Real Christians

[BS Filter]

Jesus said Jews are children of the devil. John 8:44.

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

 

[BulletProof]

Jesus said Jews are children of the devil. John 8:44.

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

You're the liar. And, good riddance, shithead.

 

[BulletProof]

You keep repeating the same lie. There are many Jews that believe and follow Jesus.

Shithead, the liar is you. There are no Jews who believe in Jesus because by definition Jews do not believe in Jesus. Just because some shithead calls himself a Jew who believes in Jesus, doesn't make it so. You really are stupid.

Shithead, define "Jew". .

By definition? Whose definition? Show me.

You stupid shithead, the definition of every Jew on the planet and on every Jewish website on the internet that defines "Jew", and of the laws of the state of Israel, is that Jews deny Jesus is the Christ. I asked you for your definition. Because you're a complete shithead, I'm not in the least surprised you didn't give your definition. You have idea of what you speak of, and you don't care. Therefor I call you a shithead.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oooh look, a Communist is going to preach about "real Christians."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus said Jews are children of the devil. John 8:44.

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

You're the liar. And, good riddance, shithead.

{“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” }

I see nothing about DA JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ in there Adolf.

Jesus was speaking to ALL humans.

 

[BS Filter]

Jesus said Jews are children of the devil. John 8:44.

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

You're the liar. And, good riddance, shithead.

{“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” }

I see nothing about DA JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ in there Adolf.

Jesus was speaking to ALL humans.

Read the verses leading up to that verse. Jesus was speaking to the ones who were trying to kill him. He says it clearly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

You're the liar. And, good riddance, shithead.

{“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” }

I see nothing about DA JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ in there Adolf.

Jesus was speaking to ALL humans.

Read the verses leading up to that verse. Jesus was speaking to the ones who were trying to kill him. He says it clearly.

Which includes the Romans.

 

[Votto]

While I am not a religious person, I am glad to see Christians who live a faith that resembles Christianity at its best and that respects life and the earth.

"My Personal ‘Faith Priorities’ for this Election" by Jim Wallis

"In 2004, several conservative Catholic bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of "non-negotiables," which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word "poverty," only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of "non-negotiables." The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.

I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of "faith priorities" that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of "faith" or "moral" priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.

After the last election, I wrote a book titled God’s Politics. I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn’t the point. I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying. I was also saying that "God’s Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be "values voters" but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call "the common good," and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith."

The rest here:

God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

IF the church is right, abortion is murder, then the Dims make voting pretty mindless.

How can I vote for those who promote genocide even if they are helping the poor? Case in point is Nazi Germany. Hitler was fearful of an uprising by the people that the Germans experienced during WW1 due to economic hardship, so he imposed a socialist regime that saw to it that the average German citizen had a higher standard of living than even those in the US. Sure, Hitler helped the poor as well, fancy that.

And yes, having a baby is an economic hardship, but no, it is not an excuse to kill your baby. The love of money is really the root of all evil.


The entire DNC platform is built on abortion. Utter lunacy.

I also take issue with those who say that conservatives don't care about the poor. When it comes to giving their own time and money to the poor, conservatives far out give their money and time to the poor than socialists who wish to vote for people to force them to give them the money to hopefully redistribute to those in need.

Disgusting.

 

[Votto]

The only people in the US that even come close to living as a 'Christian' are the Amish.

Every other religion has churches that look like Palaces built for Saddam Hussein, in cities and towns where the homeless go hungry every night. They aren't Christians.

The Amish came out in record number to vote Trump.

 

[BS Filter]

While I am not a religious person, I am glad to see Christians who live a faith that resembles Christianity at its best and that respects life and the earth.

"My Personal ‘Faith Priorities’ for this Election" by Jim Wallis

"In 2004, several conservative Catholic bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of "non-negotiables," which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word "poverty," only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of "non-negotiables." The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.

I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of "faith priorities" that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of "faith" or "moral" priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.

After the last election, I wrote a book titled God’s Politics. I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn’t the point. I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying. I was also saying that "God’s Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be "values voters" but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call "the common good," and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith."

The rest here:

God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

IF the church is right, abortion is murder, then the Dims make voting pretty mindless.

How can I vote for those who promote genocide even if they are helping the poor? Case in point is Nazi Germany. Hitler was fearful of an uprising by the people that the Germans experienced during WW1 due to economic hardship, so he imposed a socialist regime that saw to it that the average German citizen had a higher standard of living than even those in the US. Sure, Hitler helped the poor as well, fancy that.

And yes, having a baby is an economic hardship, but no, it is not an excuse to kill your baby. The love of money is really the root of all evil.


The entire DNC platform is built on abortion. Utter lunacy.

I also take issue with those who say that conservatives don't care about the poor. When it comes to giving their own time and money to the poor, conservatives far out give their money and time to the poor than socialists who wish to vote for people to force them to give them the money to hopefully redistribute to those in need.

Disgusting.

The democrats believe that because conservatives support less government and lower taxes that we don't help the poor. They're ignorant of the fact that we give to charities and our church to help the poor. Government is the most inefficient way to "help" people.

 

[Meriweather]

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

What don't you understand? Jews deny Jesus is the Christ, therefor Jews are Antichrist. Indeed, Jesus called Jews children of the devil. What do you call Jews?

Jews don't just deny Christ, they are the most organized body in the world today to oppose Christianity. Jewish judges across the nation take every opportunity to ban Christian freedom from the bench. The state of Israel bans Christian immigration and bans Christian proselytizing. And, heavily discriminates against Christians, such as in school funding. Jews in America file lawsuit after lawsuit against public schools when the schools aren't sufficiently hostile to Christianity. Jews who control Hollywood seek to undermine Christian faith and values consistently through all that Hollywood produces. What do you call Jews?

Jews want to turn all gentiles into Atheists. Go on prove you're a reprobate and call me Antisemitic for not whitewashing the opponents of Christianity.

First, I'm not going to call you a thing. Second, I can't change your thinking about me, and I won't even try. However, start broadcasting thinking about me instead of staying on topic, and it ends the discussion.

Let's begin with the perspective 1 John starts with. People who used to be members of the Christian community, became Gnostic. They said they had hidden, secret knowledge that was hidden from others. They denied Christ was one with God. This is central to Christian belief--and Christians who deny this not only lose their relationship with Jesus, but also with the Father. There have also been antichrists who attempt to establish themselves in place of God (Nero being the one described in Revelation). It is vital to keep in mind, John wasn't even speaking of Jews, but of former Christians.

Jews will never attempt to establish themselves in place of God. It is against everything for which they stand. You say they deny Christ. I say they do no even know Christ, and the greater percentage of what blocks them from Christ is Christian history. The other part that blocks them from Jesus is that they cannot comprehend a man being any part of God--or God becoming man. God simply isn't human, and God cannot be contained in human form. From the beginning of time it has been drummed into them that God is unlike man, and even more so, NO man is God. Not even Nero.

Also keep in mind what Jesus said: He did not come for the righteous, but for sinners. As a sinner--and as a Gentile--I belong in Christianity. Christ came for me, and we found each other. He did not come for the righteous, and he did not come to condemn.

I doubt that either the Father or the Son would look favorably on Christians calling the righteous antichrists. These Jews were never Christians. They do not have what we have. On the other hand, nor do we have what is rightfully theirs--and that is their own Covenant with the Father--whom many have diligently tried to keep throughout time. It is not our place to call them from that Covenant, that right belongs to Christ--and rightfully so. Look at the huge mess we Christians have made in trying to do that ourselves.

 

[BulletProof]

Let's begin with the perspective 1 John starts with. People who used to be members of the Christian community, became Gnostic. They said they had hidden, secret knowledge that was hidden from others. They denied Christ was one with God. This is central to Christian belief--and Christians who deny this not only lose their relationship with Jesus, but also with the Father. There have also been antichrists who attempt to establish themselves in place of God (Nero being the one described in Revelation). It is vital to keep in mind, John wasn't even speaking of Jews, but of former Christians.

John may have had ex-Christians in mind when he discusses Antichrist. But, in definition, he doesn't refer specifically to those ex-Christians. Rather. Rather, John puts for a simple principle: Whosoever denies the son is Antichrist. Trying to establishing oneself as God is not a given part of John's definition of Antichrist.

Also keep in mind what Jesus said: He did not come for the righteous, but for sinners. As a sinner--and as a Gentile--I belong in Christianity. Christ came for me, and we found each other. He did not come for the righteous, and he did not come to condemn.

Jesus didn't come the first time to condemn anyone to eternal punishment. But, a frequent topic for Jesus was condemning the Jews. Even Christ's parables usually contained condemnation of the Jews.

 

[BulletProof]

Read the verses leading up to that verse. Jesus was speaking to the ones who were trying to kill him. He says it clearly.

You lying shithead, Jesus called the Jews children because they rejected him. He says it clearly. "If God were your father, you would love me..."

Jesus also said, "your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer..." Dumbshit, they wanted to kill him because they are children of the devil. But, they are children of the devil because they reject him.

Listen up shithead, even if Jesus called just one Jew a child of Satan, that contradicts the zionist shitheads who say Jews as God's chosen people. But, you're a dumbshit with no ability to use logic.

 

[BulletProof]

Jesus said Jews are children of the devil. John 8:44.

Oh my. Show me the Scripture where Jesus said Jews are children of the devil.

Learn to read, f-ing retard.

You're a lying troll. Bye.

You're the liar. And, good riddance, shithead.

{“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” }

I see nothing about DA JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ in there Adolf.

Jesus was speaking to ALL humans.

Don't be such a lazy dumbshit, read the context. "Ye..." Ye who? Not "Ye all humans", but "Ye Jews."

"Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham... Ye are of your father the devil... Then answered the Jews..."

 

[BulletProof]

Read the verses leading up to that verse. Jesus was speaking to the ones who were trying to kill him. He says it clearly.

Which includes the Romans.

Pontius Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus. I guess you shitheads can't read.

 

[featherlite]

This thread is similar to sitting in on a KKK meeting and listening to who the good blacks are.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[IsaacNewton]

The only people in the US that even come close to living as a 'Christian' are the Amish.

Every other religion has churches that look like Palaces built for Saddam Hussein, in cities and towns where the homeless go hungry every night. They aren't Christians.

The Amish came out in record number to vote Trump.

Aww, just when I thought there was at least one group that called themselves Christians that maybe actually were. You've pointed out they aren't either. Sad.

You can't vote for one of the most immoral humans alive and then claim to be Christian. What good then is being a Christian if your morals flutter in the wind and face any which way based on which way the wind blows.

But good lord people love to call themselves Christians, it makes them feel all gooey inside, even if their lives are lived in direct opposition to who Christ was. These are the Kristians of America. They don't know the Christ of the bible. They've made up a false Christ who loves the rich and spits on the poor. Who bears false witness against those they don't like but ignores all the immorality of their brethren.

A false idol.

 

[Meriweather]

John may have had ex-Christians in mind when he discusses Antichrist. But, in definition, he doesn't refer specifically to those ex-Christians. Rather. Rather, John puts for a simple principle: Whosoever denies the son is Antichrist. Trying to establishing oneself as God is not a given part of John's definition of Antichrist.

In this letter, John is clearly speaking of former Christians--and not only that he is writing to Christians, not Jews. Keep in mind he was referencing Gnostics who were coming into Christian communities and preaching their own version of Christ and who he was.

Jesus didn't come the first time to condemn anyone to eternal punishment. But, a frequent topic for Jesus was condemning the Jews. Even Christ's parables usually contained condemnation of the Jews.

Jesus never condemned Jews as a nation or as a people. Notice who he railed against. It was not the Jews who followed him. It was not the crowds (Jews) who came out to listen to him. It was not the Jews he healed and cured. Rather, comparatively speaking it was a very small number who were the politicians of their day, the ones who were in cahoots with the Romans--namely Annas and Caiaphas and their cohorts. This would be like Jesus standing on the steps of the Capitol and speaking his piece about Democratic (or Republican) congressmen in regards to specific bills or legislation--and then years later people claiming Jesus condemned all Democrats (or Republicans) who were actually in agreement with him about this issue.

Annas and Caiaphas then (and even today) are not people Jews regard with any esteem. They were the ones who placed heavy burdens on the people while not shouldering burdens themselves. In fact, I am willing to bet that any Jew today who has studied Annas and Caiaphas and their times would want the courage Jesus showed in standing up to them. They still might not agree with every word Jesus said, but they would have an entirely different picture of him. This was a lowly Jew courageously standing up to the rich and powerful, even knowing doing so was going to get him killed.

Let's also keep in mind two powerful parables: The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

 

[daisiesRwild]

While I am not a religious person, I am glad to see Christians who live a faith that resembles Christianity at its best and that respects life and the earth.

"My Personal ‘Faith Priorities’ for this Election" by Jim Wallis

"In 2004, several conservative Catholic bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of "non-negotiables," which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word "poverty," only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of "non-negotiables." The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.

I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of "faith priorities" that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of "faith" or "moral" priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.

After the last election, I wrote a book titled God’s Politics. I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn’t the point. I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying. I was also saying that "God’s Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be "values voters" but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call "the common good," and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith."

The rest here:

God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

what exactly is a REAL CHRISTIAN pray tell?

 

[BulletProof]

In this letter, John is clearly speaking of former Christians--and not only that he is writing to Christians, not Jews. Keep in mind he was referencing Gnostics who were coming into Christian communities and preaching their own version of Christ and who he was.

You're being dishonest. John gave the definition of Antichrist and didn't restrict at all to ex-Christians, but included all, "whosoever", even if ex-Christians are the reason he brought it up.

Jesus never condemned Jews as a nation or as a people. Notice who he railed against. It was not the Jews who followed him. It was not the crowds (Jews) who came out to listen to him. It was not the Jews he healed and cured.

You're still being dishonest. Jesus railed against all the Jews, the whole body of Jews, who rejected him. Rejecting Jesus is part of the modern definition of Jew. You're just a liar, even if you believe your own lies.

Rather, comparatively speaking it was a very small number who were the politicians of their day, the ones who were in cahoots with the Romans

Liar, liar, shithead liar. The Romans weren't any cahoots with any Jews, shithead. Rome didn't care and Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus. Rather, the Jews tried to coerce the Romans to do their bidding.

Liar, liar, it wasn't the Jewish leaders that Jesus riled against, it was all Jews who refused to accept him. Jesus practically never singled out the jewish leaders, you shithead liar

Liar, liar, it wasn't a small number of Jews who had rejected Jesus. At Pentecost, there were only 120 believers out of roughly a million Jews in Jerusalem. A small minority of Jews wouldn't have had the ability to intimidate Pilate into killing Jesus.

Let's also keep in mind two powerful parables: The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

You read and refuse to understand. Jesus chose a Samaritan to be hero, not a Jew, and not by coincidence. And, in the parable, liar, Jesus defined the Jews in the parable as NOT our neighbor, making the command to "love our neighbor" not apply to them.

In the parable of prodigal son, the prodigal son represents the gentiles. The other son represents the ex-Jews who accepted Christ, or all the Jews, even though the parable doesn't go as far as specifically referring to God throwing into Hell [unbelieving] Jews, as many of Jesus' parables go. I.e. where does the anger of the non-prodigal son lead? The answer is the next couple of parables.