Southern Baptist Leaders Call For Integrated Churches!

[RetiredGySgt]

I should think that if anyone of any race walked into any church that they would not be rejected.
People of all color (crackers included) tend to congregate among themselves for a variety of reasons, worship included.

Thannks for your input but the op focus of the op is not about someone of a different race walking into a church and being accepted as a casual observer and worshipper. I'm talking about active social and cultural intermingling in every phase of church operations. This unprecedented gesture suggests far more than a mere cursory offer, it is a gesture that may shake the very foundations of neo-Conservatism if realized!

The Mormon church has no problem with blacks or whites leading as Bishops or other wise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the only imaginary god is in islam. And the Jews don't think Jesus is God. Either do muslims; they are both the same only in that both are WRONG.

Jesus is NOT God. He repeatedly says that in John. There is no trinity.

 

[ninja007]

the only imaginary god is in islam. And the Jews don't think Jesus is God. Either do muslims; they are both the same only in that both are WRONG.

Jesus is NOT God. He repeatedly says that in John. There is no trinity.

He says he is not God,eh? Where...verse please.

 

[ninja007]

Did Jesus Identify Himself as God

 

[Steinlight]

Talk about a total butchering of scripture. That passage does not mean don't judge people, or don't speak of sin when you see it. In this passage, Christ implies we be merciful towards sinners and help them repent and find the truth. By your logic, you should just let individuals live in sin, we shouldn't evangelize. help them find Christ, by first pointing out their sin and then correcting it, is not loving or merciful. It is not merciful or loving to do nothing and stand by as others risk their eternal soul.

If taken literally, the passage conveys my message precisely. I used it to make an analogy between your casting of verbal stones and the stones being readied for casting at the adulteress in the mentioned scripture.

Christ may have implied what you said but I believe His words were clear and need no further interpretation in the context of defining our forgoing exchange.

Your frustration is becoming a distraction as indicated by your willingness to posit a baseless
ad-hominem instead of a solid argument:

Where did I write or post anything close to giving you license to say my logic supports doing nothing to reach out to sinners? As a Christian, I subscribe to the doctrine that Christ has called on us to be fishermen of men. You are way of base with your faulty analysis of my logic. It is yours that falters in the face of my preceding testaments .

You arent taking the passage "literally", nor are you addressing the context. You are just perverting one passage to fit your libetal relativistic world view.The issue in John 8 was that an adulterer a woman was caught in the sinful act. According to the Law of Moses she was to be stoned. The men who were to stone her leave after jesus spoke in 8:7. Jesus tells her to go forth and sin no more. Jesus in John 8 calls her a sinner, and tells her to sin no more. He then goes onto day those who follow him will have eternal life. So when you abandon the catholic church he built and established with peter you are putting your eternal life at risk. So this idea we cant identify and try to correct sin when we see it or we are throwing stones is absurd and has no basis in scripture. Whoever told you this is selling you a bill of goods and does not have your best interests at heart.

Yo can run but you cannot hide. I see that I am going to have to actually re-copy and post the part of your vituperative narrative that the stoning analogy applies to. I'm going to have to draw it out for you so that even a person that believed earth was the center of the universe years ago would understand.

When you said:

Who cares what this heretical abomination of a "church" thinks? They are apostates and renegades from the one true holy Catholic Church. So of course they are incensed with this shallow americanism and racial materialism, both of which are sins. Those who lie in sin beget sin so this is no surprise.

That was stone throwing. You affixed yourself as the spokesman for he Catholic church here and thereby took responsibility for the the evils committed by and assigned to Catholicism; that is , for the purpose of this discussion. As the hurler of stones at Protestant churches, you should have weighed your indignation against the blood of innocents spilled by the Catholic Church..and that is putting it mildly. You did not do that; so, I took the liberty of posting John 8 and highlighting in red the part that applied to your "stone throwing" as quoted above.

You excoriate the Protestants as being apostates and renegades, incensed with shallow americanism and racial materialism. I tend to agree with that premise and have posted similar indictments....However, I see those same social vulnerabilities exposed in Catholicism. If the stone throwing analogy doesn't work for you here, then try to get out of that glass house before launching more earth apples!

I have run into quite a few protestants who claim to be "biblical literalists. By the way, citing your "biblical literalist" background as though it somehow makes you an authority on the scripture you cite shows your ahistorical background as it pertains to Christianity. Throughout the history of Christianity, whether it be St.Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or many in between, have never adhered to a literalist interpretation of scripture. They recognize that in the Bible, their at metaphors and parables along with historical accounts and that one should be able to discern the difference. This biblical literalism is not even a manifestation of the Reformation, but of 19th century Protestant so called "fundamentalism". It is a concept made out of thin air with no philosophical or dogmatic basis in Church teaching.

Anyways, back on point.

I show you the context, and what is mean by throwing stones, and you cotniue to use this definition that has basis in scripture. For a "biblical literalist", you seem to prescribe many of your preconceived notions to scripture where it doesn't exist. Instead of opening your heart to scripture, you just have your moral philosophy and try to clumsily fit Bible verses together to conform to it. The point of the passage is not to say, "don't judge", in John 7:24, we are told to judge righteously and not by appearance. In Corrinthians 6 9:10, Paul is very judgemental about who will not enter Heaven. By your definition he, in laying out one of the foundations for Christianity, he is throwing stones.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Christ is not telling us, "don't judge". He is saying to be forgiving of sinners and to help lead them on a righteous path.

You are entirely mischaracterizing me, and perverting Christian doctrine in the process. No where did I claim to ever speak on behalf of the Church. Thus, the very foundation of your argument is null, thus the argument is nullified. But I will accept your premise and from there deconstruct it to try and disavow you of this false notion you have. You claim that one who sins cannot point out the sins of others, and call on them to walk away from sin. By your logic, now man, as we are all sinful, could name the sin and tell the sinner to change their path. Paul when he was Saul lead of life of sin, so you are saying that for his sinful past, he cannot rebuke others for their sin, or identify it? Also by your logic, since I am a Catholic and certain Church leaders in the past have sinned and deviated from the teachings of the Church, I have to pay the wages of their sin and allow it to fester in others by remaining silent? This goes entirely against the biblical notion in both the Old and New Testament of opposing the concept of the "Sins of the Father". The fact that I have to pay the wages of Catholics who deviated from doctrine and who came before me by "not judging" goes against the very spirit of the Bible.


And you still didn't respond to how by your definition of "stone throwing" how Jesus doesn't fit that very definition in John 8. Jesus calls the woman a sinner, calls for her to leave her leave her life of sin, and that she must follow him to find eternal life. I have done nothing different that what Jesus did in John 8,. Do you condemn Christ for throwing stones?

Your most recent post is well written but the last paragraph gets to the core of our disagreement. I'll address that to avoid a long drawn out off topic rebuttal of he entire narrative. First of all, You are the stone thrower so
you cannot suddenly morph into the role of Jesus in this scenario. I've pointed out the "stones" you've hurled and the evidence has been exposed to any who read this exchange. You see yourself as voicing the ideals and philosophy of Jesus but that is impossible: the thrown stones have been taken in evidence. That evidence undermines your attempt to portray yourself in the role of the Jesus in John 8 . Jesus did not at anytime belittle or attempt to besmirch the Jews who would stone the adulteress. That would have been figurative "stone throwing: The same as you did in your opening salvo against Protestants in this very thread.

Had you truly wanted to respond to the op with an honest answer to the question posed, this present dialogue would not have been necessary. You wanted an argument in which you could voice your frustrations against Protestants for having abandoned Catholicism. Your negativism speaks for itself and I will note that you are against the consolidation of Protestant churches unless it is under the auspices of Catholicism. Fair enough?

You keep using the phrase "stone throwing" incorrectly. I have shown you the biblical basis for where Christians are commanded to judge righteously in John 7, and shown you Paul's condemnation of sinners in Corinthians("stone throwing" you call it), and Jesus naming this woman in John 8 as a sinner and telling her to sin no more, yet you persist with these false definitions and outright ignore my first two examples. In John 8, to not "throw stones" means allowing sinners forgiveness and letting them repent. It doesn't say not to judge. Judging and rebuking sin is not "throwing stones".

This isn't even a debate anymore. You just keep repeating the same incorrect point, so at this point we are going in circles and nothing constructive. If you refuse to address my points and either contend them orr evise your position , what is the point of me talking to you? I see none.

As far as the OP goes, I made my point clear, but apparently it bears repeating. I oppose what they are doing and wish them to come back to the Catholic Church.

 

[JQPublic1]

I should think that if anyone of any race walked into any church that they would not be rejected.
People of all color (crackers included) tend to congregate among themselves for a variety of reasons, worship included.

Thannks for your input but the op focus of the op is not about someone of a different race walking into a church and being accepted as a casual observer and worshipper. I'm talking about active social and cultural intermingling in every phase of church operations. This unprecedented gesture suggests far more than a mere cursory offer, it is a gesture that may shake the very foundations of neo-Conservatism if realized!

The Mormon church has no problem with blacks or whites leading as Bishops or other wise.

But what is the Mormon Church's views concerning the marriage of Moses and an Ethiopian woman?

 

[JQPublic1]

If taken literally, the passage conveys my message precisely. I used it to make an analogy between your casting of verbal stones and the stones being readied for casting at the adulteress in the mentioned scripture.

Christ may have implied what you said but I believe His words were clear and need no further interpretation in the context of defining our forgoing exchange.

Your frustration is becoming a distraction as indicated by your willingness to posit a baseless
ad-hominem instead of a solid argument:

Where did I write or post anything close to giving you license to say my logic supports doing nothing to reach out to sinners? As a Christian, I subscribe to the doctrine that Christ has called on us to be fishermen of men. You are way of base with your faulty analysis of my logic. It is yours that falters in the face of my preceding testaments .

You arent taking the passage "literally", nor are you addressing the context. You are just perverting one passage to fit your libetal relativistic world view.The issue in John 8 was that an adulterer a woman was caught in the sinful act. According to the Law of Moses she was to be stoned. The men who were to stone her leave after jesus spoke in 8:7. Jesus tells her to go forth and sin no more. Jesus in John 8 calls her a sinner, and tells her to sin no more. He then goes onto day those who follow him will have eternal life. So when you abandon the catholic church he built and established with peter you are putting your eternal life at risk. So this idea we cant identify and try to correct sin when we see it or we are throwing stones is absurd and has no basis in scripture. Whoever told you this is selling you a bill of goods and does not have your best interests at heart.

Yo can run but you cannot hide. I see that I am going to have to actually re-copy and post the part of your vituperative narrative that the stoning analogy applies to. I'm going to have to draw it out for you so that even a person that believed earth was the center of the universe years ago would understand.

When you said:

Who cares what this heretical abomination of a "church" thinks? They are apostates and renegades from the one true holy Catholic Church. So of course they are incensed with this shallow americanism and racial materialism, both of which are sins. Those who lie in sin beget sin so this is no surprise.

That was stone throwing. You affixed yourself as the spokesman for he Catholic church here and thereby took responsibility for the the evils committed by and assigned to Catholicism; that is , for the purpose of this discussion. As the hurler of stones at Protestant churches, you should have weighed your indignation against the blood of innocents spilled by the Catholic Church..and that is putting it mildly. You did not do that; so, I took the liberty of posting John 8 and highlighting in red the part that applied to your "stone throwing" as quoted above.

You excoriate the Protestants as being apostates and renegades, incensed with shallow americanism and racial materialism. I tend to agree with that premise and have posted similar indictments....However, I see those same social vulnerabilities exposed in Catholicism. If the stone throwing analogy doesn't work for you here, then try to get out of that glass house before launching more earth apples!

I have run into quite a few protestants who claim to be "biblical literalists. By the way, citing your "biblical literalist" background as though it somehow makes you an authority on the scripture you cite shows your ahistorical background as it pertains to Christianity. Throughout the history of Christianity, whether it be St.Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or many in between, have never adhered to a literalist interpretation of scripture. They recognize that in the Bible, their at metaphors and parables along with historical accounts and that one should be able to discern the difference. This biblical literalism is not even a manifestation of the Reformation, but of 19th century Protestant so called "fundamentalism". It is a concept made out of thin air with no philosophical or dogmatic basis in Church teaching.

Anyways, back on point.

I show you the context, and what is mean by throwing stones, and you cotniue to use this definition that has basis in scripture. For a "biblical literalist", you seem to prescribe many of your preconceived notions to scripture where it doesn't exist. Instead of opening your heart to scripture, you just have your moral philosophy and try to clumsily fit Bible verses together to conform to it. The point of the passage is not to say, "don't judge", in John 7:24, we are told to judge righteously and not by appearance. In Corrinthians 6 9:10, Paul is very judgemental about who will not enter Heaven. By your definition he, in laying out one of the foundations for Christianity, he is throwing stones.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Christ is not telling us, "don't judge". He is saying to be forgiving of sinners and to help lead them on a righteous path.

You are entirely mischaracterizing me, and perverting Christian doctrine in the process. No where did I claim to ever speak on behalf of the Church. Thus, the very foundation of your argument is null, thus the argument is nullified. But I will accept your premise and from there deconstruct it to try and disavow you of this false notion you have. You claim that one who sins cannot point out the sins of others, and call on them to walk away from sin. By your logic, now man, as we are all sinful, could name the sin and tell the sinner to change their path. Paul when he was Saul lead of life of sin, so you are saying that for his sinful past, he cannot rebuke others for their sin, or identify it? Also by your logic, since I am a Catholic and certain Church leaders in the past have sinned and deviated from the teachings of the Church, I have to pay the wages of their sin and allow it to fester in others by remaining silent? This goes entirely against the biblical notion in both the Old and New Testament of opposing the concept of the "Sins of the Father". The fact that I have to pay the wages of Catholics who deviated from doctrine and who came before me by "not judging" goes against the very spirit of the Bible.


And you still didn't respond to how by your definition of "stone throwing" how Jesus doesn't fit that very definition in John 8. Jesus calls the woman a sinner, calls for her to leave her leave her life of sin, and that she must follow him to find eternal life. I have done nothing different that what Jesus did in John 8,. Do you condemn Christ for throwing stones?

Your most recent post is well written but the last paragraph gets to the core of our disagreement. I'll address that to avoid a long drawn out off topic rebuttal of he entire narrative. First of all, You are the stone thrower so
you cannot suddenly morph into the role of Jesus in this scenario. I've pointed out the "stones" you've hurled and the evidence has been exposed to any who read this exchange. You see yourself as voicing the ideals and philosophy of Jesus but that is impossible: the thrown stones have been taken in evidence. That evidence undermines your attempt to portray yourself in the role of the Jesus in John 8 . Jesus did not at anytime belittle or attempt to besmirch the Jews who would stone the adulteress. That would have been figurative "stone throwing: The same as you did in your opening salvo against Protestants in this very thread.

Had you truly wanted to respond to the op with an honest answer to the question posed, this present dialogue would not have been necessary. You wanted an argument in which you could voice your frustrations against Protestants for having abandoned Catholicism. Your negativism speaks for itself and I will note that you are against the consolidation of Protestant churches unless it is under the auspices of Catholicism. Fair enough?

You keep using the phrase "stone throwing" incorrectly. I have shown you the biblical basis for where Christians are commanded to judge righteously in John 7, and shown you Paul's condemnation of sinners in Corinthians("stone throwing" you call it), and Jesus naming this woman in John 8 as a sinner and telling her to sin no more, yet you persist with these false definitions and outright ignore my first two examples. In John 8, to not "throw stones" means allowing sinners forgiveness and letting them repent. It doesn't say not to judge. Judging and rebuking sin is not "throwing stones".

This isn't even a debate anymore. You just keep repeating the same incorrect point, so at this point we are going in circles and nothing constructive. If you refuse to address my points and either contend them orr evise your position , what is the point of me talking to you? I see none.

As far as the OP goes, I made my point clear, but apparently it bears repeating. I oppose what they are doing and wish them to come back to the Catholic Church.

I am using the phrase "stone throwing" as it has been used by many Christian and secular factions in admonishing those who publicly criticize others while their own shortcomings may be even worse than those they criticize. The deed of Jesus in John 8 is a reference point in which to frame that observance. I used that phrase exactly as I intended to use it and most people understand it that way. Stop trying to make more out of it than it is. You have no right to tell me what I meant or to tell me how I ought to interpret scripture.

As to the point of further discussion on that matter, the issue is closed. Thanks for concluding the same and thanks for finally addressing the op by citing your opposition to the SBC venture.

 

[Steinlight]

You arent taking the passage "literally", nor are you addressing the context. You are just perverting one passage to fit your libetal relativistic world view.The issue in John 8 was that an adulterer a woman was caught in the sinful act. According to the Law of Moses she was to be stoned. The men who were to stone her leave after jesus spoke in 8:7. Jesus tells her to go forth and sin no more. Jesus in John 8 calls her a sinner, and tells her to sin no more. He then goes onto day those who follow him will have eternal life. So when you abandon the catholic church he built and established with peter you are putting your eternal life at risk. So this idea we cant identify and try to correct sin when we see it or we are throwing stones is absurd and has no basis in scripture. Whoever told you this is selling you a bill of goods and does not have your best interests at heart.

Yo can run but you cannot hide. I see that I am going to have to actually re-copy and post the part of your vituperative narrative that the stoning analogy applies to. I'm going to have to draw it out for you so that even a person that believed earth was the center of the universe years ago would understand.

When you said:

Who cares what this heretical abomination of a "church" thinks? They are apostates and renegades from the one true holy Catholic Church. So of course they are incensed with this shallow americanism and racial materialism, both of which are sins. Those who lie in sin beget sin so this is no surprise.

That was stone throwing. You affixed yourself as the spokesman for he Catholic church here and thereby took responsibility for the the evils committed by and assigned to Catholicism; that is , for the purpose of this discussion. As the hurler of stones at Protestant churches, you should have weighed your indignation against the blood of innocents spilled by the Catholic Church..and that is putting it mildly. You did not do that; so, I took the liberty of posting John 8 and highlighting in red the part that applied to your "stone throwing" as quoted above.

You excoriate the Protestants as being apostates and renegades, incensed with shallow americanism and racial materialism. I tend to agree with that premise and have posted similar indictments....However, I see those same social vulnerabilities exposed in Catholicism. If the stone throwing analogy doesn't work for you here, then try to get out of that glass house before launching more earth apples!

I have run into quite a few protestants who claim to be "biblical literalists. By the way, citing your "biblical literalist" background as though it somehow makes you an authority on the scripture you cite shows your ahistorical background as it pertains to Christianity. Throughout the history of Christianity, whether it be St.Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or many in between, have never adhered to a literalist interpretation of scripture. They recognize that in the Bible, their at metaphors and parables along with historical accounts and that one should be able to discern the difference. This biblical literalism is not even a manifestation of the Reformation, but of 19th century Protestant so called "fundamentalism". It is a concept made out of thin air with no philosophical or dogmatic basis in Church teaching.

Anyways, back on point.

I show you the context, and what is mean by throwing stones, and you cotniue to use this definition that has basis in scripture. For a "biblical literalist", you seem to prescribe many of your preconceived notions to scripture where it doesn't exist. Instead of opening your heart to scripture, you just have your moral philosophy and try to clumsily fit Bible verses together to conform to it. The point of the passage is not to say, "don't judge", in John 7:24, we are told to judge righteously and not by appearance. In Corrinthians 6 9:10, Paul is very judgemental about who will not enter Heaven. By your definition he, in laying out one of the foundations for Christianity, he is throwing stones.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Christ is not telling us, "don't judge". He is saying to be forgiving of sinners and to help lead them on a righteous path.

You are entirely mischaracterizing me, and perverting Christian doctrine in the process. No where did I claim to ever speak on behalf of the Church. Thus, the very foundation of your argument is null, thus the argument is nullified. But I will accept your premise and from there deconstruct it to try and disavow you of this false notion you have. You claim that one who sins cannot point out the sins of others, and call on them to walk away from sin. By your logic, now man, as we are all sinful, could name the sin and tell the sinner to change their path. Paul when he was Saul lead of life of sin, so you are saying that for his sinful past, he cannot rebuke others for their sin, or identify it? Also by your logic, since I am a Catholic and certain Church leaders in the past have sinned and deviated from the teachings of the Church, I have to pay the wages of their sin and allow it to fester in others by remaining silent? This goes entirely against the biblical notion in both the Old and New Testament of opposing the concept of the "Sins of the Father". The fact that I have to pay the wages of Catholics who deviated from doctrine and who came before me by "not judging" goes against the very spirit of the Bible.


And you still didn't respond to how by your definition of "stone throwing" how Jesus doesn't fit that very definition in John 8. Jesus calls the woman a sinner, calls for her to leave her leave her life of sin, and that she must follow him to find eternal life. I have done nothing different that what Jesus did in John 8,. Do you condemn Christ for throwing stones?

Your most recent post is well written but the last paragraph gets to the core of our disagreement. I'll address that to avoid a long drawn out off topic rebuttal of he entire narrative. First of all, You are the stone thrower so
you cannot suddenly morph into the role of Jesus in this scenario. I've pointed out the "stones" you've hurled and the evidence has been exposed to any who read this exchange. You see yourself as voicing the ideals and philosophy of Jesus but that is impossible: the thrown stones have been taken in evidence. That evidence undermines your attempt to portray yourself in the role of the Jesus in John 8 . Jesus did not at anytime belittle or attempt to besmirch the Jews who would stone the adulteress. That would have been figurative "stone throwing: The same as you did in your opening salvo against Protestants in this very thread.

Had you truly wanted to respond to the op with an honest answer to the question posed, this present dialogue would not have been necessary. You wanted an argument in which you could voice your frustrations against Protestants for having abandoned Catholicism. Your negativism speaks for itself and I will note that you are against the consolidation of Protestant churches unless it is under the auspices of Catholicism. Fair enough?

You keep using the phrase "stone throwing" incorrectly. I have shown you the biblical basis for where Christians are commanded to judge righteously in John 7, and shown you Paul's condemnation of sinners in Corinthians("stone throwing" you call it), and Jesus naming this woman in John 8 as a sinner and telling her to sin no more, yet you persist with these false definitions and outright ignore my first two examples. In John 8, to not "throw stones" means allowing sinners forgiveness and letting them repent. It doesn't say not to judge. Judging and rebuking sin is not "throwing stones".

This isn't even a debate anymore. You just keep repeating the same incorrect point, so at this point we are going in circles and nothing constructive. If you refuse to address my points and either contend them orr evise your position , what is the point of me talking to you? I see none.

As far as the OP goes, I made my point clear, but apparently it bears repeating. I oppose what they are doing and wish them to come back to the Catholic Church.

I am using the phrase "stone throwing" as it has been used by many Christian and secular factions in admonishing those who publicly criticize others while their own shortcomings may be even worse than those they criticize. The deed of Jesus in John 8 is a reference point in which to frame that observance. I used that phrase exactly as I intended to use it and most people understand it that way. Stop trying to make more out of it than it is. You have no right to tell me what I meant or to tell me how I ought to interpret scripture.

As to the point of further discussion on that matter, the issue is closed. Thanks for concluding the same and thanks for finally addressing the op by citing your opposition to the SBC venture.

Now you are getting basic bible verses wrong. You are confusing John 8:7 with Matthew 7. In Matthew 7:1 it is said judge not lest ye be judged. Which means, don't be a hypocrite. It doesn't mean don't judge. It means hold yourself to the standard you hold others. The passage you are thinking about has nothing to do with throwing stones or the theme of forgiveness, it has to do with hypocrisy. You are mixing things up. Honestly, you are all over the place. You really need to sort yourself out. You have the right to interpret scripture however you want, it doesn't make you any less wrong about it however.

 

[JQPublic1]

Yo can run but you cannot hide. I see that I am going to have to actually re-copy and post the part of your vituperative narrative that the stoning analogy applies to. I'm going to have to draw it out for you so that even a person that believed earth was the center of the universe years ago would understand.

When you said:



That was stone throwing. You affixed yourself as the spokesman for he Catholic church here and thereby took responsibility for the the evils committed by and assigned to Catholicism; that is , for the purpose of this discussion. As the hurler of stones at Protestant churches, you should have weighed your indignation against the blood of innocents spilled by the Catholic Church..and that is putting it mildly. You did not do that; so, I took the liberty of posting John 8 and highlighting in red the part that applied to your "stone throwing" as quoted above.

You excoriate the Protestants as being apostates and renegades, incensed with shallow americanism and racial materialism. I tend to agree with that premise and have posted similar indictments....However, I see those same social vulnerabilities exposed in Catholicism. If the stone throwing analogy doesn't work for you here, then try to get out of that glass house before launching more earth apples!

I have run into quite a few protestants who claim to be "biblical literalists. By the way, citing your "biblical literalist" background as though it somehow makes you an authority on the scripture you cite shows your ahistorical background as it pertains to Christianity. Throughout the history of Christianity, whether it be St.Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or many in between, have never adhered to a literalist interpretation of scripture. They recognize that in the Bible, their at metaphors and parables along with historical accounts and that one should be able to discern the difference. This biblical literalism is not even a manifestation of the Reformation, but of 19th century Protestant so called "fundamentalism". It is a concept made out of thin air with no philosophical or dogmatic basis in Church teaching.

Anyways, back on point.

I show you the context, and what is mean by throwing stones, and you cotniue to use this definition that has basis in scripture. For a "biblical literalist", you seem to prescribe many of your preconceived notions to scripture where it doesn't exist. Instead of opening your heart to scripture, you just have your moral philosophy and try to clumsily fit Bible verses together to conform to it. The point of the passage is not to say, "don't judge", in John 7:24, we are told to judge righteously and not by appearance. In Corrinthians 6 9:10, Paul is very judgemental about who will not enter Heaven. By your definition he, in laying out one of the foundations for Christianity, he is throwing stones.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Christ is not telling us, "don't judge". He is saying to be forgiving of sinners and to help lead them on a righteous path.

You are entirely mischaracterizing me, and perverting Christian doctrine in the process. No where did I claim to ever speak on behalf of the Church. Thus, the very foundation of your argument is null, thus the argument is nullified. But I will accept your premise and from there deconstruct it to try and disavow you of this false notion you have. You claim that one who sins cannot point out the sins of others, and call on them to walk away from sin. By your logic, now man, as we are all sinful, could name the sin and tell the sinner to change their path. Paul when he was Saul lead of life of sin, so you are saying that for his sinful past, he cannot rebuke others for their sin, or identify it? Also by your logic, since I am a Catholic and certain Church leaders in the past have sinned and deviated from the teachings of the Church, I have to pay the wages of their sin and allow it to fester in others by remaining silent? This goes entirely against the biblical notion in both the Old and New Testament of opposing the concept of the "Sins of the Father". The fact that I have to pay the wages of Catholics who deviated from doctrine and who came before me by "not judging" goes against the very spirit of the Bible.


And you still didn't respond to how by your definition of "stone throwing" how Jesus doesn't fit that very definition in John 8. Jesus calls the woman a sinner, calls for her to leave her leave her life of sin, and that she must follow him to find eternal life. I have done nothing different that what Jesus did in John 8,. Do you condemn Christ for throwing stones?

Your most recent post is well written but the last paragraph gets to the core of our disagreement. I'll address that to avoid a long drawn out off topic rebuttal of he entire narrative. First of all, You are the stone thrower so
you cannot suddenly morph into the role of Jesus in this scenario. I've pointed out the "stones" you've hurled and the evidence has been exposed to any who read this exchange. You see yourself as voicing the ideals and philosophy of Jesus but that is impossible: the thrown stones have been taken in evidence. That evidence undermines your attempt to portray yourself in the role of the Jesus in John 8 . Jesus did not at anytime belittle or attempt to besmirch the Jews who would stone the adulteress. That would have been figurative "stone throwing: The same as you did in your opening salvo against Protestants in this very thread.

Had you truly wanted to respond to the op with an honest answer to the question posed, this present dialogue would not have been necessary. You wanted an argument in which you could voice your frustrations against Protestants for having abandoned Catholicism. Your negativism speaks for itself and I will note that you are against the consolidation of Protestant churches unless it is under the auspices of Catholicism. Fair enough?

You keep using the phrase "stone throwing" incorrectly. I have shown you the biblical basis for where Christians are commanded to judge righteously in John 7, and shown you Paul's condemnation of sinners in Corinthians("stone throwing" you call it), and Jesus naming this woman in John 8 as a sinner and telling her to sin no more, yet you persist with these false definitions and outright ignore my first two examples. In John 8, to not "throw stones" means allowing sinners forgiveness and letting them repent. It doesn't say not to judge. Judging and rebuking sin is not "throwing stones".

This isn't even a debate anymore. You just keep repeating the same incorrect point, so at this point we are going in circles and nothing constructive. If you refuse to address my points and either contend them orr evise your position , what is the point of me talking to you? I see none.

As far as the OP goes, I made my point clear, but apparently it bears repeating. I oppose what they are doing and wish them to come back to the Catholic Church.

I am using the phrase "stone throwing" as it has been used by many Christian and secular factions in admonishing those who publicly criticize others while their own shortcomings may be even worse than those they criticize. The deed of Jesus in John 8 is a reference point in which to frame that observance. I used that phrase exactly as I intended to use it and most people understand it that way. Stop trying to make more out of it than it is. You have no right to tell me what I meant or to tell me how I ought to interpret scripture.

As to the point of further discussion on that matter, the issue is closed. Thanks for concluding the same and thanks for finally addressing the op by citing your opposition to the SBC venture.

Now you are getting basic bible verses wrong. You are confusing John 8:7 with Matthew 7. In Matthew 7:1 it is said judge not lest ye be judged. Which means, don't be a hypocrite. It doesn't mean don't judge. It means hold yourself to the standard you hold others. The passage you are thinking about has nothing to do with throwing stones or the theme of forgiveness, it has to do with hypocrisy. You are mixing things up. Honestly, you are all over the place. You really need to sort yourself out. You have the right to interpret scripture however you want, it doesn't make you any less wrong about it however.

You are unbelievable. I said that off topic discussion is over. Desist or be reported. I am NOT WRONG NOR am I mixing things up. You are trying to create that illusion... trying to persuade WHO?
Stay on topic or go elsewhere.

 

[Steinlight]

I have run into quite a few protestants who claim to be "biblical literalists. By the way, citing your "biblical literalist" background as though it somehow makes you an authority on the scripture you cite shows your ahistorical background as it pertains to Christianity. Throughout the history of Christianity, whether it be St.Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or many in between, have never adhered to a literalist interpretation of scripture. They recognize that in the Bible, their at metaphors and parables along with historical accounts and that one should be able to discern the difference. This biblical literalism is not even a manifestation of the Reformation, but of 19th century Protestant so called "fundamentalism". It is a concept made out of thin air with no philosophical or dogmatic basis in Church teaching.

Anyways, back on point.

I show you the context, and what is mean by throwing stones, and you cotniue to use this definition that has basis in scripture. For a "biblical literalist", you seem to prescribe many of your preconceived notions to scripture where it doesn't exist. Instead of opening your heart to scripture, you just have your moral philosophy and try to clumsily fit Bible verses together to conform to it. The point of the passage is not to say, "don't judge", in John 7:24, we are told to judge righteously and not by appearance. In Corrinthians 6 9:10, Paul is very judgemental about who will not enter Heaven. By your definition he, in laying out one of the foundations for Christianity, he is throwing stones.

Christ is not telling us, "don't judge". He is saying to be forgiving of sinners and to help lead them on a righteous path.

You are entirely mischaracterizing me, and perverting Christian doctrine in the process. No where did I claim to ever speak on behalf of the Church. Thus, the very foundation of your argument is null, thus the argument is nullified. But I will accept your premise and from there deconstruct it to try and disavow you of this false notion you have. You claim that one who sins cannot point out the sins of others, and call on them to walk away from sin. By your logic, now man, as we are all sinful, could name the sin and tell the sinner to change their path. Paul when he was Saul lead of life of sin, so you are saying that for his sinful past, he cannot rebuke others for their sin, or identify it? Also by your logic, since I am a Catholic and certain Church leaders in the past have sinned and deviated from the teachings of the Church, I have to pay the wages of their sin and allow it to fester in others by remaining silent? This goes entirely against the biblical notion in both the Old and New Testament of opposing the concept of the "Sins of the Father". The fact that I have to pay the wages of Catholics who deviated from doctrine and who came before me by "not judging" goes against the very spirit of the Bible.


And you still didn't respond to how by your definition of "stone throwing" how Jesus doesn't fit that very definition in John 8. Jesus calls the woman a sinner, calls for her to leave her leave her life of sin, and that she must follow him to find eternal life. I have done nothing different that what Jesus did in John 8,. Do you condemn Christ for throwing stones?

Your most recent post is well written but the last paragraph gets to the core of our disagreement. I'll address that to avoid a long drawn out off topic rebuttal of he entire narrative. First of all, You are the stone thrower so
you cannot suddenly morph into the role of Jesus in this scenario. I've pointed out the "stones" you've hurled and the evidence has been exposed to any who read this exchange. You see yourself as voicing the ideals and philosophy of Jesus but that is impossible: the thrown stones have been taken in evidence. That evidence undermines your attempt to portray yourself in the role of the Jesus in John 8 . Jesus did not at anytime belittle or attempt to besmirch the Jews who would stone the adulteress. That would have been figurative "stone throwing: The same as you did in your opening salvo against Protestants in this very thread.

Had you truly wanted to respond to the op with an honest answer to the question posed, this present dialogue would not have been necessary. You wanted an argument in which you could voice your frustrations against Protestants for having abandoned Catholicism. Your negativism speaks for itself and I will note that you are against the consolidation of Protestant churches unless it is under the auspices of Catholicism. Fair enough?

You keep using the phrase "stone throwing" incorrectly. I have shown you the biblical basis for where Christians are commanded to judge righteously in John 7, and shown you Paul's condemnation of sinners in Corinthians("stone throwing" you call it), and Jesus naming this woman in John 8 as a sinner and telling her to sin no more, yet you persist with these false definitions and outright ignore my first two examples. In John 8, to not "throw stones" means allowing sinners forgiveness and letting them repent. It doesn't say not to judge. Judging and rebuking sin is not "throwing stones".

This isn't even a debate anymore. You just keep repeating the same incorrect point, so at this point we are going in circles and nothing constructive. If you refuse to address my points and either contend them orr evise your position , what is the point of me talking to you? I see none.

As far as the OP goes, I made my point clear, but apparently it bears repeating. I oppose what they are doing and wish them to come back to the Catholic Church.

I am using the phrase "stone throwing" as it has been used by many Christian and secular factions in admonishing those who publicly criticize others while their own shortcomings may be even worse than those they criticize. The deed of Jesus in John 8 is a reference point in which to frame that observance. I used that phrase exactly as I intended to use it and most people understand it that way. Stop trying to make more out of it than it is. You have no right to tell me what I meant or to tell me how I ought to interpret scripture.

As to the point of further discussion on that matter, the issue is closed. Thanks for concluding the same and thanks for finally addressing the op by citing your opposition to the SBC venture.

Now you are getting basic bible verses wrong. You are confusing John 8:7 with Matthew 7. In Matthew 7:1 it is said judge not lest ye be judged. Which means, don't be a hypocrite. It doesn't mean don't judge. It means hold yourself to the standard you hold others. The passage you are thinking about has nothing to do with throwing stones or the theme of forgiveness, it has to do with hypocrisy. You are mixing things up. Honestly, you are all over the place. You really need to sort yourself out. You have the right to interpret scripture however you want, it doesn't make you any less wrong about it however.

You are unbelievable. I said that off topic discussion is over. Desist or be reported. I am NOT WRONG NOR am I mixing things up. You are trying to create that illusion... trying to persuade WHO?
Stay on topic or go elsewhere.

Calm down. If you can't discuss this without throwing a fit, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up at all.

 

[orogenicman]

the only imaginary god is in islam. And the Jews don't think Jesus is God. Either do muslims; they are both the same only in that both are WRONG.

What you mean to say, I think, is that neither Islam nor Judaism recognize the trinity. So what? They both recognize yahweh (the god of ancient Israel and Judah, the god of Abraham) as their god, as does Christianity.

So what? God is one, in three persons- you reject one part of the trinity you reject God.

According to your beliefs. Not everyone holds to yoru beliefs.