23 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYou may try to find the intended meaning of a text, sure. But even that is an interpretation.
Yes and no, the words written were with intent. If you fail to grasp that intent you missed the boat all together. If you grasp it, it will allow you to follow its instructions more clearly great!
It isn't about read this, and make it fit inside your world views so your version is what you go by. We are told to read this and study it, so we are rightly dividing the Word ...[text shortened]... word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
24 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidNo "twist". Just a question. What does Luke 4 have to do with "You shall be charitable and fight poverty"?
@FMF
As I said you fail to grasp the text, and you twist my words out of the points made. For you there is no foundation to build on, its all endless questions on an ever changing foundation, nothing solid to hang on any truth on, to build on.
@fmf saidOk, KellyJay, forget about whether or not a Christian should be charitable as he or she walks the walk of a Christian life.
a. You shall not kill/murder
b. You shall not commit adultery
c. You shall not steal
d. You shall not bear false witness
e. You shall not cheat
f. Honour your father and mother
What about this one?
You shall not own human beings as chattel
@kellyjay saidSupposedly "making Him Lord and Saviour" is just something that happens in one's thoughts. To be a follower means it has implications. To be a follower means it bears "fruit" [by which your Christian walk can be "known"], it means to obey, and to behave in accordance with commandments.
Yes it means making him Lord and Savior. That is not simply accepting a few words of text.
And as I understand your argument here, because you have offered nothing else other than some proto-Republican retail-political flannel about how poverty is "complex", Luke 4 means there is no personal onus on you, as a Christian, to be charitable or to fight poverty. Got it. Understood. I accept the meaning of the few words of text you have typed for what they are.
@fmf saidIn view of how controversial the issues of abortion and homosexuality are - even between Christians - in the present day,
5. You shall not kill
Let us assume that the author of these is the creator God and that He is providing timeless moral leadership and standards.
Do you believe these are comprehensive and foresighted or are there some common types of "sin"/moral imperatives missing?
and with the "You shall not kill" commandment not settling the issue of abortion for many millions of believers in Jesus,
and with there being no commandment pertaining to homosexuality, an issue close to home [in terms of sexual orientation] for maybe as many as 400,000,000 human beings or maybe more
and assuming that the Ten Commandments are divinely inspired
and assuming they are intended to provide timeless moral leadership and standards
and assuming they are comprehensive and foresighted as would be concomitant with them being divinely inspired
and not just manmade reflections of the morality of the times in which they were written...
In view of all that, why aren't these two prohibitions among the Ten Commandments?
You shall not engage in homosexual sex
You shall not terminate a pregnancy
@fmf saidLike I said you twist other's words to suit you, and you have no grasp of scripture.
KellyJay, forget about whether or not a Christian should be charitable as he or she walks the walk of a Christian life. You have expressed your view successfully as far as I am concerned. We can move on to different moral imperatives.
Moving on.
24 Feb 19
@fmf saidPerhaps that is why someone felt the need to invent process theology.
I wonder how Christians would envisage this happening, although they have a few Bible verses ~ if I recall correctly ~ that head this possibility off at the pass - most notably Revelation 22:18-19.
24 Feb 19
"God seems behind the curve" is an interesting euphemism.Yes. Quaker spirituality places a first hand experience of "God" above the second hand experience of religious text.
By which I mean a euphemism pointing towards not complying with Assumption #2... Let's assume the Ten Commandments are not just some rules written by humans which reflected the morality of their time ~ which were then attributed to God [and still are]. [insert smiley here... my browser doesn't display them]
24 Feb 19
@moonbus saidYes, precisely so. This is why Christians (should) follow the commandments of Jesus, and why Christians are not beholden to Mosaic law. Before Jesus, Mosaic law had to be followed to fulfill God's will. Now we have the words of Jesus to follow directly, instead of hundreds of laws in the Torah. The ministry of Jesus the Christ was a watershed moment in human history. It changed everything.
Too complicated. Can’t all that be encapsulated as “Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself”
?
Of course not “love” in the merely physical (carnal) sense. If one loved God in the right manner, and one’s neighbors as thyself in the right manner, wouldn’t that entail all the rest, not bearing false witness, not coveting, not killing, honoring one’s parents, loving God ...[text shortened]... lity and not as an idol or physical image, loving humans as ends only and never as means, and so on?
24 Feb 19
"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."" - Matthew 22:34-40, NIV