Why is this forum full of so many hateful "Christians"?

[bbyrd009]

ha ok :)

I was referring to mostly those who reject ALL of our English translations.

ha well fwiw "lord" is a terrible characterization for Yah, "lord" is an English landholder with serfs, much closer to "Baal," as it rains on the evil and the good right. And there are several other examples, most of them known, luckily. Yes, your English translation is prolly corrupt, in ways we can hardly imagine even, simply bc we've heard a version our whole lives. Yah does not "lord" it over anyone imo, even if He has some of the characteristics, yes
The amazing name Baal: meaning and etymology

 

[lforrest]

Who is behind the attacks on our Bible. It is of course Satan. We are not permitted to point it out when Satan clearly attacks our Christian Bible. Satan even used Peter to rebuke Jesus. Jesus immediately pointed it out that Satan was using Peter. Would Jesus be warned here?
2 Timothy 4:2 (KJV)
2 Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

I believe it is possible to give loving Christian correction without resorting to personal insults, or calling someone's salvation into question. That is how people run afoul of the rules. By the time an argument gets heated any possibility for edification is gone.

 

[marks]

imo the intent is pretty clear? What do you mean what did He mean? If you testify of yourself, your testimony is invalid, ask any woman lol

There was a law . . . just you being your own witness doesn't prove your case.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

Much love!

 

[Jim B]

I believe it is possible to give loving Christian correction without resorting to personal insults, or calling someone's salvation into question. That is how people run afoul of the rules. By the time an argument gets heated any possibility for edification is gone.

Wow! This is so true!

 

[Jim B]

There was a law . . . just you being your own witness doesn't prove your case.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

Much love!

Translation into English: "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved."

 

[bbyrd009]

This is the problem. Neutrality is a myth!

Are you saying that Islam Sharia Law "should be represented equally in the federal government"???

that would be an oxymoron i guess; but they have tried to do a corrupt version of that, called "arbitration," that we are required to comply with now, in most of our business contracts. Of course you do not get to pick the arbitrator lol

many, many "Muslims" eschew Sharia now, and prefer civil courts; "devout" Muslims are in about the same ratio as our devout Christians, near as i can tell anyway. Same with Jews, pretty much, at least in my experience, 10 % or thereabouts?

 

[bbyrd009]

What comes to mind, is a couple beers. And you're in the wildlife already :

ha well i live in a McMansion in Aspen right now lol, so not really
or maybe yes, depends on your def there!
narf

 

[lforrest]

that would be an oxymoron i guess; but they have tried to do a corrupt version of that, called "arbitration," that we are required to comply with now, in most of our business contracts. Of course you do not get to pick the arbitrator lol

many, many "Muslims" eschew Sharia now, and prefer civil courts; "devout" Muslims are in about the same ratio as our devout Christians, near as i can tell anyway. Same with Jews, pretty much, at least in my experience

I usually don't bother with questioning your beliefs, but what in the world does sharia law have to do with business arbitration...

 

[bbyrd009]

I usually don't bother with questioning your beliefs, but what in the world does sharia law have to do with business arbitration...

essentially avoidance of secular courts, although i guess for different reasons

but a point was that we are required to accept binding arbitration now (in order to get screwed, right), whereas Sharia is traditionally optional

 

[aspen]

Just curious.

I think it reflects the nature of the Internet + Dialectic reasoning.

when you combine the false feeling of anonymity associated with the internet, with the propensity of determining truth by reasoning through opposite points of view through discourse, it is more than likely the conversation will digress into arguments and ad hominem attacks; especially when one or more people involved run out of information and still insist on trying to declare victory.

unfortunately, as children of Western Civilization, we tend to ignore information, presented without the invitation of a discussion and possibility of an argument. Without this invitation, the information is most likely, questioned without engagement ignored, or dismissed because of excuses like, 'the author is dictating information like he believes he has the final word on the subject".

 

[kcnalp]

ha ok :)
ha well fwiw "lord" is a terrible characterization for Yah, "lord" is an English landholder with serfs, much closer to "Baal," as it rains on the evil and the good right. And there are several other examples, most of them known, luckily. Yes, your English translation is prolly corrupt, in ways we can hardly imagine even, simply bc we've heard a version our whole lives. Yah does not "lord" it over anyone imo, even if He has some of the characteristics, yes
The amazing name Baal: meaning and etymology

All of my English Bibles are corrupt? How long have you been an expert in the Bible Languages?

 

[kcnalp]

I believe it is possible to give loving Christian correction without resorting to personal insults, or calling someone's salvation into question. That is how people run afoul of the rules. By the time an argument gets heated any possibility for edification is gone.

I totally agree about "insults". Do you believe JW's who twist nearly everything in our Christian Bibles are Christians? Do you believe those who say our Bibles are filled with errors are Christians? I do not.

 

[lforrest]

I totally agree about "insults". Do you believe JW's who twist nearly everything in our Christian Bibles are Christians? Do you believe those who say our Bibles are filled with errors are Christians? I do not.

I think any denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ is heretical, and seriously question rather it is possible to receive the Holy Spirit while holding that belief. And anyone who has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Those who doubt much of the bible have chosen instead to believe lies. So I have doubts about them too.

Regardless I can't say definitively if someone is going to Hell because of these. I only have the warnings in scripture.

 

[kcnalp]

I think any denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ is heretical, and seriously question rather it is possible to receive the Holy Spirit while holding that belief. And anyone who has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Those who doubt much of the bible have chosen instead to believe lies. So I have doubts about them too.

Regardless I can't say definitively if someone is going to Hell because of these. I only have the warnings in scripture.

2 John 1:9 (NKJV)
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

 

[lforrest]

2 John 1:9 (NKJV)
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

Consider when this was written the first believers had no bible. The context is those who deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They do not walk in love, which is the command of Christ.

 

[kcnalp]

Consider when this was written the first believers had no bible. The context is those who deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They do not walk in love, which is the command of Christ.

I believe all of the NT is completely relevant for Christian salvation. The "doctrine of Christ" is being butchered, just like millions of unborn babies.

 

[lforrest]

Consider when this was written the first believers had no bible. The context is those who deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They do not walk in love, which is the command of Christ.

Could be a teaching here about walking in love.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Luke 9:23. And he said to them all, if any man will come after me let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

 

[Seven of Nine]

I'm confused about something, so maybe someone can help me clarify the moral dilemma I see in the campaign to slander Democrats.

How does calling Democrats who condone abortion baby murderers, demonrats and children of Satan constitute walking in love?

Why would any Democrat listen to a right-wing pro-life Christian who degrades them by calling them a demonrat, a baby murderer and a child of Satan? How does this behavior demonstrate the love of God to the Democrat and convince them that their stand on abortion is morally wrong?

 

[lforrest]

I'm confused about something, so maybe someone can help me clarify the moral dilemma I see in the campaign to slander Democrats.

How does calling Democrats who condone abortion baby murderers, demonrats and children of Satan constitute walking in love?

Why would any Democrat listen to a right-wing pro-life Christian who degrades them by calling them a demonrat, a baby murderer and a child of Satan? How does this behavior demonstrate the love of God to the Democrat and convince them that their stand on abortion is morally wrong?

God's love can be seen in his patience and longsuffering over the practice of abortion. The world is overdue for justice, their blood cries out from the earth. Many have been patient along with God, crying out in place of those who can't.

How is people showing love going to make them repent and stop abortion? God's love has delayed judgement for decades. But the generation that started this, I believe is due to reap what has been sown.

 

[Jim B]

2 John 1:9 (NKJV)
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

The whole verse in English (not Englyshe), "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. " (NET)