... why "christians" are NOT Christians ATB...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh I beleive it DOES... ✅

In the Old Testament, shaving your beard, wearing polyester, having homosexual sex, and eating shrimp are grave sins punishable by death.

However, many Christians will argue "That no longer applies, because the Lord Christ has saved us from such things".....

If that is the case, then why include it ? The Old Testament must be irrelevant then if you are no longer Obliged to its Laws.

If the Old Testament, IS RELEVANT, then I take it that you, like ALL Christians, will nit pick...choose and ignore what quotes are most convienent and compatible with your own personal virtues...

[b]Ah,...the Hypocrisy is Legendary ! [/B]

* nope, this is not hypocrisy, my friend...

* this is what i've been trying to say all along... there are people and/or groups that claims they are Christians but does not do things like a Christian...

* for example: if you ask that question [shaving your beard, wearing polyester, having homosexual sex, and eating shrimp] to a "christian", he might really say, "That no longer applies, because the Lord Christ has saved us from such things", just like you said... yes! it's true... but ask them: "Where in the Bible is your basis of the law of giving tithes [10% collection]?" then, they will give you this verse:

"Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
Malachi 3:10

* how come when salvation is tackled, they insists the law of Christ... but how come when there is MONEY involved, they go back to the Old Testament where they can gain profit? 😕

* if the salvation is based on the teachings of Christ, then the church collection SHOULD also be based on the New Testament:

"Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
II Corinthians 9:7

* the church collection is according to what the person had purposed in his heart... and NOT a mandatory 10% or tithes... 😉

* so why include the Old Testament? it's part of Biblical history, my friend... so people reading the Bible will understand why Christ was crucified, what are those laws in the Old that Christ had amended or perfected... there are others laws in the Old that still stands in the New but most of them are amended and perfected by Christ in the New Testament... 😉

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Then that is purely doctrinal. It comes down to interpretation what exactly Christ is teaching - if the Bible is Christ's textbook, and Christian's follow it, which is part of what being a Christian is, then they can say "We are true Christian's"

But there are differences in what people thought Jesus was saying, what weight they put on the OT part of things, and so on.

* correct, so to avoid mistakes, we should just read and understand the word of God... and NOT interpret it the way that we might gain profit or the way we want it to be... 🙂

Originally posted by peejayd
* correct, so to avoid mistakes, we should just read and understand the word of God... and NOT interpret it the way that we might gain profit or the way we want it to be... 🙂

But it is very hard for people not to interpret something, especially when firstly there is so much symbolism, secondly when there is a whole other part of the bible that doesn't always blend in with what the Jesus part is saying and when thirdly there is no clarifying source out there - the author doesn't seem interested in giving interviews or publishing journal articles to clarify.

Just yesterday in one of my uni course tutorials (Egyptian Religion, quite enjoyable) we had a debate - is the Pharaoh a god, or isn't he? The debate was drawn from two texts (dedicatory inscriptions to Ramesses II) I was on the affirmative side. Now, just taking the text at face value made it easy to say "Yes, he is a god, because it says so" - our side didn't really have to interpret, just say pretty much what the text was saying.

However the negative side had to interpret and not work so symbolically -and an entirely different perspective came about. And both are justified, and in fact it is a raging debate in the historical community since both are so justified and so evenly presented. Which is correct though?

To say "just read it and don't interpreter" is a hard thing to do, because it might very well mean one is missing important messages.

* yes, it's really hard NOT to interpret, but let's face it, if no one interprets the Bible in the first place, do we still have a problem? i think not... hard as it may seem, my friend, the safest way is NOT to interpret something we don't understand because every person most of time have different pre-conceived ideas and conclusions that varies... do you agree? 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, it's really hard NOT to interpret, but let's face it, if no one interprets the Bible in the first place, do we still have a problem? i think not... hard as it may seem, my friend, the safest way is NOT to interpret something we don't understand because every person most of time have different pre-conceived ideas and conclusions that varies... do you agree? 😉

Yes, but that is the inherent problem - we do not know exactly what was going through Jesus's head. The Bible we have today is the product of many busy hands - and it is also hard for a person to write without putting themselves in their works.

Luke, Mark, Mathew and so on - give a different perspective. Subtle in some cases, more profound in others. It is not like the bible is just the minute of a meeting - it is a narrative, with intents and morals and biases weaved throughout - like any work. And with so much symbolism it is not easy to just take it at face value. If there was more simple phrases like "Thou shall not steal" then it would be as easy as you say. But when so much of the Jesus part is telling about Jesus doing things, and expecting people to infer the moral of the story out of the tale it gets harder.

There is not a single Church on the face of the planet that's doctrine is not based upon Biblical interpretation. There are just a lot that claim "We aren't interpreting, we are just doing exactly what it says to do" - but that is never the case. And as you have said - people think differently. You read the Bible, you assimilate the words, you subconsciously interpret what they mean. It is often not intentional - it is how we understand things. Another person read it, because of there understanding, there context, age, gender, vocab, they will see something different. They are choosing to see it different, it is just the way it is.

Views are, for most part, relative things.

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, this is not hypocrisy, my friend...

* this is what i've been trying to say all along... there are people and/or groups that claims they are Christians but does not do things like a Christian...

* for example: if you ask that question [shaving your beard, wearing polyester, having homosexual sex, and eating shrimp] to a "christian", he might really say, "That no longer applies, because the Lord Christ has saved us from such things", just like you said... yes! it's true... but ask them: "Where in the Bible is your basis of the law of giving tithes [10% collection]?" then, they will give you this verse:

"Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
Malachi 3:10

* how come when salvation is tackled, they insists the law of Christ... but how come when there is MONEY involved, they go back to the Old Testament where they can gain profit? 😕

* if the salvation is based on the teachings of Christ, then the church collection SHOULD also be based on the New Testament:

"Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
II Corinthians 9:7

* the church collection is according to what the person had purposed in his heart... and NOT a mandatory 10% or tithes... 😉

* so why include the Old Testament? it's part of Biblical history, my friend... so people reading the Bible will understand why Christ was crucified, what are those laws in the Old that Christ had amended or perfected... there are others laws in the Old that still stands in the New but most of them are amended and perfected by Christ in the New Testament... 😉

* correct, so to avoid mistakes, we should just read and understand the word of God... and NOT interpret it the way that we might gain profit or the way we want it to be... 🙂

I understand the need for respect of the Old Testament, as if it a huge part of the Bible's history, however, in terms of judgement and in terms of defining what is "right and wrong", Christians in general will turn towards the Old Testament in terms of defining what you can and cannot do, and to do so is laughable if the Old Testament no longer applies.

* that's the point... but i still disagree with the fact that the persons you're refering to are the True Christians stated in the Bible... 😉