Any followers of Christ as pissed off at other so called "Christians" as I am?
- Thread starter Love_Conquers_All
- Start date
Tell me; who is the sinner in this scenario?
There was a group of people that sent a man dressed as a poor man to talk with a man that was having difficulties paying his bills. The man asked for a dollar for a cup of coffee, but he was turned down. The man having difficulties paying his bills was nice to him, but felt the poor-looking man did not need a dollar. Next, the "poor man" was sent to the same man's gate. He appeared to be just drinking something while he was sitting there in the dark. The man arrived home and asked the man to please move on, which the guy acknowledged with an OK and moved on. The man having difficulties paying his bills then went through his gate and home.
Is it right to test a man, then judge him accordingly? Is it right to tempt a man with deceit, then treat him accordingly? I tell you a truth; a man shall not be judged by deceit, nor measured by arrogance. Yes, there are people everywhere that would judge you: both Christian and not. As it is written: "Judge this rather, that no man lay a rock or stone of offence in the path of his brother."
[h=1]Romans 9:33[/h]As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
There was a group of people that sent a man dressed as a poor man to talk with a man that was having difficulties paying his bills. The man asked for a dollar for a cup of coffee, but he was turned down. The man having difficulties paying his bills was nice to him, but felt the poor-looking man did not need a dollar. Next, the "poor man" was sent to the same man's gate. He appeared to be just drinking something while he was sitting there in the dark. The man arrived home and asked the man to please move on, which the guy acknowledged with an OK and moved on. The man having difficulties paying his bills then went through his gate and home.
Is it right to test a man, then judge him accordingly? Is it right to tempt a man with deceit, then treat him accordingly? I tell you a truth; a man shall not be judged by deceit, nor measured by arrogance. Yes, there are people everywhere that would judge you: both Christian and not. As it is written: "Judge this rather, that no man lay a rock or stone of offence in the path of his brother."
[h=1]Romans 9:33[/h]As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Imprecise Christian catch-phrase-beliefs like the one you used are one of my personal annoyances. But I can't say they piss me off per say.
Isn't this getting into the whole area of predestination:
* Christ's sacrifice atoned for all sins; and merited the salvation of all...
* Yet, not all avail themselves of salvation - ie. you have a choice about accepting it.
* God knows who will accept salvation and who won't - so, was Christ's sacrifice for all, or just for those who would embrace salvation?
Just because He knows who will and who won't accept His salvation does not mean it is pre-destination. He gave us free will and He isn't going to force us to choose Him.
Oh my goodness. Thank you! I am also so tired of other "Christian" going around judging other religions and other people when the bible specifically tells us not to. (Which is slightly ironic because I guess I am slightly judging these other Christians) I am tired of seeing other people who aren't Christians start to HATE Christians because of the way some try to FORCE our religion upon them. I believe that trying to bring someone to The Lord is what we are meant to do, but in the right ways and at the right times.
Wouldn’t the moment God interfered with anything mankind did or asked for destroy the illusion of free will?
I believe God must be absent in order for us to truly have free will.
Labels are ridiculous because anybody can take them.
This is why I don't call myself a Buddhist even though I take much from Buddha and Zen.
This is why I don't call myself a Taoist even though I see there is truth to the idea of Tao.
This is why I don't call myself a Christian even though I actually love Jesus (it's his dad that I have a few issues with)
I do call myself a chaote but to me this is more of an indicator of not entirely subscribing to anything else as indicated above.
So really what pisses me off is not the false appropriation of labels, it's rather a lack of inner truth.
This is why I don't call myself a Buddhist even though I take much from Buddha and Zen.
This is why I don't call myself a Taoist even though I see there is truth to the idea of Tao.
This is why I don't call myself a Christian even though I actually love Jesus (it's his dad that I have a few issues with)
I do call myself a chaote but to me this is more of an indicator of not entirely subscribing to anything else as indicated above.
So really what pisses me off is not the false appropriation of labels, it's rather a lack of inner truth.
Also I believe that everybody who isn't insane has the ability to know.
Being a hypocritical dbag is not exclusive to Christians. Everybody does this in one way or another.
All with sound mind knows truth. The luminous mind is inherent, you all already have it. The problem with people is they often cannot take a good long look at themselves, because if they do, they will weep at what they find.
Being a hypocritical dbag is not exclusive to Christians. Everybody does this in one way or another.
All with sound mind knows truth. The luminous mind is inherent, you all already have it. The problem with people is they often cannot take a good long look at themselves, because if they do, they will weep at what they find.
Romans:5:18, “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
That's a pretty interesting logic (I'm not sarcastic):
Absence of God=free will
Existence of God=no free will
Perhaps can you explain a bit what you wanted exactly to say? I'm just curious what are your arguments, because I can't see any problem
I think its the other way around, if there's no God, there's no free will. The absence of God would mean total determinism.
Jesus never mentioned the word Christian. Paul whom wrote over half the new testament and was instructed by Satan is a liar and murderer whom attempted to undo everything Jesus worked towards after changing his own name like a coward. Jesus' followers were given specific instructions to not read the old testament, to not pray in public, and to not believe the words of a liar whom claims to have seen Jesus, also known as Paul. Its all there in every Bible. The followers of Jesus are all Atheists. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
Which Holy Book shall we look at next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text
The Hindu's solved this one. In the beginning there was only God therefor everything must have been grafted from God. Your argument would hold true had God never existed. I run into this problem a lot when people think the opposite and antithesis are one in the same.
Absence != UnGod
Absence = not God
Which Holy Book shall we look at next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text
The Hindu's solved this one. In the beginning there was only God therefor everything must have been grafted from God. Your argument would hold true had God never existed. I run into this problem a lot when people think the opposite and antithesis are one in the same.
Absence != UnGod
Absence = not God
Last edited:
Even with God we still have determinism. Determinism is different from predeterminism, and also different from determination.
If no better reason, there's still the fact that the world has a state which presents specific options and consequences, i.e. you were born and have to make choices which are framed only by the options presented to you, and by how you're equipped to reason out your choices.
The only way to prove otherwise would be to go back in time to any point and show that you could have made any other choice besides one already made, given the stipulation that you don't get to carry any knowledge with you. You'd have to go back to the exact same state you were in when you made the choice, no hindsight allowed, and manage to do something different.
I don't understant what you are saying. Could you try explain it again please?
Edit: only my part
