do you believe the Torah and the Holy Bible

[Clarakore]

Can you provide the Scriptures, please.

That we all have an equal chance even those on other paths? Romans 2:14-16, clearly those without the law have an equal chance.

That there is no need to convince others they need God? Acts 19, the example given to us there is there was no need to talk bad about other deities. While not explicitly stated it is inferred they did not burst into town proclaiming their own God. They had centers and lived and all were welcome to visit their centers and just see how Christians lived in public too. This is all a Christian needs to be a good witness. Harassing others with hell is not a good witness...just some additional thoughts.

Also this is not to convince you or anyone else, this is what convinced me. What is between me and the Spirit is just that between us and not a rule for anyone else but the same applies both ways when it comes to others, their way may not be for all. For example pretending all pagans are hell-bound is not for me, treating them as if they were and they need our God is just not being a good witness, at all.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[IamsSon]

That we all have an equal chance even those on other paths? Romans 2:14-16, clearly those without the law have an equal chance.

I encourage you to re-read that whole chapter along with chapter 1, because what those verses are actually pointing out is that even those who have not heard of Christ still have the ability to know when they have done something which is wrong. In order for you to even begin to interpret these verses in the way you have you would have to ignore the rest of the chapter, really the rest of that whole book, not to mention the book of John.

That there is no need to convince others they need God? Acts 19, the example given to us there is there was no need to talk bad about other deities. While not explicitly stated it is inferred they did not burst into town proclaiming their own God. They had centers and lived and all were welcome to visit their centers and just see how Christians lived in public too. This is all a Christian needs to be a good witness. Harassing others with hell is not a good witness...just some additional thoughts.

I would like to refer you to a few passages in that same book: Acts 2, Acts 3, and even Acts 19 itself which clearly relate events where the early Christians were loudly and very publicly proclaiming Christ's message.

Having pointed that out, I will tell you that I completely disagree with people who go around accosting people out on the street or parks, because I don't see that being described in the Bible. Peter and John were preaching in the temple courtyards, talking to people who obviously had an interest in hearing spiritual things, Paul spoke in areas where people went to hear debates and discussions.

Also this is not to convince you or anyone else, this is what convinced me. What is between me and the Spirit is just that between us and not a rule for anyone else but the same applies both ways when it comes to others, their way may not be for all. For example pretending all pagans are hell-bound is not for me, treating them as if they were and they need our God is just not being a good witness, at all.

So, pretending someone is not going to die from the poison you know they are drinking is a good thing?

[Clarakore]

I encourage you to re-read that whole chapter along with chapter 1, because what those verses are actually pointing out is that even those who have not heard of Christ still have the ability to know when they have done something which is wrong. In order for you to even begin to interpret these verses in the way you have you would have to ignore the rest of the chapter, really the rest of that whole book, not to mention the book of John.

I would like to refer you to a few passages in that same book: Acts 2, Acts 3, and even Acts 19 itself which clearly relate events where the early Christians were loudly and very publicly proclaiming Christ's message.

Having pointed that out, I will tell you that I completely disagree with people who go around accosting people out on the street or parks, because I don't see that being described in the Bible. Peter and John were preaching in the temple courtyards, talking to people who obviously had an interest in hearing spiritual things, Paul spoke in areas where people went to hear debates and discussions.

So, pretending someone is not going to die from the poison you know they are drinking is a good thing?

I think you know your own limits but cannot begin to define those of others which includes understanding and openeness.

At least you have begun to think about these things but remember I never stated them to convince you and I will accept your view the same: as something for me to think about but not to convince me.

Just keep in mind I used to think exactly like you and have since "grown" but you can of course decide to put another word in place just do not debate that with me because it is your view alone here.

[coolguy]

I have read the bible and its supposed to be writen 100 years after Jesus.this is what i questin how do the writers of the bible knew what was said 100 years ago.i know i sound like a moron but thats my question.

[Space Commander Travis]

I have read the bible and its supposed to be writen 100 years after Jesus.this is what i questin how do the writers of the bible knew what was said 100 years ago.i know i sound like a moron but thats my question.

I presume you mean the NT? The OT was written hundreds of years before Jesus; thousands, sometimes.There's people who know all about all this, but as was just being discussed in another thread, opinion is that the Gospels, most of them anyway, were probably writen round about 60-80 AD, so that'd be within living memory of eyewitnesses.

[IamsSon]

I think you know your own limits but cannot begin to define those of others which includes understanding and openeness.

At least you have begun to think about these things but remember I never stated them to convince you and I will accept your view the same: as something for me to think about but not to convince me.

Just keep in mind I used to think exactly like you and have since "grown" but you can of course decide to put another word in place just do not debate that with me because it is your view alone here.

The thing is, it's not my view alone, it's what is obvious in the context of the passages. For you to take text wildly out of context and then say you based your "growth" on these texts is justification not growth. Edited March 3, 2013 by IamsSon

[Roy Perry]

God first

thanks you all my dear friends

I been busy these days but I read all your reply thanks a lot

keeping on trying to understand this life we live in

I enjoy everybody Imput

thanks

with love and a holy kiss unto all of you from Roy

[Clarakore]

The thing is, it's not my view alone, it's what is obvious in the context of the passages. For you to take text wildly out of context and then say you based your "growth" on these texts is justification not growth.

In this dialogue it is yours alone.

[IamsSon]

In this dialogue it is yours alone.

That's the thing, you can say that as many times as you want, but it is not just my view, it is the view of anyone who actually reads the passage in context. The view you are expressing is most certainly just your view, because it is in no way supported by the text you claim to be supporting it on. Edited March 4, 2013 by IamsSon

[Clarakore]

That's the thing, you can say that as many times as you want, but it is not just my view, it is the view of anyone who actually reads the passage in context. The view you are expressing is most certainly just your view, because it is in no way supported by the text you claim to be supporting it on.

That is doubtful as the way any passage in the Bible is understood changes from era to era and culture to culture. It is not all certain that your view is the official one if there is such a thing.

What is definite is that you are not the sole voice or arbitrator of God and that what we are specifically discussing now, me just telling you what the Spirit has led me to understand, and what you are saying that you are right and I must be wrong, are not at all within the same line of conversation and seeing as how I used to think like you but have migrated to a more open view and am not interested in who you think is wrong, I myself don't think you are wrong per se, you should do as the Spirit moves you but never assume It speaks the same to all or that you speak for It.

[IamsSon]

That is doubtful as the way any passage in the Bible is understood changes from era to era and culture to culture. It is not all certain that your view is the official one if there is such a thing.

Actually, that's not true. What changes are the way passages taken out of context are understood by different cultures in different eras as they try to do exactly what you're doing and take them completely out of context to fit your needs.

What is definite is that you are not the sole voice or arbitrator of God and that what we are specifically discussing now, me just telling you what the Spirit has led me to understand, and what you are saying that you are right and I must be wrong, are not at all within the same line of conversation and seeing as how I used to think like you but have migrated to a more open view and am not interested in who you think is wrong, I myself don't think you are wrong per se, you should do as the Spirit moves you but never assume It speaks the same to all or that you speak for It.

Pointing out that there is a context to the verses you have cherry-picked is not equivalent to assuming to be the sole voice or arbitrator of God. I am simply pointing out that there is a context around the passage you pulled out, and that the context clearly indicates that those verses in no way say what you want them to say. Would I be considered the arbitrator of JK Rowling if I pointed out that you were taking passages from the Harry Potter books out of context? Would I be trying to be the sole voice of Bill Clinton if I pointed out you were taking passages of his biography out of context to support your view of him? Not at all, and it would be laughable for you to attempt to do that, just as it is for you to say it in this conversation.

All passages, not just verses in the Bible can be taken out of context, and pointing out that context is simply logical and reasonable.

[Clarakore]

Actually, that's not true. What changes are the way passages taken out of context are understood by different cultures in different eras as they try to do exactly what you're doing and take them completely out of context to fit your needs.

Pointing out that there is a context to the verses you have cherry-picked is not equivalent to assuming to be the sole voice or arbitrator of God. I am simply pointing out that there is a context around the passage you pulled out, and that the context clearly indicates that those verses in no way say what you want them to say. Would I be considered the arbitrator of JK Rowling if I pointed out that you were taking passages from the Harry Potter books out of context? Would I be trying to be the sole voice of Bill Clinton if I pointed out you were taking passages of his biography out of context to support your view of him? Not at all, and it would be laughable for you to attempt to do that, just as it is for you to say it in this conversation.

All passages, not just verses in the Bible can be taken out of context, and pointing out that context is simply logical and reasonable.

The only thing that changes is that I don't have to treat others horribly as many Christians who adopt your view have.

The only thing worse than taking something out of context is ignoring it which is what has been done regarding the examples you were given.

All you are doing is "passing judgment on others" (Romans 2:1) but clearly it is stated in Romans 2:16 whose job that is and the verses preceding it show one does not have to follow the Bible, if they do they will be judged by it, if not they will be judged by their own conscience.

The example I gave from Acts shows that we can be believers without talking bad about what others believe in. How many deities have you called false? Or said were demonic? Or just disrespected because it was not your chosen deity but ignoring that another chose it?

That is something I am not willing to do, you can, you can follow the example of other Christians, I prefer to follow the example I gave you, you can ignore it, you can call their deities posion, you can try to warn others, or even imagine them going to hell, I am just going to accept them and I think someone else greater than us will do the same.

[Clarakore]

Some really do believe they and whatever group they are in are totally right and have all the right answers.

That is not the Spirit that is conforming to a group.

[IamsSon]

The only thing that changes is that I don't have to treat others horribly as many Christians who adopt your view have.

Thank you for lumping me in with people who take other Scriptures out of context to justify their hateful acts. What I see the Bible teaching, what I see Jesus modeling, what I try to emulate, is that we are to love everyone, because God loves everyone whether He agrees with them or not, whether they believe in Him or not. What I see when people take passages out of context is either ignorance or an attempt to justify their actions. Taken in context, the Christian walk preached by the Bible is one of love and acceptance of everyone, while not compromising on what the one True path is.

The only thing worse than taking something out of context is ignoring it which is what has been done regarding the examples you were given.

All you are doing is taking different passages out of context, that is no better even if you think your intentions are better than the intentions of those who have taken passages out of context to support their hateful activities. In the end you are simply running the risk of doing the same thing, just to a different group, Look at how you are reacting to someone who is simply pointing out you have taken passages out of context. Instead of acknowledging that you may have taken things out of context, you are attacking me. Not very loving, respectful or accepting, so you are going against your own claims of acceptance and respect.

All you are doing is "passing judgment on others" (Romans 2:1) but clearly it is stated in Romans 2:16 whose job that is and the verses preceding it show one does not have to follow the Bible, if they do they will be judged by it, if not they will be judged by their own conscience.

All I'm doing is pointing out the importance of context. You are the one who is judging and condemning me.

The example I gave from Acts shows that we can be believers without talking bad about what others believe in. How many deities have you called false? Or said were demonic? Or just disrespected because it was not your chosen deity but ignoring that another chose it?

Although I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should be respectful of others and that speaking badly of their beliefs is a poor way to show them God's love, the passage you picked from Acts, in context, is not one which actually speaks to this. If you study Scripture, instead of having to take things out of context you will find there are a multitude of contextually correct passages that speak of love and respect for all.

That is something I am not willing to do, you can, you can follow the example of other Christians, I prefer to follow the example I gave you, you can ignore it, you can call their deities posion, you can try to warn others, or even imagine them going to hell, I am just going to accept them and I think someone else greater than us will do the same.

I am in no way encouraging you to do anything like that, and I work hard at not doing that either. I count many people here on UM as friends who are atheists, pagans, and at least one Satanist. These people are all quite mature and secure in their beliefs and would not bother to give me the time of day if I was disrespectful or hateful, so your attempt to defend the fact that you're taking passages out of context by insinuating I am simply trying to maintain a justification for hating others is quite wrong.

Some really do believe they and whatever group they are in are totally right and have all the right answers.

That is not the Spirit that is conforming to a group.

I completely agree. The only problem is, whatever spirit that is, I doubt it's the Holy Spirit, since He would not require you to take Scripture out of context in order to support your views.

[Clarakore]

Thank you for lumping me in with people who take other Scriptures out of context to justify their hateful acts. What I see the Bible teaching, what I see Jesus modeling, what I try to emulate, is that we are to love everyone, because God loves everyone whether He agrees with them or not, whether they believe in Him or not. What I see when people take passages out of context is either ignorance or an attempt to justify their actions. Taken in context, the Christian walk preached by the Bible is one of love and acceptance of everyone, while not compromising on what the one True path is.

All you are doing is taking different passages out of context, that is no better even if you think your intentions are better than the intentions of those who have taken passages out of context to support their hateful activities. In the end you are simply running the risk of doing the same thing, just to a different group, Look at how you are reacting to someone who is simply pointing out you have taken passages out of context. Instead of acknowledging that you may have taken things out of context, you are attacking me. Not very loving, respectful or accepting, so you are going against your own claims of acceptance and respect.

All I'm doing is pointing out the importance of context. You are the one who is judging and condemning me.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should be respectful of others and that speaking badly of their beliefs is a poor way to show them God's love, the passage you picked from Acts, in context, is not one which actually speaks to this. If you study Scripture, instead of having to take things out of context you will find there are a multitude of contextually correct passages that speak of love and respect for all.

I am in no way encouraging you to do anything like that, and I work hard at not doing that either. I count many people here on UM as friends who are atheists, pagans, and at least one Satanist. These people are all quite mature and secure in their beliefs and would not bother to give me the time of day if I was disrespectful or hateful, so your attempt to defend the fact that you're taking passages out of context by insinuating I am simply trying to maintain a justification for hating others is quite wrong.

I completely agree. The only problem is, whatever spirit that is, I doubt it's the Holy Spirit, since He would not require you to take Scripture out of context in order to support your views.

The Spirit moves everyone differently but your final paragraph finds you again speaking for It and in the end it is you alone saying that I am wrong because my view disagrees with your dogma.

All I am saying is everyone has an equal chance to go to heaven and I will treat and respect others exactly in that manner.

You won't but no one is saying you are wrong here. All I am saying now is the view you support allows for others to be treated horribly, now, historically, so many have been harmed by people and groups who believed they were right and with God while others were not.

Guess what we are with God too and you can claim we are not and insist but I know your traditions because they were once mine so I don't expect you to do anything different. Act accordingly to your beliefs. I know I will.

[IamsSon]

The Spirit moves everyone differently but your final paragraph finds you again speaking for It and in the end it is you alone saying that I am wrong because my view disagrees with your dogma.

Look, the little trick of trying to shut someone up by claiming they are speaking for God is old and used up. I am not making any such claim, nor does simply pointing out the fact that context is necessary when trying to understand a passage, whether it is in the Bible, the Khoran, or even the local newspaper, add up to one taking on the mantle of prophet or Speaker for God.

All I am saying is everyone has an equal chance to go to heaven and I will treat and respect others exactly in that manner.

That's great! I hope believing that helps you be loving and respectful somehow. However, I think taking Biblical passages completely out of context in order to seek validation for that belief in the Bible is wrong and dishonest. I doubt many pagans would be happy to have you misquoting their Scriptures in order to validate your beliefs.

You won't but no one is saying you are wrong here. All I am saying now is the view you support allows for others to be treated horribly, now, historically, so many have been harmed by people and groups who believed they were right and with God while others were not.

The only thing you know of my view, based on this conversation is that I value the importance of context. You are, however, violating your stated beliefs by attacking me while attempting to lump me in with people who have actually committed the same error I am pointing out you're committing: taking passages out of context to validate your beliefs.

Guess what we are with God too and you can claim we are not...

I've made no such claim. You're trying to smear me with that claim.

...and insist but I know your traditions because they were once mine so I don't expect you to do anything different. Act accordingly to your beliefs. I know I will.

You really don't seem to have any idea about my beliefs or "traditions." As I've pointed out, the only "belief" I have displayed in this conversation is that context is extremely important and taking passages out of context is dishonest. Go ahead and believe what you want, just don't mangle Biblical passages to claim support for your beliefs.

[Clarakore]

Look, the little trick of trying to shut someone up by claiming they are speaking for God is old and used up. I am not making any such claim, nor does simply pointing out the fact that context is necessary when trying to understand a passage, whether it is in the Bible, the Khoran, or even the local newspaper, add up to one taking on the mantle of prophet or Speaker for God.

That's great! I hope believing that helps you be loving and respectful somehow. However, I think taking Biblical passages completely out of context in order to seek validation for that belief in the Bible is wrong and dishonest. I doubt many pagans would be happy to have you misquoting their Scriptures in order to validate your beliefs.

The only thing you know of my view, based on this conversation is that I value the importance of context. You are, however, violating your stated beliefs by attacking me while attempting to lump me in with people who have actually committed the same error I am pointing out you're committing: taking passages out of context to validate your beliefs.

I've made no such claim. You're trying to smear me with that claim.

You really don't seem to have any idea about my beliefs or "traditions." As I've pointed out, the only "belief" I have displayed in this conversation is that context is extremely important and taking passages out of context is dishonest. Go ahead and believe what you want, just don't mangle Biblical passages to claim support for your beliefs.

You are claiming that the only thing you have posited is your charge of out-of-context even if the above paragraph reads as if you are defending your own person which is even more mysterious since you are not under attack.

If you have noticed I have not addressed your charge of out-of-context primarily because it is not true and secondly because you have yet to prove your claim that the two examples I offered were out-of-context. Before you offer any attempts to prove your point keep in mind I am not interested in you trying to or I would have pursued that angle already.

What I am interested in is "acceptance" of others.

Now I am going to show how you have posited more than just a charge of out-of-context.

So, are you saying knowing that there are people who don't believe God exists and knowing that there are people who believe God does exist is what matters?

This has nothing to do with a charge of out-of-context but does with your view of being a witness for Christ, and in my opinion doing it all wrong because the best example of being a witness is accepting others as they are no matter what they believe as the men in Acts 19 did.

I encourage you to re-read that whole chapter along with chapter 1, because what those verses are actually pointing out is that even those who have not heard of Christ still have the ability to know when they have done something which is wrong. In order for you to even begin to interpret these verses in the way you have you would have to ignore the rest of the chapter, really the rest of that whole book, not to mention the book of John.

I would like to refer you to a few passages in that same book: Acts 2, Acts 3, and even Acts 19 itself which clearly relate events where the early Christians were loudly and very publicly proclaiming Christ's message.

Having pointed that out, I will tell you that I completely disagree with people who go around accosting people out on the street or parks, because I don't see that being described in the Bible. Peter and John were preaching in the temple courtyards, talking to people who obviously had an interest in hearing spiritual things, Paul spoke in areas where people went to hear debates and discussions.

So, pretending someone is not going to die from the poison you know they are drinking is a good thing?

You say this as if I have not read as much or even more of the Bible than you.

I will re-read but I won't ask you to do the same. Funny how that works isn't it? (:

Romans 1 mentions believers who know God but act otherwise. Romans 2, which I mentioned already as an example for you (see it is an example not a way to prove you wrong), mentions those who do not know God but act maybe as if they did and will have a chance to go to heaven.

Acts 2 mentions nothing about "proclaiming the message" in the way you are insinuating. They were in a house or building, not in public, and if the public wanted to go to them they could. When Peter in v. 14 addressed Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem do you really believe everyone was there from the province and city? In v. 22 Peter tells the men of Israel but no, they were not all there either, and Peter was in a private area not in a public one cramming his views down other people's throats.

Acts 3 has the men running to the site of the miracle in v. 11. Again no disciples went to the people but waited for the people to come to them. They came interested to hear. Vastly different than talking bad about other people's beliefs. In this case they were in public.

Acts 19 has another good example. Paul was preaching in the synagogue, most likely he was not uninvited but a guest there. Now the example here is when the other men who spoke evil about the Way in front of the congregation, what did the disciples do? Challenge him? Debate him? Tell them they are not following the Spirit? No they just simply left.

This brings us to the example I offered in the second half of chapter 19. The disciples never said a bad thing about other people's beliefs.

But you have.You have talked disrespectful about other beliefs. While the disciples in chatper 19 could not be charged with blashphemy of other people's beliefs you can, what did you call other beliefs? That is right, poision. See below.

So, pretending someone is not going to die from the poison you know they are drinking is a good thing?

I agree with your last statement in the second quote above regarding, "Peter and John were preaching in the temple courtyards, talking to people who obviously had an interest in hearing spiritual things, Paul spoke in areas where people went to hear debates and discussions."

The thing is, it's not my view alone, it's what is obvious in the context of the passages. For you to take text wildly out of context and then say you based your "growth" on these texts is justification not growth.

Argumentum ad populum.

That's the thing, you can say that as many times as you want, but it is not just my view, it is the view of anyone who actually reads the passage in context. The view you are expressing is most certainly just your view, because it is in no way supported by the text you claim to be supporting it on.

I told you the Spirit led me to this view but you claim it is just mine. Exactly, you are indeed speaking for It.

Thank you for lumping me in with people who take other Scriptures out of context to justify their hateful acts. What I see the Bible teaching, what I see Jesus modeling, what I try to emulate, is that we are to love everyone, because God loves everyone whether He agrees with them or not, whether they believe in Him or not. What I see when people take passages out of context is either ignorance or an attempt to justify their actions. Taken in context, the Christian walk preached by the Bible is one of love and acceptance of everyone, while not compromising on what the one True path is.

There is no one True path but many paths.

So you are accusing me of taking verses and passages out-of-context and in your view it is either due to ignorance or an attempt to justify my actions? OK well since I used to believe like you and have since grown let us skip past ignorance, I should know better right?

Secondly, if I am doing what you claim to justify my actions what actions would those be? To accept everyone. Wow how evil and while I am being sarcastic sadly you probably do believe my view is evil maybe even poison, yes accepting others is exactly that (sarcasm again).

And you are debating against this as if you don't want to accept everyone. Well OK I am sure you will give us an elaborate excuse of how you are not doing that and you do accept everyone but your words speak for themselves, they don't speak for me,

All you are doing is taking different passages out of context, that is no better even if you think your intentions are better than the intentions of those who have taken passages out of context to support their hateful activities. In the end you are simply running the risk of doing the same thing, just to a different group, Look at how you are reacting to someone who is simply pointing out you have taken passages out of context. Instead of acknowledging that you may have taken things out of context, you are attacking me. Not very loving, respectful or accepting, so you are going against your own claims of acceptance and respect.

I have already acknowledged your charge now, above, but I won't be discussing it again with you because it is not out-of-context.

Yet my main priority is accepting others including you and if you feel you are attacked then you should correct that feeling because the only thing that might be under attack is your view, not you, and the fundamentalist view that there is only one path and we don't have to accept those not on it, you can claim left and right this is not you, but most of us know this is modern Christianity and it needs to change.

All I'm doing is pointing out the importance of context. You are the one who is judging and condemning me.

This is becoming a victim mentality, rest assured you are not being judged or condemned, listen within because only God can do either.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should be respectful of others and that speaking badly of their beliefs is a poor way to show them God's love, the passage you picked from Acts, in context, is not one which actually speaks to this. If you study Scripture, instead of having to take things out of context you will find there are a multitude of contextually correct passages that speak of love and respect for all.

Well it does not say to accept others directly but when coupled with the fundamentalist position of rejecting those who do not share the same exact views there is a strong inference that we shouldn't judge others (which is what rejecting those who do not agree with us exactly is doing, it is a form of judging then going further and taking action on that judgment such as an attack or another action such as exclusion).

Modern Christianity has done horrible things and each Christian must decide to continue that or to change and according to the Spirit.

I am in no way encouraging you to do anything like that, and I work hard at not doing that either. I count many people here on UM as friends who are atheists, pagans, and at least one Satanist. These people are all quite mature and secure in their beliefs and would not bother to give me the time of day if I was disrespectful or hateful, so your attempt to defend the fact that you're taking passages out of context by insinuating I am simply trying to maintain a justification for hating others is quite wrong.

A parallel here could be one of a bigot counting how many "different" type of friends he has, usually on one hand too. I am not impressed at your claims, do not find them genuine, because if you really accepted everyone then you would, in word and deed, through posts, but you are not accepting others by listing those who are "different" that you accept. Try instead to think of them as equals, peers, just like you: human.

I completely agree. The only problem is, whatever spirit that is, I doubt it's the Holy Spirit, since He would not require you to take Scripture out of context in order to support your views.

Again talking for the Spirit. Notice when I mention the Spirit with a pronoun it is always It and not He. Another thing that modern Christianity needs is to either remove the raw masculinity from it and understand the Spirit is not a he or her, or to add more femininity for balance. Of course this is not something you probably agree with and neither would I be surprised.

In the end you have done a fair bit more than just simply make a charge of out-of-context as you finally claimed. You called other belief's poision, of course since you didn't specificy you will try to wiggle out perhaps, so tell us what did you mean by poision, I think we already know but you can change it since we can't stop you. Secondly you speak for the Spirit often as if you are the official arbitrator that know if someone else is following it or not. That is not possible or convincing.

Then you have defended yourself continuously when you are not even under attack. It is not that difficult, accept others, allow the scriptures to open up, know that you or me are not the perfect specimen but don't try to pretend you are a greater one than me when it comes to being Christian because I won't accept it as something you could say or claim definitively.

[Clarakore]

To recap you can claim I am wrong, I am not claiming you are but will defend my position lightly if you insist.

Keep in mind claiming I am wrong goes against the example in the first half of Acts 19 where they simply walked away.

Secondly, I don't think everyone is at the same level and people are still growing all the time which is why I would not call you wrong since you now are not a finished product.

You can continue to do as you have and when you are ready to change you can do that to.

[IamsSon]

You are claiming that the only thing you have posited is your charge of out-of-context even if the above paragraph reads as if you are defending your own person which is even more mysterious since you are not under attack.

Let's see, you have claimed I am simply pointing out your out-of-context usage of Scripture because I want to preserve my ability to be hateful to others. Given that I have said nothing that would lead to this charge, I refer to it as an attack because it is not a counterargument. You're not actually addressing the point, you're trying to make it seem as if the argument is unworthy because the person making the argument is unworthy of serious consideration and/or because the reason for making the argument is unworthy.

If you have noticed I have not addressed your charge of out-of-context primarily because it is not true and secondly because you have yet to prove your claim that the two examples I offered were out-of-context. Before you offer any attempts to prove your point keep in mind I am not interested in you trying to or I would have pursued that angle already.

But it very clearly is true. I asked you to re-read the chapter because I did not want to use up a lot of real estate posting the passage, but it seems that may be necessary, so here we go:

In Romans 2:1 Paul says, Therefore, you have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Does Paul mean that if you accuse someone of murder, you have committed murder? No; we need to see the context. In Romans 1:29-31, Paul had mentioned a variety of sins: “They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

In Romans 2:1, Paul is saying that whenever people pass judgment on someone else, they are guilty of the same kind of thing — a sin. We are all guilty of something, so we should not judge other people. (Paul will say more about that in chapter 14.) If we condemn someone, we are saying that sinners deserve to be punished (1:32). But since we have sinned, we also deserve to be punished.

Paul says: God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth (2:2). Yes, what they have done is wrong. We have done wrong, too.

So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? (2:3). Everyone will be judged, so no one should be pointing fingers.

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? (2:4). If we judge others, we are showing contempt for God’s mercy — not only his mercy toward them, but also his mercy and patience toward us. God's patience toward sinners should make us have a change of mind and be patient toward sinners, too.

Condemned by our works

In verse 5, Paul is still talking to the person who passes judgment on others: But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. If you persist in judging, it will be worse on you on the judgment that you like to talk about. God's righteousness cuts both ways.

In the traditional view of judgment, God will repay each person according to what they have done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life vv. 6-7). If we take this out of context, it suggests that people can be saved on the basis of good works. But as he will soon argue, no one is good enough to earn eternal life through their works. This verse is part of the view that Paul is critiquing — he is not endorsing it. He is showing that this view of God's righteous wrath leads only to universal condemnation and despair. It is not good news.

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (vv. 8-9). This is where Paul wants to go — applying this Jewish worldview to the Jews. If God is in the business of applying righteous punishment on all sinners, he will do it for the Jews as well as the Gentiles, because God does not show favoritism (v. 11).

God will give glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (v. 10). Paul will soon say that all have sinned; no one deserves glory, honor and eternal life. In these verses Paul is describing a judgment of rewards that will never actually happen because no one will ever qualify in this way. This is not a "straw man" that doesn't exist, or a hypothetical situation that Paul made up just for the sake of argument — it was a view being taught by some people in the first century. Paul is showing that this religious belief is wrong; the gospel reveals that God envisions a much different outcome for humanity.

Equal treatment under the law

All who sin apart from the law [Paul is referring to Gentiles here] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (v. 12). No matter who you are, if you sin, you will be condemned. This would be terrible news, if it weren't for the gospel. The gospel is news we desperately need, and news that is very good — but it is especially good when we see how bad the alternative is.

Verse 13: For 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. Paul is not saying that people can actually be declared righteous by their obedience — he says that no one can be justified in this way (3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.). Is he spinning in circles, or is he inconsistent, as some scholars claim? No, not when we realize that these words are not his own view, but the view of his opponents. He is showing that this way does not work.

How can God condemn Gentiles for breaking his law when they don’t know what it is? The traditional view said they had a chance, but they blew it (1:19). It said that if they would have heeded their conscience, they would have done what was right: When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them (2:14-15).

As everyone will admit, Gentiles keep some things required by the law. They teach that murder and adultery are wrong. Gentiles have a conscience, and it sometimes says they did well — but sometimes it says that they did not. Even by their own standards, they fall short. That is how they can "sin apart from the law" (2:12).

Paul resumes the discussion of the judgment in verse 16: This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Paul agrees with his opponents that there will be a day of judgment — but he introduces a big difference — this judgment will take place through Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 17:31).

This changes everything. People will be judged not on the basis of their own works, but will be declared righteous on the basis of what Christ has done. Paul is turning the traditional concept of judgment upside down. But that is getting ahead of the story. Paul has not yet unfolded that part of the gospel because he has not yet finished showing the futility of the opposing view.

Advantages of the Jews

In verse 17, Paul begins to address some arguments that Jews might have: If you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth... (vv. 17-20).

If you have these advantages, Paul is saying, you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? (vv. 21-22). An individual reader might object: “I don’t steal and commit adultery.” But Paul is speaking of Jews as a group, and everyone knew that some Jews broke their own laws, even stealing from their own temple (Josephus, Antiquties 18.81-84).

Verse 23: You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? If you have ever broken a law, you have dishonored God, and you are in the same category as thieves and adulterers — “sinner.” You know what you should do, and yet you fall short.

Paul uses Scripture to illustrate his point: As it is written: "God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (v. 24). Ezekiel 36:22 says that the Jews had caused God’s name to be blasphemed. Jews are not immune to sin, and not immune to judgment. The "judgment according to works" view has nothing good to say to them.

The true people of God

In verse 25, Paul comments on an advantage Jews thought they had: Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. As Paul will soon argue, everyone has broken the law — and circumcision doesn’t rescue anyone from anything.

So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker (v. 27). Some Jews taught that Gentiles could be saved if they obeyed the laws that applied to Gentiles, without being circumcised. So in such a case, the Gentile would be better off in the judgment than the Jew — a reversal of the picture that Jews usually drew.

A person is not a Jew [that is, not one of God’s people] who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God (vv. 28-29). Just as Deut. 30:6 said, circumcision should be in the heart, not just in the flesh. Just because someone is circumcised on the outside does not mean that he is truly part of the people of God who will be accepted on the day of judgment.

Paul is rattling the underpinnings of the traditional view — but he is not yet done. He is pulling his punches as part of his rhetorical strategy. He is saving his most powerful arguments for the next chapter — at this point he wants people to keep reading even if they sympathize with the opposing view. His opponents would have to agree in principle with what he says so far, though they might be a bit uncomfortable with it. Paul wants them to keep reading, and we need to do that, too, if we want to see what the gospel reveals in contrast to the traditional view.

God is perfectly fair. Some Gentiles do what is right, and some Jews do what is wrong. But if both peoples are judged by what they do, then what advantage is there in being Jewish? That is precisely the question that Paul raises in the next chapter.

This article was written by Michael Morrison in 2003 and was updated in 2011.

Source: http://www.gci.org/bible/rom2

As is pointed out in the article, the verses you took out of context make it seem like anyone can be saved by being good enough, but the context clearly shows this is not so, since those verses are expressing the view Paul was in the process of showing WAS INCORRECT.

What I am interested in is "acceptance" of others.

That's great! It seems a worthy interest and I have no problem with it at all. What I pointed out is that you are trying to give your interest a degree of validity by claiming the Bible supports your view that all paths lead to God, and that you have taken passages out of context in order to do this.

[IamsSon]

Now I am going to show how you have posited more than just a charge of out-of-context.

This has nothing to do with a charge of out-of-context but does with your view of being a witness for Christ, and in my opinion doing it all wrong because the best example of being a witness is accepting others as they are no matter what they believe as the men in Acts 19 did.

Please post the verses in Acts 19 where you see this. Because what I see in Acts 19 is:

• Paul arrives at Ephesus (Acts 19:1)
  
• Found disciples baptized by John the Baptist (Acts 19:2-4)
  
• Baptized disciples into Jesus’ name (Acts 19:5-7)
  
• Spoke boldly in synagogue (Acts 19:8-9)
  
• All in Asia heard (Acts 19:10)
  
• Performs striking miracles (Acts 19:11-12)
  
• Demonized man attacks the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16)
  
• All became fearful (Acts 19:17-20)
  
• A trip to Jerusalem and Paul’s motivation (Acts 19:21)
  
• The cult of Artemis (Acts 19:22-27)
  
• City in an uproar (Acts 19:28-34)
  
• Officials stop the riot (Acts 19:35-41)
  

You say this as if I have not read as much or even more of the Bible than you.

I will re-read but I won't ask you to do the same. Funny how that works isn't it? (:

Actually, if you notice that part of my post you just quoted starts out with my encouragement to RE-READ, which clearly implies I believe you have already read it at least once.

Romans 1 mentions believers who know God but act otherwise. Romans 2, which I mentioned already as an example for you (see it is an example not a way to prove you wrong), mentions those who do not know God but act maybe as if they did and will have a chance to go to heaven.

Actually, as the article I quoted on my previous post shows, in context, Romans 2 is for the most part Paul's presentation of the beliefs he is about to refute (the particular verses you're probably referring to--verses 12 and 13--are very clearly refuted in verse 3:20).

Acts 2 mentions nothing about "proclaiming the message" in the way you are insinuating. They were in a house or building, not in public, and if the public wanted to go to them they could.

Actually, the indications are that they were staying in a room in an inn. And when they addressed the crowd, it was likely the people staying at the inn or that were in the main room or in the courtyard of the inn.

When Peter in v. 14 addressed Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem do you really believe everyone was there from the province and city?

What did I say that would make you even try to assume this?

In v. 22 Peter tells the men of Israel but no, they were not all there either, and Peter was in a private area not in a public one cramming his views down other people's throats.

Actually, in verse 15, we are clearly told Peter was addressing a group of believers.

Acts 3 has the men running to the site of the miracle in v. 11. Again no disciples went to the people but waited for the people to come to them. They came interested to hear. Vastly different than talking bad about other people's beliefs. In this case they were in public.

Acts 19 has another good example. Paul was preaching in the synagogue, most likely he was not uninvited but a guest there. Now the example here is when the other men who spoke evil about the Way in front of the congregation, what did the disciples do? Challenge him? Debate him? Tell them they are not following the Spirit? No they just simply left.

Given that in my post I clearly pointed out that what I saw was Paul and others addressing people in places where either they expected to hear spiritual messages or where they went to participate in or watch debates, I believe we are in agreement that accosting people is not really what the Bible encourages.

This brings us to the example I offered in the second half of chapter 19. The disciples never said a bad thing about other people's beliefs.

Please post the actual verses because I seem to have missed them.

But you have. You have talked disrespectful about other beliefs. While the disciples in chatper 19 could not be charged with blashphemy of other people's beliefs you can, what did you call other beliefs? That is right, poision. See below.

Actually, I was talking about sin, not the beliefs of others.

[IamsSon]

Argumentum ad populum.

Nice try, but no.

Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

From <http://philosophy.la...ic/popular.html>

I did not even appeal to an "authority" much less try to win popular assent. I pointed out that the context of the passage clearly shows that your interpretation was not correct.

I told you the Spirit led me to this view but you claim it is just mine. Exactly, you are indeed speaking for It.

Like I said earlier, this tactic of trying to dismiss a point by making the ridiculous argument that one is taking on the role of prophet or Speaker for God is tired and useless.

There is no one True path but many paths.

That's not what the Bible teaches, which is why you've had to take verses fantastically out of context to attempt to garner support for your view from it.

So you are accusing me of taking verses and passages out-of-context and in your view it is either due to ignorance or an attempt to justify my actions? OK well since I used to believe like you and have since grown let us skip past ignorance, I should know better right?

Nice try, but before we "skip" off you would have to convince me that you've actually grown.

Secondly, if I am doing what you claim to justify my actions what actions would those be? To accept everyone. Wow how evil and while I am being sarcastic sadly you probably do believe my view is evil maybe even poison, yes accepting others is exactly that (sarcasm again).

Now, this is argumentum ad populum! As I said in an earlier post, I think that is a very nice belief and I hope it helps you be more respectful and loving to others. I have no problem with what you choose to believe, I take issue with your attempt to make it seem Biblically correct by taking Bible passages out of context.

And you are debating against this as if you don't want to accept everyone. Well OK I am sure you will give us an elaborate excuse of how you are not doing that and you do accept everyone but your words speak for themselves, they don't speak for me,

I am not debating your belief, I am pointing out you are using Scriptural passages out of context, that in context, those passages do not actually support your view. Heck, Jesus Himself in John 14:6 says the exact opposite.

I have already acknowledged your charge now, above, but I won't be discussing it again with you because it is not out-of-context.

Yet my main priority is accepting others including you and if you feel you are attacked then you should correct that feeling because the only thing that might be under attack is your view, not you, and the fundamentalist view that there is only one path and we don't have to accept those not on it, you can claim left and right this is not you, but most of us know this is modern Christianity and it needs to change.

That's the thing, as I said earlier, you are not attacking me, you are attacking the argument instead of making a counterargument. As a Bible Christian, what I see taught in the Bible and modeled by Jesus is not a call to not accept those who do not believe, but to love them as I love anyone else, to share God's love with them, not to revile them. So, you're whole schtick, trying to lump me in with people who take passages out of context to validate their hatefulness is a weak attack and still does not actually form a valid counter to my point that you are taking passages out of context.

Well it does not say to accept others directly but when coupled with the fundamentalist position of rejecting those who do not share the same exact views there is a strong inference that we shouldn't judge others (which is what rejecting those who do not agree with us exactly is doing, it is a form of judging then going further and taking action on that judgment such as an attack or another action such as exclusion).

Modern Christianity has done horrible things and each Christian must decide to continue that or to change and according to the Spirit.

Since I am not rejecting anyone, nor am I condoning the rejection of anyone, I'm not sure how this answers the fact that you took passages out of context.

A parallel here could be one of a bigot counting how many "different" type of friends he has, usually on one hand too. I am not impressed at your claims, do not find them genuine, because if you really accepted everyone then you would, in word and deed, through posts, but you are not accepting others by listing those who are "different" that you accept. Try instead to think of them as equals, peers, just like you: human.

Thank you for calling me a bigot. I'll have to figure out how this is a counterargument to my point that you took Bible passages out of context.

Again talking for the Spirit.

Now an even older, more overused, and stupid attempt at a counterargument.

Notice when I mention the Spirit with a pronoun it is always It and not He. Another thing that modern Christianity needs is to either remove the raw masculinity from it and understand the Spirit is not a he or her, or to add more femininity for balance. Of course this is not something you probably agree with and neither would I be surprised.

In the end you have done a fair bit more than just simply make a charge of out-of-context as you finally claimed. You called other belief's poision, of course since you didn't specificy you will try to wiggle out perhaps, so tell us what did you mean by poision, I think we already know but you can change it since we can't stop you. Secondly you speak for the Spirit often as if you are the official arbitrator that know if someone else is following it or not. That is not possible or convincing.

Then you have defended yourself continuously when you are not even under attack. It is not that difficult, accept others, allow the scriptures to open up, know that you or me are not the perfect specimen but don't try to pretend you are a greater one than me when it comes to being Christian because I won't accept it as something you could say or claim definitively.

The situation stands. You have taken Bible passages wildly out of context in an attempt to argue that your view is Biblically correct.

To recap you can claim I am wrong, I am not claiming you are but will defend my position lightly if you insist.

Keep in mind claiming I am wrong goes against the example in the first half of Acts 19 where they simply walked away.

Secondly, I don't think everyone is at the same level and people are still growing all the time which is why I would not call you wrong since you now are not a finished product.

You can continue to do as you have and when you are ready to change you can do that to.

I pointed out you took Bible passages out of context. I did not attack your belief and even praised it. Edited March 5, 2013 by IamsSon

[Clarakore]

The heart of the matter is simply this, large segments of modern Christianity do not believe all paths lead to heaven, thus they believe if others believe differently than them they are going to hell, thus they reject others when the Bible (Romans 2:1) clearly says to knock it off.

This stupid belief has caused much harm in history.

You have even failed to acknowledge this and only then can a real conversation begin but it is fine and predicatable that you most likely will choose not to.

Please post the verses in Acts 19 where you see this. Because what I see in Acts 19 is:

• Paul arrives at Ephesus (Acts 19:1)
  
• Found disciples baptized by John the Baptist (Acts 19:2-4)
  
• Baptized disciples into Jesus’ name (Acts 19:5-7)
  
• Spoke boldly in synagogue (Acts 19:8-9)
  
• All in Asia heard (Acts 19:10)
  
• Performs striking miracles (Acts 19:11-12)
  
• Demonized man attacks the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16)
  
• All became fearful (Acts 19:17-20)
  
• A trip to Jerusalem and Paul’s motivation (Acts 19:21)
  
• The cult of Artemis (Acts 19:22-27)
  
• City in an uproar (Acts 19:28-34)
  
• Officials stop the riot (Acts 19:35-41)
  

Acts 19 and verse 37: For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess.

This can be said about the disciples. Can it be said about you?

Do you believe those who worship the goddess are either:

a. following demons?

b. following nothing but their imagination?

b. drinking poision they will die from?

c. believing in something that will take them to hell?

e. all or most of the above?

If so then you are a blasphemer of the goddess.

I don't believe any of those things.

Do you?

Will you answer? Can you answer? Failure to answer is just as fine.

Actually, if you notice that part of my post you just quoted starts out with my encouragement to RE-READ, which clearly implies I believe you have already read it at least once.

I know exactly what you meant, an insinuation that I do not understand the material and am wrong.

Actually, as the article I quoted on my previous post shows, in context, Romans 2 is for the most part Paul's presentation of the beliefs he is about to refute (the particular verses you're probably referring to--verses 12 and 13--are very clearly refuted in verse 3:20).

What are you talking about? Nothing in Romans 2 is refuted.

Romans 3:20 is also connected to 3:19 which is clearly directed to those under the law. We will call this group A.

Now Romans 2:12 mentions both group A those under the law and group B those without the law.

It is Romans 2:14-16 though which clearly talks about group B so whatever you see in Romans 3:20 is about group A not B (the gentiles aka those without the law).

Again in Romans 2:12 it states those who follow the law (group A) will be judged by the law but in Romans 2:14-16 it says those who do not have the law (group B will be accused or excused by their own conscience.

Group B is people who do not follow the Bible or God and they have an equal chance to go to heaven.

We agree on pretty much the rest of that post of yours except on a few minor details but I would rather focus on these. You can continue to ignore these points but they are the only ones I am interested in because once one understand that everyone not just Bible-believers can go to heaven then it allows them to accept others better and allows them to quit judging others which are two huge problems within the church today.

Nice try, but no.

I did not even appeal to an "authority" much less try to win popular assent. I pointed out that the context of the passage clearly shows that your interpretation was not correct.

You clearly stated, "The thing is, it's not my view alone," about your view when discussing my view that all paths have equal chances to go to heaven as if just because a large segment of Christianity agrees with you means it is right especially since Christianity changes from era to era in what beliefs they most choose to focus on.

So argumentum ad populum also can be stated as an argument by consensus, aka, "if everyone else agrees with me then I must be right!"

Also populum means people not authority. If I had accused you of an argument from authority then I would have said argumentum ad verecundiam instead.

Like I said earlier, this tactic of trying to dismiss a point by making the ridiculous argument that one is taking on the role of prophet or Speaker for God is tired and useless.

That's not what the Bible teaches, which is why you've had to take verses fantastically out of context to attempt to garner support for your view from it.

Nice try, but before we "skip" off you would have to convince me that you've actually grown.

Convincing you, a fundamentalist Christian who does not believe all paths go to heaven, has never been a goal.

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.

Now, this is argumentum ad populum! As I said in an earlier post, I think that is a very nice belief and I hope it helps you be more respectful and loving to others. I have no problem with what you choose to believe, I take issue with your attempt to make it seem Biblically correct by taking Bible passages out of context.

I am not debating your belief, I am pointing out you are using Scriptural passages out of context, that in context, those passages do not actually support your view. Heck, Jesus Himself in John 14:6 says the exact opposite.

Thank you for bringing up John 14:6. "No one comes to the Father except through me."

You will claim that this means there is only one path.

I will claim that no one can go to the Father (spirit) except through the Son (humanity). Thus to accept Jesus is to accept humanity. The greatest commandment must be observed with the second greatest and they were to love God and love your neighbor. The theme repeats itself there, one must accept all others as they are to accept humanity, and only then can one truly grow.

Notice how I state it, that you will claim that, I will claim this, no where do I say you are wrong, this might be the best you are doing now, and that is fine I accept your view as being right for the stage you are in, you don't have to accept mine, I don't expect you to.

That's the thing, as I said earlier, you are not attacking me, you are attacking the argument instead of making a counterargument. As a Bible Christian, what I see taught in the Bible and modeled by Jesus is not a call to not accept those who do not believe, but to love them as I love anyone else, to share God's love with them, not to revile them. So, you're whole schtick, trying to lump me in with people who take passages out of context to validate their hatefulness is a weak attack and still does not actually form a valid counter to my point that you are taking passages out of context.

There is no schtick just one Christian calling out other Christians for how they operate, you can decide which type of Christian you want to be, the kind that hold doctrines which have caused suffering in the past while ignoring that, or the kind that acknowledges that. Your choice I don't think you are wrong in either case if you are doing the best you can.

Since I am not rejecting anyone, nor am I condoning the rejection of anyone, I'm not sure how this answers the fact that you took passages out of context.

Thank you for calling me a bigot. I'll have to figure out how this is a counterargument to my point that you took Bible passages out of context.

Now an even older, more overused, and stupid attempt at a counterargument.

The situation stands. You have taken Bible passages wildly out of context in an attempt to argue that your view is Biblically correct.

I pointed out you took Bible passages out of context. I did not attack your belief and even praised it.

We have discussed that already and I am focusing on these others points, I did mention I would only acknowledge that portion once so there is no way my statements are in continued defense of your charge which is yours alone.

Now what is your view on those who follow the goddess? What is your view on that path? Are they going to hell? Do they have an equal chance to get into heaven?

What about the way the church has harmed so many because of the view that only they are the one true way and all others are false? What about those who have been hurt, will you discuss that? It is still a problem in the modern church. Why won't you acknowledge this?

It is fine to discuss what you wish but a lack of acknowledgement speaks just as loudly!

Edited March 5, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[IamsSon]

You clearly stated, "The thing is, it's not my view alone," about your view when discussing my view that all paths have equal chances to go to heaven as if just because a large segment of Christianity agrees with you means it is right especially since Christianity changes from era to era in what beliefs they most choose to focus on.

I clearly stated it is not simply my view, but the contextually correct view. I did not appeal to anything other than the context of the passage.

So argumentum ad populum also can be stated as an argument by consensus, aka, "if everyone else agrees with me then I must be right!"

But I was not saying "everyone else agrees with me,"

I simply pointed out that in context the passage does not say what you want it to say.

Also populum means people not authority. If I had accused you of an argument from authority then I would have said argumentum ad verecundiam instead.

Maybe you need to take that up with the dictionary.

Convincing you, a fundamentalist Christian who does not believe all paths go to heaven, has never been a goal.

Gee, I wonder why?

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.

Thank you for bringing up John 14:6. "No one comes to the Father except through me."

You will claim that this means there is only one path.

I will claim that no one can go to the Father (spirit) except through the Son (humanity). Thus to accept Jesus is to accept humanity. The greatest commandment must be observed with the second greatest and they were to love God and love your neighbor. The theme repeats itself there, one must accept all others as they are to accept humanity, and only then can one truly grow.

Notice how I state it, that you will claim that, I will claim this, no where do I say you are wrong, this might be the best you are doing now, and that is fine I accept your view as being right for the stage you are in, you don't have to accept mine, I don't expect you to.

So, basically, you know you're completely full of it here so you're not even going to attempt to defend this dribble.

There is no reason to take this verse allegorically. The context clearly shows Jesus was having a direct conversation with His followers when He said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

There is no schtick just one Christian calling out other Christians for how they operate, you can decide which type of Christian you want to be, the kind that hold doctrines which have caused suffering in the past while ignoring that, or the kind that acknowledges that. Your choice I don't think you are wrong in either case if you are doing the best you can.

Actually, all that is happening here is that I'm pointing out you're taking passages out of context to fit your agenda.

We have discussed that already and I am focusing on these others points, I did mention I would only acknowledge that portion once so there is no way my statements are in continued defense of your charge which is yours alone.

Now what is your view on those who follow the goddess? What is your view on that path? Are they going to hell? Do they have an equal chance to get into heaven?

What about the way the church has harmed so many because of the view that only they are the one true way and all others are false? What about those who have been hurt, will you discuss that? It is still a problem in the modern church. Why won't you acknowledge this?

It is fine to discuss what you wish but a lack of acknowledgement speaks just as loudly!

People have been harmed because people have taken passages out of context to fit their agenda, just like you're doing. You, my friend, are the one who has the potential for hurting people. I'm simply pointing out that you're taking passages out of context.

Edited March 5, 2013 by IamsSon

[Clarakore]

I clearly stated it is not simply my view, but the contextually correct view. I did not appeal to anything other than the context of the passage.

But I was not saying "everyone else agrees with me,"

I simply pointed out that in context the passage does not say what you want it to say.

Maybe you need to take that up with the dictionary.

Gee, I wonder why?

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.

So, basically, you know you're completely full of it here so you're not even going to attempt to defend this dribble.

There is no reason to take this verse allegorically. The context clearly shows Jesus was having a direct conversation with His followers when He said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Actually, all that is happening here is that I'm pointing out you're taking passages out of context to fit your agenda.

People have been harmed because people have taken passages out of context to fit their agenda, just like you're doing. You, my friend, are the one who has the potential for hurting people. I'm simply pointing out that you're taking passages out of context.

Accepting everyone is not an agenda it is the second greatest commandment.

[Clarakore]

Matthew 22:36-40.

One cannot love their neighbor if they believe their neighor is going to hell because they are on a different path.

This is something the church must reconcile when they are able to understand it. In time they too will grow.