the bible old testament promoted genocide of cities.
He may have had the whole thing memorized, but that doesn't mean he knows it better than anyone here. Especially considering the way that nutcase liberally interpretted it.
A lot of biblical "scholars" and other out-there preachers interpret the Bible in weird ways which totallly compromises their knowledge and opinions. Here in Phoenix there's this cable acccess televangelist who thinks that Babylon is code for modern New York City and that the JFK assassination was foretold in the New Testament. He may have every book of the Bible memorized, but it doesn't seem to count for much.
Originally posted by queeq
I think PJ's pov about reavhing perfection in this life is not really founded on what the bible says.
* Jesus should not have said Matthew 5:48 if it is not attainable...
Originally posted by queeq
In fact, I think it contradicts PJ.
* where? how?
Originally posted by queeq
But if he think he can attain it: I'd like to see it.
* me? not only me, but all people can attain perfection by faith, love and hope according to the Bible...
Originally posted by Liberator
Why does the bible promote mass murder and murder in general so much?
* it does not... the killings in the Old Testament serve as part of Biblical history, but the laws applicable for today are in the New Testament, not in the Old...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are absolutely correct. That maybe one of the reasons many Buddhists consider Jesus to have been Bodhisattva, and not a Buddha.
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:48
* in Christianity, perfection is attainable… if a person has faith, he may be made perfect through various trials:
"Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials,
For you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
James 1:2-4
* and if a person has love:
"But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection."
Colossians 3:14
* although it is also clear in the Bible that all people commits sin, even the most righteous person on earth commits sin, it does not hinder the attainment of perfection…
"Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins."
I Peter 4:8
* so long as the sin committed was not willfully/deliberately/wickedly done, the sin can be forgiven:
"Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
Romans 4:7-8
* so in Christianity, perfection is attainable… Saint Paul gave a parallel advice about striving to attain perfection:
"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."
Hebrews 6:1
* Noah, Asa, Job, Zechariah, Elizabeth and the 1st-century Christians are well-defined as perfect and blameless in the Bible…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People should do good because they want too, not because of some idea of perfection.
* it goes hand-in-hand… doing good works is part of attaining perfection…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
“Knowing it’s the truth” I think that is just another way of saying it fits them. The reason I say that is people can find a fit for many reasons. They do not all have to be pleasant. Some people have a need to suffer.
* but according to you, suffering is wrong… what are they? masochists? you are even giving the word "fit" a different interpretation… when you say a person is fit for a certain group, it implies convenience… but when a person does not feel convenience in a group, you cannot say it's fit for him… remember your "expedient" argument? Christians suffer afflictions, tribulations and persecutions… the term "fit" is not fitted for staying in Christianity… people are staying in Christianity not because of convenience but because we believe it is the truth… don't accuse Christians of anything else…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you give me the web site for their official doctrine? I looked the subject up on google and posted what I found. I don’t know if what I found was “official” or not, but it went into detail why Catholics do not worship idles. Did you read anything from the site I posted, a few pages back.
http://www.cathcorn.org/foof/1.html and this is how they defend their veneration for their "sacred" images: http://www.cathcorn.org/foof/15.html
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me explain with a story: I have two friends who both love unicorns. One loves all types of unicorns. She lover the ones with wings and horse tails the most. The other friend only likes the unicorns with lion’s tails. The two try to involve me in their friendly dispute about unicorns. I tell them I don’t care. I’m not telling them that I don’t care about them; I’m telling them I don’t care about their unicorn debate. Idolatry is kind of like unicorns to me. Like unicorns, idolatry is made up by humans, and can be whatever we want it to be. So, when you tell me what idolatry is to you, I believe that is how you see it. When a Catholic tells me what idolatry is to them, I believe them. If a Catholic told me about your religion something contrary to what you have told me about your religion, I would not believe them. I know there is blood between Predestines and Catholics, so I don’t generally believe one about the other.
* it's not parallel, there's no analogy between unicorns and idolatry… but you know what, I'll ride on it, no pun intended… you see, there is only one meaning of the literal idolatry, which is the deliberate worship of graven images, statues, etc., and there is only one meaning of unicorn, it is a creature depicted to be a white horse (or resembling a horse) with a single horn in the center of its forehead… (i.e., if we momentarily disregard the Biblical/spiritual meanings of unicorn and idolatry)… application: if you say that you believe a unicorn is a black elephant with no horns, isn't it nice for me to tell you what you believe is wrong? now… if you believe that when you bow down, light a candle for, carry and dance with, pray unto a graven image or statue, you are not practicing idolatry, isn't it nice for me to tell you what you believe is wrong? or is it nice for me to leave you alone? love is concern… if you love all people, you will have concern to tell them what they're doing is wrong…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get used to it.
* I am… I just believe you'll gonna regret that statement when time comes…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But this concept also applies to you.
* no… my message is clear about our differences, and I repeat: we both believe what a catholic person says, but you believe that the catholic person you spoke with was speaking for the entire catholicism, which is wrong… I'm just telling you not to rely on that statement because it's clear-cut gullibility… the teaching of a certain religious group will always depend on its official doctrine…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have already told you that I am not going to answer any questions about Buddhism.
* you should because you're a Buddhist… what you should not answer is about Christianity which you are proving time and time again that you have limited or zilch knowledge upon…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
…and that boils down to which interpretation.
* the Bible needs no interpretation… but a guide…
Originally posted by peejayd
* in Christianity, perfection is attainable¡¦ if a person has faith, he may be made perfect through various trials:
According to Christianity, it is not your perfection that you are attaining. It is the perfection of the Christian god. You are still not perfect.
Originally posted by peejayd
* but according to you, suffering is wrong¡¦
I see, you are confused. A Bodhisattva may suffer to bring people to enlightenment, but he will not cause people to suffer. Do you see the difference? Hurting others is wrong while it maybe a good thing to suffer for others.
Originally posted by peejayd
what are they? masochists? you are even giving the word "fit" a different interpretation¡¦ when you say a person is fit for a certain group, it implies convenience¡¦ but when a person does not feel convenience in a group, you cannot say it's fit for him¡¦ remember your "expedient" argument? Christians suffer afflictions, tribulations and persecutions¡¦ the term "fit" is [b]not fitted for staying in Christianity¡¦ people are staying in Christianity not because of convenience but because we believe it is the truth¡¦ don't accuse Christians of anything else¡¦ [/B]
The word fit in this case has nothing to do with convenience. Fit is like two puzzle pieces coming together. People have a variety of needs. Some of them are positive, and some are negative.
Originally posted by peejayd
* it's not parallel, there's no analogy between unicorns and idolatry¡¦ but you know what, I'll ride on it, no pun intended¡¦ you see, there is only one meaning of the literal idolatry, which is the deliberate worship of graven images, statues, etc., and there is only one meaning of unicorn, it is a creature depicted to be a white horse (or resembling a horse) with a single horn in the center of its forehead¡¦ (i.e., if we momentarily disregard the Biblical/spiritual meanings of unicorn and idolatry)¡¦ application: if you say that you believe a unicorn is a black elephant with no horns, isn't it nice for me to tell you what you believe is wrong? now¡¦ if you believe that when you bow down, light a candle for, carry and dance with, pray unto a graven image or statue, you are not practicing idolatry, isn't it nice for me to tell you what you believe is wrong? or is it nice for me to leave you alone? love is concern¡¦ if you love all people, you will have concern to tell them what they're doing is wrong¡¦
idolatry
n. pl. i¡¤dol¡¤a¡¤tries
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idolatry
There seems to be two meaning.
unicorn
n
1. (Myth & Legend / European Myth & Legend) (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) an imaginary creature usually depicted as a white horse with one long spiralled horn growing from its forehead
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Old Testament a two-horned animal, thought to be either the rhinoceros or the aurochs: (Deuteronomy 33:17): mistranslation in the Authorized Version of the original Hebrew
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unicorn
There seems to also be two meaning to the word unicorn, and strangely enough, one of them seems to have two horns.
Originally posted by peejayd
* I am¡¦ I just believe you'll gonna regret that statement when time comes¡¦
Why? What are you going to do?
Originally posted by peejayd
* no¡¦ my message is clear about our differences, and I repeat: we both believe what a catholic person says, but you believe that the catholic person you spoke with was speaking for the entire catholicism, which is wrong¡¦ I'm just telling you not to rely on that statement because it's clear-cut gullibility¡¦ the teaching of a certain religious group will always depend on its official doctrine¡¦
So, by that way of thinking, I should not trust or believe you as well, or are you telling me that all Catholics lie?
Originally posted by peejayd
* you should because you're a Buddhist¡¦ what you should not answer is about Christianity which you are proving time and time again that you have limited or zilch knowledge upon¡¦
You got all upset when I was answering about Buddhism, and made the point that was the wrong thread for that. I agreed.
Originally posted by peejayd
* the Bible needs no interpretation¡¦ but a guide¡¦
This, to me, is delusion. The reason for that is the bible can say almost anything you want it to say. That is why you can have a group of people, like yourself, who have one view of idolatry, while another group, can have a completely different idea. These two ideas can be completely contradictory, and both backed up by quotes from the bible. This belief that there is no interpretation of the bible reinforces the ego of the person who believes this way. This ego blinds people to how others think, by disallowing any contrary belief.
You have been a great example of this delusion. By insisting that Catholics are not Christian, you have taken it one step further. You have redefined their actions (against their own doctrine) to reaffirm your position.
Your attachment to the Catholic religion still causes you suffering.
Originally posted by peejayd
* Jesus should not have said Matthew 5:48 if it is not attainable...* where? how?
Try these on for size as well as some humility:
Philippians 3:12
1 Cor 13:12
THe perfection you speak of is in the eyes of God already attained through Christ. Through Him Gods sees his children as perfect. However, it is not of their own achievement, nor by any other means of judgment. We are flawed and always will be in this life. That's why mercy is perhaps the most important aspect in the Christian relationship between God and man.
OMG... I've started debating... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Originally posted by queeq
Try these on for size as well as some humility:Philippians 3:12
1 Cor 13:12
THe perfection you speak of is in the eyes of God already attained through Christ. Through Him Gods sees his children as perfect. However, it is not of their own achievement, nor by any other means of judgment. We are flawed and always will be in this life. That's why mercy is perhaps the most important aspect in the Christian relationship between God and man.
OMG... I've started debating... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Wow!, so, I got it right? 😂
Tag! I think I will set back and let you go at him. 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
According to Christianity, it is not your perfection that you are attaining. It is the perfection of the Christian god.
* wrong… in Christianity, God is already perfect… the ones who should attain perfection are God's followers…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are still not perfect.
* I never said I were… I'm just telling you that perfection is attainable in Christianity…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see, you are confused. A Bodhisattva may suffer to bring people to enlightenment, but he will not cause people to suffer. Do you see the difference? Hurting others is wrong while it maybe a good thing to suffer for others.
* then you should not automatically generalize that all sufferings are wrong…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The word fit in this case has nothing to do with convenience.
* oh, believe me, it does… it might be one of the major factors and reasons why you left Christianity for Buddhism… in fact, many people go for Muslim or Mormonism to be fitted in a religion that suits their polygamous lifestyle…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
idolatry
n. pl. i¡¤dol¡¤a¡¤tries
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idolatry
There seems to be two meaning.
* the second definition is relative to the first… idolatry is a blind/excessive devotion of worshipping idols…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
unicorn
n
1. (Myth & Legend / European Myth & Legend) (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) an imaginary creature usually depicted as a white horse with one long spiralled horn growing from its forehead
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Old Testament a two-horned animal, thought to be either the rhinoceros or the aurochs: (Deuteronomy 33:17): mistranslation in the Authorized Version of the original Hebrewhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/unicorn
There seems to also be two meaning to the word unicorn, and strangely enough, one of them seems to have two horns.
* I reiterated to momentarily disregard the Biblical/spiritual meanings… the point was, telling other people what he's doing is wrong constitute love and concern…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why? What are you going to do?
* nothing… I just believe you're gonna regret that when time comes…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, by that way of thinking, I should not trust or believe you as well, or are you telling me that all Catholics lie?
* we're going in circles because you keep repeating what you've said… I never said all catholics lie… if you're going to read my post carefully, I said I really do believe what a catholic say… the difference was, I don't treat it as though he was speaking for the entire catholicism because their religion has an official doctrine… so whether or not a catholic denies practicing idolatry, it all boils down to their official doctrine… in actuality, a catholic believes he is worshipping God through graven images, however their official doctrine tells them to worship graven images perse… I'm not after catholic people, I'm after the catholic doctrine… don't trust me? don't believe me? it's okay… the fact remains that the catholic doctrine of worshipping is entirely different from the ones in the Bible…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You got all upset when I was answering about Buddhism, and made the point that was the wrong thread for that. I agreed.
* I was not upset… I was just pointing out that the Bible Q & A thread became a Buddhism thread when you butted in… it was only because I said that worshipping Buddha is a no-no in Christianity… and you agreed… it was surprising we have been butting heads eversince…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This, to me, is delusion. The reason for that is the bible can say almost anything you want it to say. That is why you can have a group of people, like yourself, who have one view of idolatry, while another group, can have a completely different idea. These two ideas can be completely contradictory, and both backed up by quotes from the bible.
* I don't believe that there is another different literal meaning of "idolatry" in the Bible except for worshipping graven images and such like… and I also don't believe that whatever bizarre meaning other people see on idolatry is backed up by Bible quotes… if so, you are free to lay it all out here…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This belief that there is no interpretation of the bible reinforces the ego of the person who believes this way. This ego blinds people to how others think, by disallowing any contrary belief.
* no, you're wrong… what you're saying is preposterous… it's the other way around… because it is the interpretation of a certain preacher which blinds people to believe that there's no contrary belief… but when you believe that the Bible can speak for itself, it reinforces people to reject self-interpretations, thus eliminating false doctrines and absorbing the pure, unadulterated word of God from the Bible by just reading, searching and researching… and not by interpreting it for their own benefit…
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have been a great example of this delusion. By insisting that Catholics are not Christian, you have taken it one step further. You have redefined their actions (against their own doctrine) to reaffirm your position.Your attachment to the Catholic religion still causes you suffering.
* I have already clarified that point way back… I agreed catholics are Christians in our society… I only disagree that catholics are Christians according to the Bible not because of the people, but because of the catholic doctrine…
Originally posted by queeq
Try these on for size as well as some humility:Philippians 3:12
1 Cor 13:12
* I'm sorry, do you find me arrogant? 😮 oh, well… if you will read further, in Philippians 3:15, Saint Paul considered themselves as "perfect" and teaches the Philippians to have the kind of thinking that a Christian should always strive to be perfect spiritually…
Originally posted by queeq
THe perfection you speak of is in the eyes of God already attained through Christ. Through Him Gods sees his children as perfect. However, it is not of their own achievement, nor by any other means of judgment. We are flawed and always will be in this life. That's why mercy is perhaps the most important aspect in the Christian relationship between God and man.
* I agree with the most… but I like to point out that eventhough we are flawed, perfection can still be attained… all people sinneth… but when people repent - God forgives - sins are covered - perfection is attained, most on God's part… a person cannot just claim he is perfect, that's the reason why Saint Paul wrote the passage on Philippians 3:12, but yes, through God's eyes, Saint Paul revealed they are perfect… in Ecclesiastes 7:20, eventhough all people sinneth, if a person is righteous, he is still righteous in God's eyes… that's why love is a huge factor in attaining perfection because love is the bond of perfection, and love covers multitude of sins…
Originally posted by queeq
OMG... I've started debating... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
* it's not a bad thing, really… 😂
Originally posted by peejayd
* wrong… in Christianity, God is already perfect… the ones who should attain perfection are God's followers…
If they could attain their own perfection, then they would not need god.
Originally posted by peejayd
* I never said I were… I'm just telling you that perfection is attainable in Christianity…
…and that is not your perfection, according to Christianity.
Originally posted by peejayd
* then you should not automatically generalize that all sufferings are wrong…
I never generalized anything. We were talking about causing people to suffer, and under those circumstances all suffering is wrong.
Originally posted by peejayd
* oh, believe me, it does… it might be one of the major factors and reasons why you left Christianity for Buddhism… in fact, many people go for Muslim or Mormonism to be fitted in a religion that suits their polygamous lifestyle…
You have no idea why I left Christianity, or how long ago it was. You don’t know if I was some other religion or belief in the time between. So, please don’t tell me why I did something, until you know.
Believing that some other church has the “truth” is another way of saying it fits me better. You have put value in the “truth”, and will not stay in a church that does not have that. Here is the kicker; you might think this “truth” is universal, but it is not. Therefore, you found a church that FIT your definition of “truth”, and left the one that didn’t. Someone else, may have done the opposite. Both find their own match.
Originally posted by peejayd
* the second definition is relative to the first… idolatry is a blind/excessive devotion of worshipping idols…
… or worshipping a book.
Originally posted by peejayd
* I reiterated to momentarily disregard the Biblical/spiritual meanings… the point was, telling other people what he's doing is wrong constitute love and concern…
I was only showing that life is far more complicated then you are portraying.
Originally posted by peejayd
* we're going in circles because you keep repeating what you've said… I never said all catholics lie… if you're going to read my post carefully, I said I really do believe what a catholic say… the difference was, I don't treat it as though he was speaking for the entire catholicism because their religion has an official doctrine… so whether or not a catholic denies practicing idolatry, it all boils down to their official doctrine… in actuality, a catholic believes he is worshipping God through graven images, however their official doctrine tells them to worship graven images perse… I'm not after catholic people, I'm after the catholic doctrine… don't trust me? don't believe me? it's okay… the fact remains that the catholic doctrine of worshipping is entirely different from the ones in the Bible…
The website you posted, makes it clear that Catholics are not worshipping idols. Yet, you still believe they do. I think what you are trying to say is: do not believe what the Catholics say is their official doctrine, if it disagrees with your belief.
Originally posted by peejayd
* I don't believe that there is another different literal meaning of "idolatry" in the Bible except for worshipping graven images and such like… and I also don't believe that whatever bizarre meaning other people see on idolatry is backed up by Bible quotes… if so, you are free to lay it all out here…
You may believe whatever you wish. I know there are religions in the world that do not practice idolatry, like Buddhism, for example. However, you insist that lighting a candle to a statue of Buddha is idolatry. It is not. Even though, some Buddhist may believe that Buddha is divine, their practice is not the worship of a god. This is a simple misunderstanding that you propagate. You do the same thing with Catholics, which I find disturbing, because they are your brother.
Originally posted by peejayd
* no, you're wrong… what you're saying is preposterous… it's the other way around… because it is the interpretation of a certain preacher which blinds people to believe that there's no contrary belief… but when you believe that the Bible can speak for itself, it reinforces people to reject self-interpretations, thus eliminating false doctrines and absorbing the pure, unadulterated word of God from the Bible by just reading, searching and researching… and not by interpreting it for their own benefit…
That is illogical. By reading, searching and researching, you are actively interpreting the bible. But wait, I am making an assumption. If you read the bible, void of understanding, then you can read the bible, and not be interpreting the bible. But how could you then know anything about what you just read with no understanding?
Originally posted by peejayd
* I have already clarified that point way back… I agreed catholics are Christians in our society… I only disagree that catholics are Christians according to the Bible not because of the people, but because of the catholic doctrine…
I’m sorry to be picky but, don’t you mean that Catholics are not Christian according to your religions belief about the bible? To say more would be speaking for those who you do not know.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He may have had the whole thing memorized, but that doesn't mean he knows it better than anyone here. Especially considering the way that nutcase liberally interpretted it.A lot of biblical "scholars" and other out-there preachers interpret the Bible in weird ways which totallly compromises their knowledge and opinions. Here in Phoenix there's this cable acccess televangelist who thinks that Babylon is code for modern New York City and that the JFK assassination was foretold in the New Testament. He may have every book of the Bible memorized, but it doesn't seem to count for much.
hyperbole aside, there are many more credible people than Koresh who have interpreted Christ as a warrior more than a pascifist.
The Marxist influenced Liberation Theology had many proponents who saw violence against the unjust treatment of the poor as completely justified.
Originally posted by inimalist
hyperbole aside, there are many more credible people than Koresh who have interpreted Christ as a warrior more than a pascifist.The Marxist influenced Liberation Theology had many proponents who saw violence against the unjust treatment of the poor as completely justified.
Yes. It isn't what you read or what you hear, only how loudly it speaks to you after you've interpreted it to mean you should rape children and keep the only television in your own room.
Or, was that actually in the bible?
Originally posted by skekUng
Yes. It isn't what you read or what you hear, only how loudly it speaks to you after you've interpreted it to mean you should rape children and keep the only television in your own room.Or, was that actually in the bible?
while that is true, my point was that even Jesus can, legitimately, be interpreted as condoning just violence. Depending on what kind of "murder and genocide" (the terms used initially in the post I was responding to), the bible can in fact be used to justify or encourage such things (maybe not genocide).
The point on relativity is interesting, but there are certainly interpretations that even a layman can tell are much more in line with scripture than others. Maybe I can't say for sure what the text says on whether Jesus is the son or part of God, but it doesn't take knowledge of Aramaic to know that Rev Sun Yung Moon is not Christ reborn.
Originally posted by inimalist
while that is true, my point was that even Jesus can, legitimately, be interpreted as condoning just violence. Depending on what kind of "murder and genocide" (the terms used initially in the post I was responding to), the bible can in fact be used to justify or encourage such things (maybe not genocide).The point on relativity is interesting, but there are certainly interpretations that even a layman can tell are much more in line with scripture than others. Maybe I can't say for sure what the text says on whether Jesus is the son or part of God, but it doesn't take knowledge of Aramaic to know that Rev Sun Yung Moon is not Christ reborn.
Oh, I got all of that from your post. I certainly know there are examples that can't be misinterpreted. It's all there in black and white. But I was addressing the grey, though blatant, examples. I don't know that I would use 'legitimate' as descriptive, when so many of his statements can't really be reconciled with those that can be deciphered in the manner you're addressing. In the end, though, it's all second hand and subjective upon the intention of the author of the gospel, who wants to get across his own perspective. Be that gospel 2000 or 2 years old.
The idiot who said "no word of god comes from private interpretation" means it can only be understood by priests or popes doesn't know what he's talking about. The greek says "no word of god comes from the private thoughts of men." which means, no prophesy originates in the mind of men, unless it's put there by god. You papists know nothing of the bible.