Troll2rocks wrote:I am going to start making a weekly show here on DTV.
The show will be a little bit like the news, with a kind of a twist.
You should call it "The DTV Calcified Pineal Gland Show"
99socks wrote:Rydher wrote:99socks wrote:So no, he didn't teach giving out money.
You might go on another rant about how I choose the opposite side of everything, which is true if by everything you mean untruths and misinformation. You are wrong on this, sorry. He did teach charity, he did teach you can't serve God and money, etc. All it takes is for you to actually read the bible.
The only way your point of view has any validity is if you say that Jesus did not teach to tithe to churches or teach that it's a necessity. Which is true. What Jesus did teach was for Christians to give and be charitable.
Spock wrote:I don't get it , Rydher is right.
Spock wrote:My confusion was, that I saw nothing wrong with anything Rydher said, and I didn't understand why Sock would post the banging head smiley or to attack him in this thread.
Rydher wrote:Lowsix wrote:Rhyder..
You are so outmatched and outclassed..its COMICAL.
Outmatched and outclassed? That doesn't even make sense.
Based on your posts it's seems you think that because she chose to post a full page response full of baseless assumptions and responding to things no one stated in this thread. So I don't take the time to respond to every point in her post? No thanks, if Jet did anything - he taught me the futility of taking that course of action. I suppose I could of pointed people to the exact versus I was referring too, but on this subject I would of much rather seen someone actually look for the answers for themselves. Which could of been found in anyone one of the four gospels. And if one person that has never read them before actually did? That would of been a great thing for many reasons. The least of which is finding the answers to topics presented in this thread.
So what happens? At the end of the thread I agree with the main point Socks was making and she agrees with Spock. Where the thread went off the rails is where she thought someone said Jesus taught people to beg for money and that those posting here thought that they are doing a 'good thing' just by throwing money at problems. Because the undertone of her post indicated that if you have money you serve Mammon. There was no middle ground.
99socks wrote:Spock wrote:
Yes, love has everything to do with it. If love wasn't behind it, people would just be throwing their money away. As well, nowhere did I say that because you give money means you shouldn't do anything else; I think it's common understanding that out of your blessings you give in any way you can - you help someone, whether that be with a shoulder to lean on or cash if needed.
It's all about empathy and compassion.
If you look hard enough, you will always find shortcomings in anything, it's easy to see the lacking in people - hence the need for Christ in the first place.
So, what is the church? Perfect people following a perfect code? It would seem that is what you expect. Indeed the church is broken people trying their best to do God's will with what they have. As they say, it's a hospital for sinners, not a sanctuary for saints. Broken vessels doing their best to help with what they have...
Thank you, that was my whole point.
There's an old saying....
"Fortune favors the bold."
I guess we're about to find out.
= Since Dawn Of Time The Fate Of Man Is That Of Lice =
Some really good posts here even if they at times seemed to be opposing views...especially toward the latter pages. It seems to have worked itself out and I don't really desire to write an essay of which I doubt could contribute any better than what has been said. Some of the comments stated made me think long and hard about even posting what I am about to post. In the end though, my hesitance lost out. I will try to do this in a way not to stir up unnecessary turmoil as it is a very minuscule aside. The only reason I am posting it is the viewpoint I initially saw it from at first, was not mentioned anywhere or I unintentionally overlooked it if it was. I also think it could very well be a valid point and beneficial to a prospective reader of the bible....whether or not it is received that way by anyone or not. I also know for a fact that it has been used in the manner I will lay out.
Cambay, if you do read the Bible, please start with the new Testament; after that go through the Old.
When I first read this quote, I will admit that my mind wrench negatively. After reading some of the comments concerning this...I eased up a bit...but will make a statement nonetheless.
I can see where the quote would be genuine in intent whereas at first I immediately questioned it.
First off....my initial crass negative view:
My initial thought after reading the question as to why read the New Testament first was...."Well here goes another deceptive Christian tactic." Why was this the first thing that popped in my head? Experience in just this particular statement with Christians who had no problem stating the particular reasoning I am about to state....which is....
Because if one reads the OT first, one may never finish the book before coming to some very negative conclusions. Now I put that milder than I initially would have due to some post here that helped me see possible genuineness .
While the OT is somewhat of a history lesson I suppose, there is much to be learned from it that can be practically applicable that is not necessarily direct. One really needs to be able to draw from it in a variety of ways with diligent deliberation and hash out the life lesson benefit for themselves. Considering Lot a righteous man is one such instance.
Maybe by reading the NT first, one might learn or see lessons much simpler and grasp some concepts that will enable them to be more likely to work through the OT instead of tossing it out.... never to return again to such apparent atrocities. So if a Christian believes the Bible to be the infallible word of their god and a necessity to believe it as such for others who they wish to bring to the fold... then I can see genuineness in them saying read the NT first so that one might gain a certain mindset before tackling the OT. But I also see it as negative tactic to steer a reader or prospect away from developing any negative notions toward it on their own before possible indoctrination can take hold. To me it is a pretty fine line on which the benefit to the reader is iffy depending on which stance one takes.
In my opinion only, it would benefit one greatly to have some familiarity with philosophy, psychology, esoteric writing, and ancient history, customs, and languages to fully tackle the OT. But that's just me and I know it isn't really necessary to grab the surface stuff albeit some of the surface stuff is where the real conflicts can lie unless you approach it from multiple angles of thought. It is so easy to find horribleness in the OT that I will not even let my child read it. Trying to explain complexities that lie there to a child is not always the easiest thing to do. I know this from experience as a child myself. Many had no clue how to answer what seemed to me at the time to be simple questions. I was perceived as as being intentionally contrary and rebellious merely for asking about such things.
I'll stop here as I got sidetracked by someone that needed my help. I have been away from this for a while and don't feel like going back and reading everything to regain my train of thought.
Thanks everyone for helping me tone down what could have been a really negative rant.
There was no sinister or manipulative intent whatsoever.
I enjoy reading your posts. Honestly when I saw the recommendation and had the crass thought that immediately popped into my head, I had to step back for a bit and say to myself...."Surely that is not what Spock is doing." Had it been some others here whom I will not call out, I may have immediately went to typing and posting without reading further. Luckily for me, I stepped back...read the rest of the thread...and toned down my response. It worked out for the best for me anyway. It reminded me to not be so hasty. That is a good thing. I believe your reasons to be genuine but I highly doubt you'd lose any sleep over it if I didn't.
where as the NT is based on grace and forgiveness and not condemnation
I put forth that one would need to have developed at least a bit of this in themselves as a reader of the OT for the first time in order to try and tackle the surface area atrocities of the OT without too much distaste setting in. Of course I have seen people read the OT for the first time and not really notice anything they read beyond a general story line and never give a thought toward negative questioning. But, I do know that much conflict between the believers and those who don't lie in the surface material of the OT. If anything I said offended you in any manner....I apologize. It is not my intent.
- Related topics
- Last post