed to reach? Seems to me they were under-equipped.


Whether there were enough willing evangelists at the time is not the problem. Even with armies of preachers there were still places that could not be reached in time to spread the word to give everyone a chance to hear the gospel before they died. Do you get it - it was a physical impossibility for the gospel to reach many before they died. To claim it was the fault of the limited human beings whose responsibility it was to spread the gospel is blatantly dishonest or shows a complete and total lack of common sense.

So yes, it was God who didn't give the people in question even a chance, so unless he gave them some method to avoid eternal torment he did abandon them, thus showing that he is not a loving deity.

You can NOT use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment that “the wages of sin are death”…NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment of that Christ is the only path to salvation…NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify any other knowledge the scripture provides.

Jesus did NOT say, “Do not judge…therefore, forget everything I’ve taught you.”

What Jesus actually said was, Mat 7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Obviously, when I recited the passages which teach the necessity of faith in Christ, I also applied those very same verses to myself.  So, where is the hypocrisy in that?

---


Because you’re “judging” all evangelicals by the actions of a few tyrants.
 
---


Here’s your culprit (I am innocent…of course ;)   )  :

Well, if men found a way to spread over the continents before:

Acts 17:26 "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

surely it is "common sense" to believe the way could be found again.

---


I thought we already went over that "men were without excuse" (though I may have been discussing that with JSJ earlier in this thread)

Rom 1:18-20 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

and, again...

Rom 10:17-18 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (paul is quoting Psa 19:4)

It took tens of thousands of years and a land bridge that wasn't around anymore during Jesus's time for humanity to spread across the world. It took over another one thousand and four hundred years for technology possessed by Christians to reach the level where they could reach the land mass you now stand on, and even then when they finally got there it wasn't where they had intended to end up. So again, how is it you can blame the missionaries for not doing that which was impossible for them to do?

(I'm also going to nitpick that they didn't inhabit the whole of the earth - Antarctica was uninhabited for very obvious reasons, or does Antarctica not count as part of earth? But hey, it's only semantics, right? ;))

---


So God is plain to see, but we need missionaries to spread the gospel so people know about him. Sounds like a contradiction. Either people know or they don't, make up your mind.


They've all heard about it, but we need missionaries to go and tell them about it. Seems like a contradiction. Either people know or they don't, make up your mind.

not a contradiction at all:  God created man and gave him the word of God.  Man misused/ignored God's word and became a sinner.  Man’s punishment for sin was death and he was driven from the presence of God. 

But God foretold that the offspring of humanity would destroy the devil one day and redeem humanity. Meanwhile, even though God's invisible qualities were still visible through creation, men went and worshipped god's they made up - they become pagans and worshipped things they could touch and feel. 

So, when the time was drawing near to redeem mankind through the seed of the woman,  God gave a certain nation set of ritualistic laws (the Law of Moses) to help us identity the son of man that would redeem mankind. And when that time reached it’s fulfillment, God manifested himself in human flesh, being born of a woman, and walked among us. He redeemed us by taking our punishment upon him, dying for our sins, and rising again in order to give us a new life free of the condemnation of death.

And he chose man, the same creature that misused God’s word in the first place, to go out to the ends of the earth and save mankind by preaching God’s word. 

And now, the same word whose misuse by man resulted in death, now is used by man to restore life.  Oh, the irony of it all!


So, you yourself may not like the timetable involved in God restoring light to the world, but it was man’s fault for turning off the lights in the first place.

And your complaints about God’s timetable, and your complaints about his provisions to those charged with spreading the gospel, are extremely hypocritical, for at least God did show up and contribute, though maybe not in a timeframe you approve of…but now that he has died for you and given you a bible through his messengers, you STILL refuse to accept and spread his word.

So, please, spare me your tears for the lost and your condemnation of God, for if you really cared about the world being lost, you would be spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Instead, you choose not to lift a finger to help.  Instead, you waste time, when people are dying lost, pointing your finger at God.  Which is, again, hypocritical, since God did lift a finger – in fact, God stepped down off of his thrown and became a servant and took our place on the cross in order to save you. In comparison, what did you ever do to save the lost?

And, even if you still refuse to believe, I don’t know why you waste your time arguing with me; for you’re not arguing with my interpretation of scripture, in fact, you’re agreeing that my interpretation is valid, and you certainly aren’t going to convince me to judge God.  And since you agree that my interpretation is valid, your contention is not with me, but with God.

It’s not that I mind talking with you, but seriously: since you have a problem with God and not with me, why do you even bring me into the picture?  Why don’t you go and take it up with God?  And if you don’t believe the God of the bible exists, why do you spend time complaining to me about a character you believe is fictional?!

I don’t know about anyone else here, but if I have complained for years on end, which you have done, about the cruelty of a character I admitted was fictional, I think I would don a straight jacket and start looking for the nearest hospital.

But, despite all your grumblings against God, God, through his love, is still if offering you a chance not only to save yourself, but also your own family and many others as well.

Yet you fail to recognise that you were appealing to Dibble to support you above all others when you have had debates in the past. Even very recently when you and I had a debate. I found it odd that you were appealing to someone who is a self declared non-Christian (no matter how I argued or how you did) because no one on your 'own team' were willing to.

If anything, as Dibble has admitted in the past, you pretty much helped seal the deal on where he stood.

Dibble may or may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean he cannot grapple with the theological context, something which you have an inability to do. Theology, or more simply 'thoughts other than ones own' have never been your strong point.

which "team" are you referring to here?  the heterosexual team or the christian team? for the only team "mate" I had on the christian team was a homosexual trying to twist scripture, so it’s not like I could appeal to that Christian teammate for support.

So, don’t blame me that your theory on Mat ch 19 didn’t have a lot of participation, for no one was buying it.

and who else would have joined in?  Not JSJ - the last time he attempted to give a straight answer regarding his homosexuals-are-saved theory, he insisted on wanting answers to every other question under the sun before he would address the flaws in his argument regarding homosexuality.  He even attempted to question whether repentance was a requirement of salvation because he postulated that it might be “works”
(, and even in this thread he was questioning the necessity of faith in Christ because belief in itself is an action could be construed as a “work”.  And strangely, he suggested that the purpose of the Gospel is merely to inform people that they have already been saved so that they can live a happy life, instead of saving those who are lost.)

So, if you wanted others to join in, next time pick something that is believable.

---

As did Christ with the followers who left him.  God gave us the authority to preach the Gospel that Christ himself taught.  He did NOT give us the authority to change it in order to make it more appealing to the masses, and thus destroy its power.

---


Now THAT is rich! 

This debate regarding the necessity of faith in Christ has been one the most lopsided scriptural debates ever on this forum (JSJ couldn’t even offer a single verse to support his position that faith in Christ was not necessary for salvation, and the only examples you offered were those that predated the new covenant).  And yet you accuse ME of only being able to consider my own thoughts?!

My “theology” has everything to do with using scripture to take control of my own thoughts that swarm around in my imagination - an imagination that desires nothing but pretty pictures and sugar coated stories.  But, I accept what is written in scripture and use it to tame my imagination.

But your “theology” is nothing more than your imagination run amok.

Really? Considering it only involved me you and Dibble, with me buying it, you not and Dibble, fairly, sitting on the fence...


Who else wasn't buying it? Or if silence equals dissaproval I could conserve both time and energy by simply ignoring you from now on!

Infact if it wasn't for me or Dibble no one here give you the time of day ;)



This has nothing to do with my theology, Lord no.

It's entirely about your inability to fathom any thought, Biblical or non Biblical that does not come from your own head (making you an egoist by definition). That is particularly self evident by some of your Forum Community style posts.

Really?  I would have thought most people on this forum consider me unable to think for myself and would accuse me of letting the bible do the thinking for me.

---


My ego doesn’t come from my mind, but from girls reacting to my body.  But, that’s just the opinion of the girls, and I won’t be so bold as to question their judgment.  However, I do think my mind adds to the attraction.

---

\
You lost me.

In any case…

Do you have any issues with my thesis that you would like to dispute with scripture, I rather keep this about what the bible says instead of about me.

You thought it was for MY benefit that I invited Dibble into that discussion?!  Surely I am more transparent than that.

I was hoping Dibble could see the distinction between an argument that distorts the word of God and one that portrays it clearly.  And once presented with that distinction, I was hoping God would allow Dibble to discern the reality of the purpose behind spiritual deception, for that is exactly how I was saved:


Therefore, don’t think I am presenting a thesis in order to seek anyone’s approval of me, for  I do NOT need a letter of recommendation from Dibble or anyone else on this forum…nor do I seek one:

Gal 1:10 “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

Rather, I attempt to portray the word of God clearly and concisely, as it is written, so that others may also find truth and be saved. 

And even if I should happen to receive commendation, I want it to be from the conscience of others who realize I have given, in front of everyone and in the sight of God, a solid and trustworthy interpretation:

2Cor 2:42 “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.”

I'm not one to push aside the sharing of a revelation from God (though I will add that many other people would contend that any such interventions are bull and you really should get tested psychologically)

But you do realise that in trumping your own experience, you seem to be highly dismissive of anyone elses spiritual experience to the extent that you have been borderline abusive to Jsjourner for example

And you seem to believe that I am both a liar and a fraud (hey, I've had worse!)

And that you seem to try and go out of your way to make enemies out of friends.

Yet here we all still are. Perhaps there is a reason for that...

Oh well, I realize that I am engaging in a fruitless discussion here.  But, just for the record

>You can NOT use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment that “the wages of sin are death”…NOR >can you use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment of that Christ is the only path to salvation…>NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify any other knowledge the scripture provides.
>
J>esus did NOT say, “Do not judge…therefore, forget everything I’ve taught you.”
>
>What Jesus actually said was, Mat 7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way >you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
>
>Obviously, when I recited the passages which teach the necessity of faith in Christ, I also applied >those very same verses to myself.  So, where is the hypocrisy in that?

---

Well, if we want to be so exact about it, the Greek for Matthew 7:1 is (I hope the font comes through correctly): mh krinete ina mh kriqhte, so the formulation is more conjunctive (and) than disjunctive (or, in your translation), so the verse should be rendered, "don't judge and you won't be judged" or "don't judge (in order) that you are not judged.  Now, you are right about 7:2 telling the believer that the standards that they used on others will be used upon them.  But then, 7:3-4 says " ti de blepeiV to karfoV to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou thn de en tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeiV.  h pwV ereiV tw adelfw sou afeV ekbalw to karfoV apo tou ofqalmou sou kai idou h dokoV en tw ofqalmw sou.  upokrita ekbale prwton thn dokon ek tou ofqalmou sou kai tote diableyeiV ekbalein to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou tou adelfou sou."  (Why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye and not notice the beam in your own?  Or how will you tell your brother: "let me take the splinter out of your eye," and look, the beam is in your own eye.  Hypocrite!  First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the beam from your brother's eye.)  The passage, in its entirety, seems to be warning the believer they they should refrain from judging others if the enormity of their own sins prevents them from understanding others well enough to make an appropriate judgement.  This is why, it seems to me, that God is the only being capable of judging, precisely because God is not stained by sin.  When it comes to judgment, the passage in Matthew seems to be saying that the rest of us sinners, and we are all surely sinners whether we are believers or not, are in a pretty precarious position with regard to judging others.

I never suggested that Jesus told his followers that a consequence of his admonishment of them not to judge others constituted a recommendation that they "forget everything" they were taught, as you imply.  Jesus clearly wanted his followers to stringently keep to what he understood to be God's will.  But refraining from unjust judgments looks to me like it was an important part of God's will for people.  I also did not accuse you of hypocrisy.  My position is that you seem to be using the passage in Matthew as license to judge others given the fact that you are a believer, whereas the passage in Matthew seems to be admonishing believers to make their own atonements before they denounce others.   And that brings me to my next point:      

>>I always get the feeling that American Christians who take their commission to convert others >>seriously are at pains to live in a pluralistic society, many seem fundamentally unhappy that there >>are people living in the same society who do not share their religious beliefs.  Why do I get this >>feeling?
>Because you’re “judging” all evangelicals by the actions of a few tyrants.
 
No, it's not a judgment; it's an observation.  I did not praise or condemn some Christians for feeling unhappy about living in a pluralistic society, but it seems obvious that many are.  I did not say "all Evangelicals," I said "American Christians who take their commission to convert others seriously," so this obviously does not include all evangelicals and certainly not all Christians.  If they are unhappy with pluralistic society, than that's the way they feel.  And "a few tyrants?"  It wasn't a few, and here is where reading a few books about history could come in handy.

Anyway, it seems to me that what gets to people on this forum is not your wish to engage issues based on your faith or your reliance on the Bible.  I think what gets their ire is that, in your hands, the Gospel is no longer "good news," it's just a threat that "the wages of sin is death" where sin constitutes not being a Christian, and specifically not being a Christian of your particular interpetive persuasion.  The Christian message didn't just present itself to the world, it was brought to the world by people, and they each had and have their own way of presenting the message.  So, despite your protestation that you want religious discussions to be about the Bible and not about you, the fact of the matter is that the presentation is about you.  It's in the way you place the Gospel before your listeners.  The God you talk about doesn't seem to love the world very much, He seems to be eager to finger-point, condemn and send unbelivers into hellfire as soon as possible instead of send His only Son to instruct, heal, comfort, forgive, certainly correct them when necessary, and ultimately die for everyone as an act of reconciling human beings to God.  And, again this is an observation, the reactions to you on this forum seem to indicate that this style of presentation isn't very effective.  Now, maybe you just enjoy provoking people's ire and citing scripture in the condemnation of unbelievers, and if this is the case, then by all means keep doing it.  I'm a pluralist, so if that is in your judgment the most virtuous way of going about these discussions, then do so

Anyway, like I said, I know this is a fruitless attempt at a dialogue.  But, that's alright.   

I've heard of too many different ways people came to know the Loard to ever be dismissive of others' spiritual experiences.  Even in the limited subset of examples found in the book of Acts, there is extremely wide diversity of events surrounding the salvation of people.

---


I have not abuse JSJ, at least not since finding out he wasn't gay. ;)   We've had our disagreements, but I don't see him purposely distorting scripture.  I think he simply needs to think some things through, for example the necessity of faith in Christ.  But I have accepted him as a brother in Christ.  The same goes of Supersoultry(sp?) and I have recently told him that I accept him.

---


Yes, I do purposely ruffle feathers, from time to time.  Mostly it’s done in jest to lighten-up the debate, like a friendly and playful elbow while playing hoops.  But only in very rare instances is it deliberately flagrant.

---


yeah, you wish to deceive others into accepting your lifestyle, even to the point of sending me private messages saying that you've haven't given up trying to get me to accept your distortions, as if there is any chance I could be deceived into believing something so contrary to the uniform biblical pattern of sex within the context of heterosexual marriage.

You might as well attempt to convince me of adultery or bestiality.

Yet I recall you dismissed mine.


You said the same of me, one of the first times we had discussions over Matthew some 18(?) months ago. Yet it is clear that you reject that now.



I e-mailed you saying I had not given up on you as Christian brother, even though through calling me a deceiver and a liar that you had given up on me.

Secondly, I'm not asking you to accept bestiality am I? The argument I gave is consistent with the positioning I have taken on this forum for some years now. Only now you consider me to be a 'deceiver' even though someone like Dibble, who you attempted to court, said he could see how both interpretations could be valid based on the path taken in the reasoning behind them.

And what I find most amusing about this jmfcst, is how you still haven't grasped what I was saying, even if you choose to agree or disagree, was simply that Matthew excluded gay men from marriage. That's it. As I said at the time: not what we can do, but what we can't.

Unless you believe that gay men should marry women and try and screw out a couple of kids of course.

It's also not suprising that you choose to vary your level of abuse depending on the persons sexuality, an action which stems from your bigoted nature and not through following Christ.

I totally agree with what you’re saying.  It’s the application we disagree on.  (see below)

---


But hasn’t that been, EXACTLY, my point?!  It’s not a condemnation I am rendering, rather it is one that has ALREADY been passed down by God:

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

So, I am NOT judging them, rather I am trying to help them find the only way to get out from under judgment.

---


I don’t see how being presented an opportunity to come out from under condemnation is not “Good News”.  What people seem to be having a problem with is the idea that they’re ALREADY under condemnation.  So, I can’t threaten them with a condemnation that is ALREADY been handed down.

---


As one who has attended an inter-denominational church for the last 16 years, and as one who first met Christ apart from any church and apart from any particular interpretive persuasion, your statement doesn’t really make sense, for I had  ZERO doctrine when I was saved, I knew nothing within the bible.  So how is it possible that I now would place some litmus test in between people and Christ?

The whole reason I go to an inter-denominational church is that I hate the idea of cluttering the path to Christ with a bunch of made up rules.

So, somewhere there is a disconnect between the reality of my life and your perception of it.

I understood:  You said that Matthew 19:1-12 “excluded gay men from marriage.”

And I shall demonstrate how thoroughly I understood your position, along the motive for your interpretation:
Mat 19:9-12 [Jesus said, ]“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
 
There are 3 mutually exclusive groups of “eunuchs” referred to in verse 12:
Group A) some are eunuchs because they were born that way
Group B) others were made that way by men
Group C) and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven


First, you claim that Jesus is giving instructions about marriage to GroupsA&B, when he is ONLY giving instructions about marriage to Group C.  Christ only references GroupsA&B for juxtaposition to Group C.

Second, you claim that Groups A&B are sexually active or at least are capable of having sex, when it is clear he is discussing the gift of celibacy given to Group C, thus showing the contrast (juxtaposition) between the two groups of PHYSICAL EUNUCHS (Groups A&B) who became eunuch NOT by choice (they were born that way or made that way by men), versus SPIRITUAL EUNUCHS (Group C) who have been given the gift of celibacy and can therefore choose to lead sexually inactive lives and therefore avoid the pitfalls of marriage.

Third, you claim that homosexuals are included in the definition of Group A (those that were born that way), when in fact, as I said above, Jesus was simply using the most common definition of the term “eunuch” to refer to men who are PHYSICALLY incapable of having sex, in order to contrast them with those who have used their gift of celibacy to control their sexual desire and thus opt-out of sex, and, as a result, opt-out of marriage..

---

Now to the motive part: 

In an obvious blatant attempt to circumvent the bible’s placement of sex within the context of a heterosexual marriage, you’re distorting the usage of “eunuch” in Mat 19:12 in an attempt to have the bible give you (a homosexual) license to exclude yourself from the contextual connection between sex and marriage.  And by gaining exemption form marriage through Mat 19:12, you justify not repenting of your homosexual desires.

It is so obviously flawed because:
1) Jesus wasn’t even giving instructions to the particular bucket of eunuchs (Group A) you’re placing yourself in, rather he was instructing Group C.
2) Group A eunuchs, along with Group B, are not even capable of having sex.
3) The context is celibacy, therefore none of the buckets of eunuchs (A, B, or C) are sexually active.
4) It was Jesus Christ himself who repeated bound sex to marriage throughout Matthew ch 19, yet the end purpose of your deception is the removal of sex from that context.
5) Your interpretation of Mat ch 19 doesn’t even come close to meshing with the rest of scripture.

It’s the biggest and most transparent hack of a passage I’ve ever seen.

And you continue to demonstrate how much of a deceiver you are, for you have known all along that I have understood what you were implying and your intention for doing so.  Yet, you have used Dibble’s claim that I misunderstood for cover to allow yourself to continue to claim ignorance of the fact that I understand COMPLETELY, and you do so in an attempt to make me look like the one who understands nothing.

---


And you also understand, through many previous conversations with me, though your statement pretends that you don’t, that I believe God can free anyone from their sin, whether it be alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, bestiality, or homosexuality.

What is expected of you is the same that is expected of everybody else:  repent and by faith try to find Christ so that you can be turned into a new creation (Gal 6:5). 

So, stop the act, for although you may fool yourself and others, you’re not fooling me.

Anvikshiki,

Do you find the following statements to be in violation of Jesus’s command not to judge?

Steven:  Acts7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!”

Jude: Jude 1:4 “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”

Paul:  Gal 5:21 “…drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Peter:  2Pet 2:3 “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”

John: 1 John 2:4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So your whole charge against my interpretation rests upon the fact that you believe Jesus is only mentioning Groups A and B in juxtaposition. Where, pray in the language employed is this juxtaposition to be found given that he mentions all three groups in one breath?

I had a look online for the interpretation of others on this matter. I was surpised to find that the study guide (and I don't like study guides) for the People's New Testament says that all 3 categories are classified as 'the classes are named who need not marry.' The JFB Bible Commentary also categorised all 3 as 'either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.'

So two commentators affirm my interpretation that links all 3 groups together as excempt from the institution of marriage. Are they liars and deceivers also?

EDIT:

I may also add

The Matthew Henry Commentary (which I particularly dislike because of the use of the term papist)

Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage. (1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it. (2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake

The Fourfold Gospel Commentary

The disciples, startled by the Lord's declaration as to the indissolubility of marriage, declared that marriage was inexpedient. Jesus accepts their saying, because applicable to but three cases

John Wesley

But he said to them - This is not universally true; it does not hold, with regard to all men, but with regard to those only to whom is given this excellent gift of God. Now this is given to three sorts of persons to some by natural constitution, without their choice: to others by violence, against their choice; and to others by grace with their choice: who steadily withstand their natural inclinations, that they may wait upon God without distraction.

No, I mentioned 5 charges :

---


Mat 19:9-12 [Jesus said, ]“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Jesus’ entire instruction (which I placed in green) carry with it an ACT (an action) OF ACCEPTANCE BASED ON A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE:.

Group A does NOT perform any action based on a religious purpose: “some are eunuchs because they were born that way”…In fact, Group A doesn’t perform any action at all.

Group B does NOT perform any action based on a religious purpose: “others were made that way by men” …In fact, Group B doesn’t perform any action at all.

BUT, Group C DOES perform an action: “and others have renounced  marriage because of the kingdom of heaven”…and it’s an action based on a religious purpose.

Groups A and B did NOT “renounce” marriage, only Group C did.

So, the whole instruction: "Not everyone can accept [that it is better not to marry], but only those to whom it has been given…The one who can accept this should accept it” is directed at Group C who “renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”

Group A and B are only throw in for juxtaposition.: “12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”

---


Of course Groups A and B are also “exempted” from marriage, just as a man with no legs is exempted from running a marathon. 

But their exemption didn’t come through Jesus instructing them, nor did it come through any action of their own, rather it comes from the fact that can’t have sex because they are physically unable to get an erection.

Groups A and B have no choice based on their physical limitation, hence no mention of any action or choice on their part or anything about them having to do with the religious choice Jesus is referring to.

But, Group C DOES HAVE A CHOICE – “; and others have RENOUNCED marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”  And they make their choice based on devotion to God.

calamity:
1 : a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss
2 : a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering

so now you've gone as far as calling yourself a "calamity". 

Although, such a description may describe the soundness of your argument, it hardly advances your thesis.

I'll put your slight gear change to one side here, now that you've linked the three groups again.

Eunuch's aren't always physically unable to get an erection or have sex. That's been pointed out numerous times. They simply cannot procreate because they have had their balls lopped off. They can still produce semen. They still had 'the urge.' However they would have an exponentially higher chance of gaining an erection with the female form than I would.

And it's all about procreative sex , not just the act itself isn't it? Within marriage. Or are you now trying to delink them ;) A eunuch could give a woman the time of her life in bed but couldn't provide children. A man naturally unable to get his 'lad up' might want a woman and a child desperately but could not physically do it (at least not until recent times with IVF and IS) And as for a gay man, they are unable to generate emotional or physical responses to women.

If you want a husband and kids, why the hell would you marry someone who was gay?

Perhaps  they are, like the other bunch of eunuchs 'naturally' excempt even if it was just a juxtaposition?

But...dah theres science, genetics, pre-natal research and all that gobbeldygook simply proving the Bible right again. We can't have that can we :)

Oh the Matthew Henry one! The one I said I 'particularly disliked.' Or were you selectively reading again? ;D

Remember


Except in all those examples I gave. Which you dismissed. And even if we accept your position that Groups AndB are physical eunuchs, you have still failed to explain why gay people are not physical eunuchs for the purpose of a procreative marriage considering two of the other eunuch's identified would still, pardon me 'want it bad' with a lady.

I don't know what motivates men did this to other men…but I have a SLIGHT hunch they did it for the purpose of being able to trust the eunuchs with their women.

So, if it wasn’t effective in keeping them from having sex in the vast majority of cases, then it seems to me they wouldn’t have been trusted with the women.

Beside, all of that, Jesus is making broad statements of fact here that is applicable to the common case of eunuchs, so he is NOT passing up the vast majority of eunuchs  in order to direct his statement towards a superman who can obtain an erection even with his balls cut off.

The fact that you have to narrowly parse down to a very slight percentage which eunuchs he is referring to demonstrates the weakness of your interpretation.

So, since common sense state that Jesus is referring to a common eunuch, with the problems that commonly go along with being a eunuch, you can NOT say that Jesus is proclaiming to him an exemption to marriage.  That simply would NOT make sense.

It would be tantamount to Jesus giving someone born with no legs (or who had they legs chopped off by someone else) an exemption from running a marathon.  What a mockery that would be, for the exemption would mean nothing and wasn’t’ needed in the first place.

---

As to your attempting to link only those capable of procreative sex to marriage and exempt everyone else from marriage who are capable of having sex but just not procreative sex….

That argument falls apart because fertility tests are a modern invention, so there were PLENTLY of sterile people getting married over the ages who had no idea they were sterile.

And, if you bring your statement into modern times, then any heterosexual who is sterile could be exempted from marriage and go off and have non-procreative sex outside of marriage for as long as they want.

Obviously, the bible gives no exemption for sex outside of marriage for anyone: sterile or fertile, straight or gay.

1)  the entire context of the chapter ties sex to marriage.  It does NOT narrowly define sex only to those capable of having babies.  If it did, it would exclude many married sterile couples and thus exclude them from what Jesus taught in his answer to the divorce question, an answer in which JESUS was the one who repeatedly brought up sex….and since he is NOT limiting his statements to only pro-creative sex (in fact, he never mentions pro-creation), but is referring to sex in general, YOUR ATTEMPTED EXEMPTION BASED ON NOT HAVING PRO-CREATIVE SEX FALLS FLAT.

2) because the verses 11-12 are about the CELEBACY of Group C and the CHOICE Group C makes to follow the path of CELEBACY in order to concentrate on God…AND SINCE THEIR POWER TO REMAIN SEXUAL INACTIVTY FREES THEM FROM THE SEX-MARRIAGE LINKAGE THEY THEREFORE CAN ***CHOOSE*** TO RENOUNCE MARRIAGE.

3) And since, NEITHER Group A or B is making a choice, but Group C is, the juxtaposition of the groups is PROVEN:   the non-choice groups vs. the group that makes a choice.

4) The 3 Groups of Eunuchs have to have something in COMMON, else they wouldn’t be grouped together.  And since we have already shown that their choices are NOT their commonality (Group A&B didn’t choose), then the commonality MUST BE SEX.   So what is the community between EUNUCHS and those that are CELEBATE?…SEXUAL INACTIVITY, OF COURSE.

All these contextual problems have one root cause: your thesis rejects the common definition and instead uses a rather tortured definition of the word EUNUCH.

But, by using the most commonly used definition for EUNUCH, all these contextual problems are easily and automatically solved.

---

Jesus compares and contrasts EUNUCHS and CELEBATES.

The most common trait they have is gleaned by simply using the most commonly known definition for each group… EUNUCHS and CELEBATES:  They Don’t Have Sex

Likewise, their differences can be gleaned by using the most commonly known definition for each group and is actually stated in the text: CELEBATES make a CHOICE to remain sexually inactive; EUNUCH don’t have a CHOICE, they’re sexual inactive due to circumstances beyond their choosing

---

It would be one thing if a bunch of contextual problems arose by using the common definitions, and to straighten out the contextual problems you had to use lesser known definitions for the terms.  But that is NOT the case in Mat 19.

Instead, your thesis creates all kinds of contextual problem through its use of uncommon definitions.  But, this is your choosing, and it is a DELIBERATE choice on your part.  And you continue to do so even though you have repeatedly shown the contextual problems with your thesis.