|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject: 121 |
 |
|
Re: The 10 Commandments
Jesus was known to work on the Sabbath.
He also gave us two commandments,
| Luke wrote: |
10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?”
10:27 The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
10:28 Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” |
(Ask me who your neighbour is, there's more.)
A more knowledgeable Christian can now (hopefully) tell you the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil_The_Rodent
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:52 am Post subject: 122 |
|
|
| Courk wrote: |
| Eykir wrote: |
| How was Mary different such that she was the only person in eons to not have the "original sin"? (this is what I have heard) |
I'm going to go back a bit to answer this: Adam and Eve were told not to eat the forbidden fruit, but the snake tricked them and they did. Because of that God kicked them out of Eden. Also, Adam and Eve's offspring would always be born with that original sin hanging over their heads. Now, fast forward to a decade or two before Jesus' time. God knew he wanted Mary to carry His son, but he also wanted his son to be free of sin at birth, so he allowed Mary to be conceived without original sin - the Immaculate Conception. This way, Mary would be born pure, and she could give birth to a sin free Jesus. I hope that answers your question. |
My understanding: and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that Jesus was to be born without Original Sin, not Mary. Mary didn't sin, but because she is a mortal, she was born with Original Sin hanging over her head (that is, her parents would have sinned). Now because Mary didn't sin, and because of the Immaculate Conception, Jesus would be born without Original Sin because Mary did not pass that to him. It may just be the wording here... no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:05 am Post subject: 123 |
|
|
| Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: |
| In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." |
| Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: |
| The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. |
But it seems my reasoning was off. She is the New Eve and thus exempted from Original Sin. Also, "[Jesus] is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor." In other words, He prevented the sin from ever landing on her, rather than forgiving her once it had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:23 am Post subject: 124 |
|
|
| Phil: The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. It's through this Immaculate Conception that Original Sin did not pass unto her. This opened the door (pardon me) for the conception of Jesus. This is an almost purely Catholic belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil_The_Rodent
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:43 am Post subject: 125 |
|
|
| Hunh! I always thought the Immaculate Conception was the Conception of Jesus, given to Mary. Interesting. Thanks for the info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: 126 |
|
|
Phew! A lot of reading for one lunch break. I'm afraid I just glanced over most of it and may have missed some points.
On the "eye of a needle" thing, it is my understanding that this referred to a narrow passageway at the city gates which was very difficult for a fully laden camel to navigate through and normally required removing some of the load beforehand. Also, it appears that Jesus' disciples were for the most part pretty well off. Before you capitalists get too comfy though, they were also asked to give up everything and follow him. Jesus and his disciples did have a bag of money though which was looked after by Judas but this does not seem to have contained any excessive amount. There was an incident where Jesus paid a temple tax by getting Peter to catch a fish which had a coin in its mouth. This means that they either didn't have the money to hand or that the temple was expected to survive on miracles. Either way it does not put the Christian churches' ostentation in a good light. In fact, while I have great respect for the "Christian Message" and for many individual priests and nuns that I know, I have very little respect for the church as an institution.
BTW - the YASS post about Sabbath Vs Sunday was mine. I didn't want to log out and re-log in twice and forgot to sign it. I still feel that this has not been answered satisfactorily though but rather then beat the issue to death, I will recommend this article and let you decide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eykir
DDR Freak
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:42 pm Post subject: 127 |
|
|
| Phil_The_Rodent wrote: |
| Hunh! I always thought the Immaculate Conception was the Conception of Jesus, given to Mary. Interesting. Thanks for the info. |
I'lll second that. Interesting to find out it was different than what I had thought. Thanks!
Last question from me:
In your opinion, is Christianity meant to be a global religion or a personal religion?
Meaning: As a global religion, it would be kind of like the government, influencing national and global policy, setting laws, observances, holidays, etc. As a personal religion, it would be a guide to living your own life, as well as small get-togethers, like churches.
Personally, I feel religion in general should be a personal thing, and not forced onto others, with or without their permission. Church gatherings are fine, because it's a celebration of your faith. On the other hand, churches gathering together to try to coerce the government into passing laws banning abortion or gay marriage would be more global-like and that's what mostly annoys me about organized religious structures.
Does the bible say anything about which it was intended for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:47 pm Post subject: 128 |
|
|
Celt - I've read the article, didn't see how it added anything to your question. Certainly none of the information is wrong, it is just that I don't see the point in claiming the church is in violation of the fourth commandment there is no requirement for Christians to obey the Law.
How is this answer incomplete or unsatisfactory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:19 pm Post subject: 129 |
|
|
| casinopete* wrote: |
Celt - I've read the article, didn't see how it added anything to your question. Certainly none of the information is wrong, it is just that I don't see the point in claiming the church is in violation of the fourth commandment there is no requirement for Christians to obey the Law.
How is this answer incomplete or unsatisfactory? |
I guess the part that confuses me is where you say Christians are not required to obey the commandments. I thought that was one of the central tenets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:42 pm Post subject: 130 |
|
|
From Galatians, Chapter 3:
13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
14: He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
23: Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
24: So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
25: Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
| Celt wrote: |
| I guess the part that confuses me is where you say Christians are not required to obey the commandments. I thought that was one of the central tenets. |
It is a central tenet that Christians are not under the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:57 pm Post subject: 131 |
|
|
Thanks casinopete.
That is certainly very interesting. Of course it opens another can of worms but I must say that I like the implications of your statement. Assuming that is, that I am interpreting them correctly. For example, this would appear to me to say that baptism is no longer required.
I may need to get back to you again for some clarification after I have given the matter further thought.
Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:35 pm Post subject: 132 |
|
|
| The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote: |
| Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism... Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19 ["Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"]) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:45 pm Post subject: 133 |
|
|
I sense the approach of limbo and wonder how flexible the definition of "baptism" is.
One of the problems I have with baptism is that it leads to the conclusion that people of good moral character would be excluded, even though they had no opportunty to receive it.
If "by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit", then doesn't that mean we can be baptised without the water ceremony?
How can a ceremony, performed on an infant who is totally unaware of it, make such a difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:01 am Post subject: 134 |
|
|
"As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God... Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them' [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism."
"In the 16th century, Cardinal Cajetan speculated that unbaptized newborns, fetuses, etc people may benefit from a "vicarious baptism of desire." i.e. even though an actual baptism may not have occurred, it might have been desired by the parents, or the church or by someone else. A "desired baptism" might have the same power as a real sacrament."
What I've always been told is that, since God is forgiving, He won't punish an unbaptized child. God isn't some beuraucracy that needs forms A, B, D and G filled out in triplicate. He understands that a child that is still born or dies very shortly thereafter didn't have the chance to be baptised.
On a related note, a baptism doesn't need to be in a Church with a priest. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "the laity may administer baptism (q. v.) in cases of necessity, and though not of practical importance with regard to adults, this frequently occurs when children are in danger of death." Lay people are believers who are not priests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:58 am Post subject: 135 |
|
|
| Celt wrote: |
| That is certainly very interesting. Of course it opens another can of worms but I must say that I like the implications of your statement. Assuming that is, that I am interpreting them correctly. For example, this would appear to me to say that baptism is no longer required. |
Baptism wasn't part of the Law, so we aren't "out from under it" in the same way as from the commandments. My making a distinction is perhaps unuseful, though, because baptism is not required for salvation anyway.
There's the specific case of the criminal with whom Jesus was crucified, who had no opportunity to be baptized, and yet when he repented, Jesus told him "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:45). Further, there are general statements throughout the NT that faith and faith alone is required for salvation. There is no act by which we are saved, and no act left undone that can inhibit our salvation.
Re: the Catholic Encyclopedia articles
So that's twice I've read the Catholic encylopedia articles, and I must say I find them absolutely terrifying. To support their positions, they pull a single verse from the Bible, without context, declare what the meaning is, then hypocritically claim that anyone who disagrees is clearly "arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:57 pm Post subject: 136 |
|
|
Casino, you said a while ago that the bible most adequately explains things for you? I think it was something like that. If I'm wrong, sorry.
As a person well versed with well... almost everything, including science, what parts of the Bible seem to explain your existence better than say; An impartial God that created the universe or no god at all?
The bible mentions lots of things that just aren't possible, given our current understanding of the laws of Physics. If we were to advance to the stage of saying 'we can fully explain everything in the universe without the need to mention a god or gods' would you just say that 'God works outside the laws of man (or whatever)' and hence still exists?
The problem I'm dealing with here is that I really really respect you. You are wicked smart in lots of areas. I also would assume that you MUST have been born Christian.... but that is not the case is it? You dont seem to believe just because you are scared or need comfort either. Yet still you ended up believing in Christianity of all things. It doesnt sway MY beliefs at all, but I must say that you are the first person that I've ever encounted to... be like that.
I dont really know what I am trying to say, mainly because I find the whole thing really strange, but... wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:58 pm Post subject: 137 |
|
|
Casino, you said a while ago that the bible most adequately explains things for you? I think it was something like that. If I'm wrong, sorry.
As a person well versed with well... almost everything, including science, what parts of the Bible seem to explain your existence better than say; An impartial God that created the universe or no god at all?
The bible mentions lots of things that just aren't possible, given our current understanding of the laws of Physics. If we were to advance to the stage of saying 'we can fully explain everything in the universe without the need to mention a god or gods' would you just say that 'God works outside the laws of man (or whatever)' and hence still exists?
The problem I'm dealing with here is that I really really respect you. You are wicked smart in lots of areas. I also would assume that you MUST have been born Christian.... but that is not the case is it? You dont seem to believe just because you are scared or need comfort either. Yet still you ended up believing in Christianity of all things. It doesnt sway MY beliefs at all, but I must say that you are the first person that I've ever encounted to... be like that.
I dont really know what I am trying to say, mainly because I find the whole thing really strange, but... wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asker
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:45 pm Post subject: 138 |
|
|
| What do you think about the Lynne Truss idea that the punctuation added to the bible might have changed its original meanings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:17 pm Post subject: 139 |
|
|
| I've never heard about that. Can you give an example? Off the top of my head I can't think of any ways something would be drastically changed by, say, removing a comma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:01 am Post subject: 140 |
|
|
Luke 23:43
1)And Jesus said to him Amen I say to you, this day you shall be with me in PARADISE.
2)And Jesus said to him Amen I say to you this day, you shall be with me in PARADISE.
The first interpretation implies that the thief (or whatever) will go straight to heaven and not spend any time in purgatory or wait for the final day of judgement or anything, but go straight to heaven.
The second does not exclude this possibilty. Which is the intention?
And to a lesser extent
1) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.
2)The voice of one crying, In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord.
Has quite a different view of the of the sourece of the voice and the interpretation of the environment into which the word of God will come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: 141 |
|
|
Aarondalf: I mean to answer, but my net access from home has been fritzy, and I tend to post only small things from work.
Asker:
Are you serious? I mean, really? I don't know who or what a Lynne Truss is, but this line of inquiry is quite simply meaningless. The Bible was written originally in Hebrew and Greek. The punctuation in any English versions is part of the translation. Of course if you alter your translation, you will be saying something different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject: 142 |
|
|
Yes, I am serious,
Punctuation is a reltively new invention, it didn't exist in Hebrew, Greek or English texts. Punctuation came about as a product of the printing industry. Early English translation swould not have been puntuated.
I don't think it is meaningless, if it implies that Jesus took the thief straight to Heaven, that is quite different to him having to go through purgatory like everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Digit Ne
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: 143 |
|
|
Does it fall under acceptable Christian morals for a Christian to stop being freinds with a non-Christian on grounds that being with them compromises their Christian morals?
I know that Matter 18:22-23 reads "Then Peter came to him, and said Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? til seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times, but until, seventy times seven."
Would such a situation be considered a sin by the Christian (to compromise their morals due to, i.e., precievedly immoral influence) or by the non-Christian (to cause the compromising of the morals)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:26 am Post subject: 144 |
|
|
| What does Anti-Matter 18:22-23 say though? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am Post subject: 145 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| What does Anti-Matter 18:22-23 say though? |
If I told you, you'd spontaneously combust.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:10 pm Post subject: 146 |
|
|
Aarondalf: Still no access from home.  fnord.
Asker: The interpretation isn't meaningless, the punctuation isn't meaningless - it is the question that is meaningless. Punctuation is part of the translation. If you are altering the punctuation, you are changing the translation. It would be no different to ask, "well, wouldn't it mean something different if I changed this 'Jesus' to a 'Peter'?"
Digit Ne:
| Digit Ne wrote: |
| Does it fall under acceptable Christian morals for a Christian to stop being freinds with a non-Christian on grounds that being with them compromises their Christian morals? |
Yes, but I think it would require quite an extraordinary relationship for "being with them" to defintely compromise one's morals.
Note that you're not asking about forgiveness, as your quote seems to indicate. You can forgive someone but still prefer to not spend time with them if you consider them dangerous.
| Digit Ne wrote: |
| Would such a situation be considered a sin by the Christian (to compromise their morals due to, i.e., precievedly immoral influence) or by the non-Christian (to cause the compromising of the morals)? |
Probably both.  fnord. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:42 pm Post subject: 147 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Asker: The interpretation isn't meaningless, the punctuation isn't meaningless - it is the question that is meaningless. Punctuation is part of the translation. If you are altering the punctuation, you are changing the translation. It would be no different to ask, "well, wouldn't it mean something different if I changed this 'Jesus' to a 'Peter'?" |
This is my point, the punctuation was added long after the translation. Tell me how you would know which of the interpretations of the ' be in paradise' bit is the correct one when translating from an unpuctuatd text. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:57 pm Post subject: 148 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Does it fall under acceptable Christian morals for a Christian to stop being freinds with a non-Christian on grounds that being with them compromises their Christian morals? |
You're allowed to not hang out with someone if they compromise your morals. Then again, you can still hang out with him/her and just say "no" to the non-moral activity (or some other action, such as preventing them from shoplifting - but the specifics depend on the situation).
Off the top of my head I can't think of a situation where merely being friends with someone compromises yoru morals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:57 pm Post subject: 149 |
|
|
| Asker wrote: |
| This is my point, the punctuation was added long after the translation. Tell me how you would know which of the interpretations of the ' be in paradise' bit is the correct one when translating from an unpuctuatd text. |
I can't help but assume you're still misunderstanding me, though I can't imagine how.
I do not have an unpunctuated English translation of the Bible. I don't know that anyone has such a translation, unless as a joke or silly exercise in learning English.
The translation I normally read from is the NIV. It was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek, not from an earlier English translation. Its punctuation is part of the translation. Same goes for any modern translation taken at all seriously - people do not translate from earlier translations.
Since the punctuation is part of the translation, it is valid in precisely the same way as any other part of the translation, i.e. the other words. Hence my last comment that considering the meaning-shift from moving a comma is exactly the same kind of thing as considering a meaning-shift from altering a word.
I cannot see what further question there is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nopleasedon'tstop
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:50 pm Post subject: 150 |
|
|
I assume that Asker is trying to say that since the original Hebrew and Greek is not punctuated, it does not reflect intonation and is therefore prone to being misinterpreted.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about either language to comment.
However, I will say that translations, regardless of punctuation, will never reflect the original meaning 100% so the point is probably moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: 151 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Punctuation is a reltively new invention, it didn't exist in Hebrew, Greek or English texts. |
I am almost positive that you are wrong. Hebrew has, other than the standard punctuation (comma, fullstop, etc), another set of symbols that direct you exactly how to pronounce the words (I'm not talking about vowel sounds, I'm talking about things like when to stop for breath and which syllable to accenuate), so I really doubt the original meaning was altered or lost. This, of course, is relevant only to the old testament.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigitNe
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:28 pm Post subject: 152 |
|
|
| Thanks casinopete and Courk.. objective perspectives are always appreciated in cases like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigitNe
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:45 pm Post subject: 153 |
|
|
Another question I just came up with while reflecting on the situation:
In the long term, would the Christians in here rather have a friend of another religion who tempts them by immoral influence, but generally gets along with them (thereby strengthening moral fiber or whatever while keeping a freind) or cut the freind lose (thereby saving their eternal soul from damnation from hypothetically giving in to the sinful influence)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:57 am Post subject: 154 |
|
|
Digit Ne:
I would rather have a friend than not.
I find it hard to imagine a friend who would tempt me seriously, almost by definition. If they are a friend, they would not try to pressure me into something I have clearly indicated I do not want to do, and if they try to pressure me thusly, I don't think I would call them a friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:57 am Post subject: 155 |
|
|
I'm with cp. If I get along with someone enough to call him a friend, and he tries to tempt me into something I don't want to do - and doesn't let up when I refuse - then I don't think he'd be too good of a friend.
But, I think I have a strong will. If someone had a weak will and always felt the need to fit in, the story might be a bit different. I would advise that hypothetical person to be careful around his or her friend because the chances are high that the hypothetical person would give into temptation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neo
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:24 am Post subject: 156 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think I have a strong will. |
Well, everybody rolls a crit fail once in a while. Of course....it's always on that uber-important save-roll.......
_________________
Ad Astra
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:36 am Post subject: 157 |
|
|
| when I used to play dnd, i would always roll really well. it got to the point where the dm decided to roll for me. still always got favorable rolls. it was awesome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cloudRunner
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:52 am Post subject: 158 |
|
|
Judaism and Islam have similar dietary restrictions. How come Christianity, which came in between the two, doesn't? The Old Testament is the Torah, is it not? Is it possible that people may have changed this aspect of Christianity to suit their desires, since it was quite obviously revealed to them?
Who were/are the Sabians (Sabaeans)?
Does the fact that the current Bible no longer exists in its original form affect the strength of a Christian's belief in his/her text? Wouldn't you agree that when a language is translated that many words and expressions may be idiomatic and untranslatable? How many translations/interpretations exist for the Bible?
How do Orthodox Christians (Catholics, I'm assuming) view other sects of Christianity, such as Unitarians, Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Puritans, and others?
What does the Bible say about Jews and Muslims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:03 am Post subject: 159 |
|
|
| DigitNe wrote: |
| In the long term, would the Christians in here rather have a friend of another religion who tempts them by immoral influence, but generally gets along with them (thereby strengthening moral fiber or whatever while keeping a freind) or cut the freind lose (thereby saving their eternal soul from damnation from hypothetically giving in to the sinful influence)? |
Earlier, I quoted from Luke chapter 10.
The 2nd commandment of Jesus in that passage was "love thy neighbour as thyself". It did not make mention of the religious beliefs of such a neighbour, in fact (and I told you there was more) it goes into the story of the Good Samaritan. IIRC, Samarian beliefs were not the same as the Judaism under which Jesus was raised. And, in this light, the story says that, it doesn't matter what a person believes in, if they are of a strong moral character, you are right to love them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:44 am Post subject: 160 |
|
|
| Puctuation originatyd as printers' marks and did not exist in early texts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
