True intentions of Christ's teachings (Sirs)

[The_Professor]

No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.

I agree Professor. The purpose of man is to love God (the Holy Trinity). We should not ask, or presume reward from Him. We certainly have not earned it. We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.

If by condemnation, you mean condemning non-Chriatians to Hell, well, that is what God has to say about that issue. Surely, as a devout Christian, you believe non-Christians go to Heaven when Scripture plainly indicates the opposite?

[_JS]

No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.

I agree Professor. The purpose of man is to love God (the Holy Trinity). We should not ask, or presume reward from Him. We certainly have not earned it. We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.

If by condemnation, you mean condemning non-Chriatians to Hell, well, that is what God has to say about that issue. Surely, as a devout Christian, you believe non-Christians go to Heaven when Scripture plainly indicates the opposite?

As a simple man, I don't know whether they will go to heaven, purgatory, or hell. I don't even know what those really are. I'm certainly not about to stand in God's place and make those decisions for Him.

[sirs]

We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.

And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation         We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil.  What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not.  That is the sole dominion of God.

[fatman]

We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil.

With all due respect sirs, the Beatitudes in Matthew (but not present in Luke) mention the following:

The meek

The merciful

The pure of heart

The peacemakers

The above people are not the people that I see as condemning other people's actions, although they may go against their beliefs.  And while the Old Testament is replete with the destruction of sinners, how many sinners did Christ destroy?  How many sinners did Christ name and condemn?

[sirs]

Js, once again, you provide scripute that's not being refuted.  Yes Christ wanted us to work together, but NOT by way of being forced to do so.  THAT is NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, NOR DEMONSTRATED BY ANY EXAMPLES OF HIM DOING SUCH

Answer the questions.

Asked and answered already.....many a time over.       Of course Christ wants us to work together.  His mandate, if there is one, is for we to help our fellow man.  It is NOT we are to force others or TAKE from others, to help our fellow man.

See the distinct difference??

[sirs]

And, with all due respect in return Fat, not sure how your response refutes my point on what we are and and not allowed to "condemn"

[_JS]

We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.

And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation         We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil.  What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not.  That is the sole dominion of God.

Not distorted Sirs.

You condemned Brass and Professor condemned Terra as to their final destinations. I read both statements.

[gipper]

Except for JS, this whole discussion is singularly underwhelming. The beauty of Jesus's religion and philosophy, it seems to me, is that it gives man room to fumble forward toward "perfection" as time and place may require by following and working out the ambiguities of one of mankind's greatest spiritual, moral, social, intellectual and PRACTICAL guides to life on this earth. There are many entrance points, many frames of reference, many paths, many models of analysis. It is almost as if Christ had openly said: "Working out what I have taught is the great adventure and duty of life." Approached this way, the correct way, I suggest, no absolute dictum can be made about, of all things, taxation and the orientation of society along socialist (loving) lines.

[sirs]

We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.

And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation         We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil.  What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not.  That is the sole dominion of God.

Not distorted Sirs.  You condemned Brass and Professor condemned Terra as to their final destinations. I read both statements.

Try context.....I gave reference to the "risk of damnation" that he has for not believing, akin to what Brass posted in what I supposedly was risking for not believing Jesus was some pro-government pro-taxation socialist.  That in no way proclaims sirs as Judging Brass to eternal hell.  I would hope you could grasp the difference

[fatman]

And, with all due respect in return Fat, not sure how your response refutes my point on what we are and and not allowed to "condemn"

Actually sirs, I'm not trying to refute your point on what we are and aren't allowed to condemn.  My concern is the condemnation itself.  If I were to spend my time condemning those things that I felt were (from your former post, that I responded to) actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil, I doubt I'd have much time to do much else.  My personal take (note the personal) is that it is not the place of myself to determine whether the actions of another person violate the will of God.  The people in the beautitudes that I posted above are the person that I try to be, though I am admirably unsuccessful most of the time.

Let me also say that I am not in total disagreement with either you or JS.  It may seem paradoxical, but you both have some middle ground.  I'm just trying to flesh this discussion out a little.

And yes, I am a Christian, though the strength of my devotion can tend to waver somewhat, especially the sin of gluttony when I'm near a Cold Stone.

[sirs]

Yet, I don't think at any time I was referring that we Christians should be going around condemning any and all we find offensive, all our waking moments.  I simply made a point there is no reason we should refrain from condeming acts we find immoral, or sinful, or evil, or simply inappropriate.  Or being guilted into not, by trying to mesh condemning someone to damnation, with condemnations in general

And boy, right back at ya, with the Cold Stone temptations. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

And yes, I am a Christian, though the strength of my devotion can tend to waver somewhat, especially the sin of gluttony when I'm near a Cold Stone.
 
 
==========================================================
Excuse. please, but what is a "cold stone temptation"?

Perhaps a granite kitchen countertop?

[sirs]

And yes, I am a Christian, though the strength of my devotion can tend to waver somewhat, especially the sin of gluttony when I'm near a Cold Stone.
 ==========================================================
Excuse. please, but what is a "cold stone temptation"?  Perhaps a granite kitchen countertop?

And multiple other creations

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yummy!
In a time when food was scarce, and for everyone who ate twice as much as he needed, another starved, I can see why gluttony would be a sin.

These days, the poor are overweight, and the rich are thin. If I eat a couple of scoops of ice cream a day, I suppose there will have to an extra cow up in Wisconsin, eating grass and farting and adding to the greenhouse gases. But the main problem with me overindulging in ice cream would be an earlier demise from a massive coronary infarction, most likely.

I find this interesting. We have preachers who tell you to sacrifice for Jesus and give to the poor, and we have other preachers telling you that Jesus wants us to be rich, and we should go out and get humping and make lotsa money.

Black people have pictures of Black Jesi, Germans have pictures of blond Jesi, but nowhere have I ever seen a picture of a fat Jesus. Only El Greco painted a skinny Jesus, and he painted everyone as emaciated.

Neither have I heard of any church that combined evangelism with weight loss. This seems to be a concept for the next L. Ron Hubbard, I think. Most Americans being a buit on the chubby side, and perhaps not as holy as they once were, this should have real potential for a mass movement.

[fatman]

this should have real potential for a mass movement.

Pun intended?