Over 7,000 Pastors Admit They Don’t Follow Jesus
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“We emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture.”
If that isn’t sad, I don’t know what is.
Not only is it disappointing to read the news that 7,000 Christian Pastors don’t follow Jesus, it’s even more disappointing to find out that none of them are ashamed to admit it in public.
Maybe none of them have ever read that Jesus was born into poverty. Or that Jesus blessed the poor. Or that gave warnings to the rich. Or that Jesus cautioned us about the evils of wealth. Or that Jesus equated our love for him with our love for the poor.
Maybe those 7,000 pastors – who claim they believe it’s more important to “exposit scripture” than to waste time preaching about God’s heart for the poor – never actually got around to expositing those verses where Paul told us that Peter, James and John only had one requirement before sending him and Barnabus out as the very first church-planting missionaries to the Gentiles: “To remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10) and they probably also didn’t notice that Paul’s response to that single requirement was this: “It was the very thing I was eager to do.”
It’s hard to imagine the Gospel that Jesus, and the Apostles preached without any mention of the poor. But, I suppose that’s the price we have to pay for living in the world’s most powerful Empire. See, when the Gospel first arrived it was preached to the poor, and the sick, and the outcasts. The people in power resisted it. The weak embraced it.
Soon, the same people who hated Jesus were persecuting the rest of His followers. That went on for 400 years until something horrible happened: The Empire co-opted the faith and soon the Gospel was for the conquerors, not the losers; it was for the rich and the powerful, not the poor and the weak.
Over time the idea of nationalizing Christianity and manipulating Christian citizens took on enormous momentum. Eventually, it was hard to separate nationalism and patriotism from religion and faith.
And now, in broad daylight, thousands of Christian pastors are proud to publically proclaim that they have no time to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught. They have no interest in showing any concern for the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the outcast. They’d rather preach sermons about the Bible (while conveniently ignoring all of the hundreds of verses about caring for the poor, the orphan and the widow).
So, I guess we won’t have to listen to any more sermons about verses like these:
“By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need, but withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us love not in word and speech, but in action and truth” (1 John 3:17)
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’” (Matt. 25:44-45)
“ He has filled the hungry with good things ; And sent away the rich empty-handed.” (Luke 1:53)
“L isten , my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (James 2:5)
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. A Gospel without reference to God’s heart for the poor – and God’s insistence that we love them as He loves them – is no Gospel worth preaching, or listening to.
Now, I would urge Christians who attend churches like those being led by these 7,000 pastors to leave them as quickly as possible, but I don’t need to. That’s already happening. In fact, more young people are leaving the Christian church than are coming in to the faith. So, very soon, those sorts of Churches will be very dead and gone. Halleluiah!
Until then, I guess the rest of us will just have to keep wandering around in this desert of faith waiting for those churches to die. Maybe then we can enter the promised land where the Good News of the Kingdom is freely spoken – and put into practice – and those who are poor will know without a doubt that they are treasured by God, seen by God, and most of all loved by God and by the people of God.
Jesus wouldn’t recognize the Gospel being preached by people like John MacArthur and his 7,000 disciples. Maybe what they should be most concerned with is that Jesus might not recognize them when he sees them face-to-face one day.
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
"Christian" pastors...
... failing their congregations, and failing themselves, and failing Christ!
I actually had one of my parishioners in Ohio back in the '80's point out that Jesus was only half Jewish which is why she believed he's pictured as being white. She had seen depictions of God the Father as being a long white bearded God and figured he was the father and Mary was the mother thus only half Jewish... It really did amaze me to what lengths some bigots will go to appease their prejudice.
Oy Vey!
I read somewhere that the European version of Jesus is based on Ceasare Borgia. His father, Pope Alexander VI, had commissioned paintings of Jesus based on his son's likeness
I need to brush up on my Borgia history. When I looked it up, I do see a slight resemblance.
Why was Jesus white? Perhaps he suffered from the same condition as Michael Jackson?
This article is perhaps one of the best examples of SJW's trying to coopt Christianity that I have ever seen. If Jesus had come today instead of when he did, I feel confident SJW's would be in the crowd screaming "Crucify him!". The writer of this article has no idea what Christianity is really about. He just takes the parts that suits him and discards the rest.
Your totally unsupported opinion is duly noted with the value deserved by all unsupported opinions: zero.
Wow. That's truly funny. Your whole seeded article is unsubstantiated and you're going to call me on this? The author of your seed has no understanding of Jesus at all. Nor, it seems, do you.
This is a complete misrepresentation of both scripture and John MacArthur's "Anti-social justice manifesto". Did you even bother to read the manifesto??? Where, in it, does it state that preaching about God's heart towards the poor is a waste of time? Where, in scripture, does it state that Christ's mission was to improve the political and economic lot of the poor? What, in your opinion, was Christ's mission on Earth? Do you even know?
So, then. No actual reply. Thanks for proving my point.
Nothing there to Reply to.
Your reply is unsurprising. Expected. You lose.
Of all the tens of thousands of Christian sects and denominations which interpret the scriptures differently and that place differing value on which verses are primariy and which are secondary and what parts are immaterial which one denomination do you find gets it all right?
Please prove there are this many.
There are probably no denominations that get it all right. one that did would be full of perfect people. That said, the number who believe something different than the core values of the gospel is very small.
Please do not go off-topic.
It was a simple question with a simple answer and you still dodged it...
Which Christian sect or denomination do you believe is most correct?
These leftists aren’t interested in the truth.
We must heed the words of Jesus and “do not cast our pearls before swine”.
Apparently you do not recognize that 'leftist' JBB is asking, in effect, how one secures truth from religions. In other words, by what method does one evaluate the writings of ancient men to harvest truth (presuming of course that truth actually exists in these words)?
What is even more interesting is the history of the Bible and its authors. The ancient (to them) stories they borrowed and enhanced, the history of polytheism, primordial realm, etc. illustrate that the biblical God is prevalent today because ancient Hebrews produced a better product. The biblical God broke free of the limitations of more ancient gods who drew from the primordial realm to become the source of all power, source of all knowledge: the grandest possible entity whose morality is good by definition, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent. Yahweh was conceived as the uber-god, the Cadillac version that presumed all possible powers and left no room for someone to invent a superior god.
Smart marketing move. Trouble is, in their zeal to have the uber-god they defined a god that was a contradiction.
Your entire post is one of falsehoods and [Deleted]
Back up your claim. Merely proclaiming 'that is all false' and quoting Jesus is not going to cut it.
You deny that the biblical authors borrowed stories from their ancestors?
You deny that polytheistic gods predated Yahweh and were all flawed and limited?
You deny that omniscience attributed to God directly contradicts God being surprised?
( just for starters )
Uh, seriously? Maybe you should direct that to the person who I merely answered?
I neither dodged it nor is the question simple. Perhaps that is why you don't understand the answer.
By what method does one evaluate the writings of ancient men to harvest truth (presuming of course that truth actually exists in these words)?
Why is your method the right one? Other contradicting religions claim they have the true method.
Since there is no way to objectively test these methods (unlike the findings of science) any religion can simply claim that it holds truth. And, no surprise, that is pretty much what we observe.
Bull! I understood just fine. It was a simple question. Cathoholics and Southern Baptists and Mormons are quite different denominations with very differing scriptural interpretations. Surely you can answer a simple question. The reason Christianity is divided into countless sects is exactly because they all disagree regarding the scriptures. So, who gets it most right?
What Christian sect do you believe gets scripture right more than others?
I'll start. I think that Methodists have the best understanding of scripture.
Don't dodge. Answer. If you will not I must assume you just do not know...
I do not concern myself with denominations. I currently go to a Foursquare church because it best appeals to my temperament and what I feel is my calling but I have gone to other denominations. In my opinion, different denominations focus on different aspects of what makes up the church as a whole. Some prefer one denomination over another not so much because they are more right than another but because that particular denomination fits them better. For instance, I am not a very charismatic person so being part of a charismatic church isn't likely for me. That doesn't mean I feel that their doctrine is somehow deficient, though.
As for what denomination is more right than another depends on the issue. Same sex marriage? Any denomination that accepts it is in error on that issue. That doesn't mean everything else that denomination believes is automatically wrong by association. It would not surprise me, though, that how they exercise practically the rest of what they believe based on their acceptance of such a false doctrine is also contaminated. If they put societal norms above God's decrees I would have my doubts about how they approached the rest of God's word.
That is what I suspected. "Get Rich Wth Jesus" charismatic evangelical fundamentalist prosperity gospel small c christian Paulists are as far outside the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy as the Mormons are from Catholicism and certainly are not representative of what Christians believe...
Really? That's what you got from what I said???
Just like the evangelicals do day in and day out
There ya go again with the bullshit
He’s not going off topic. He’s right on and the seeded article author and you are not.
You are 100% correct
Google is your friend. The estimate is 33,000. And they all think they happen to be the right one.
Must be Republicans
The White, Blue Eyed, velvet painted Jesus is another racist hijacking of the so-called "Christain" religion.
Christian literally means "Christ-like", a truism that many, if not all of those who proudly call themselves by that soiled name, have long ago forgotten what it means.
OMG--- Jesus was a "women of colour"!
That would have given the Da Vinci code much more credibility...
Amen
Jesus NEVER asked his followers to overtly attack Rome's rule over the place we now call Israel. Nor did he promote violence, hatred, racism, or, politics in any form.
Today EVIL-GENITALS are the spawns of SATAN! Beware whose words you put in your mouth.
Not surprising since they are mostly hypocrites.
Oh!
Really? You know all 7,000 of them? Or do you just base your accusation on your own views?
A "Christian pastor" who signs such a declaration is declaring their hypocrisy.
Ah! Well, I guess if you simply declare it, it must be true. Good job!
Troll along with mitch
Just more reasons I distrust and despise most evangelical megachurch pastors.
Of course they don't the are faux christians.
Easily confused with "Fox Christians"... the two terms are basically interchangeable at this point.
Excellent!
Easily confused with "Fox Christians"... the two terms are basically interchangeable at this point.
If they don't preach the actual Gospels and Paul's teachings...then what the actual fuck do they preach about?
Maybe I'll head on down to the local Assembly of God church on Sunday and find out.
Plan your escape before you go.
It's very likely I will burst into flames as soon as I step across the threshold...so maybe the parishioners should be warned I'm coming
"Honoring the Lord means trusting Him enough to release (y)our tight grip on (y)our wallet (and senses), and giving (to ME) generously. Whatever we (YOU) give will return to us (ME) abundantly"
"God actually wants to abundantly bless our (MY) finances. The problem is that too many of us (YOU) don’t see how He figures into our (MY) financial lives, but these two verses clearly state how God will honor our belief and obedience in this area. God loves us (ME) and doesn’t want to see us (ME) struggle financially."
That's directly from creflodollarministries dot org (with my own additions in parentheses) but I didn't want to link their religious website here, just thought it shows what some of these evangelicals are preaching these days.
That man ought to be ashamed of himself for preaching crap like that
Skeptical, maybe ?
Creflo Dollar is a heretic
From the Statement on Social Justice:
Please proceed.
Is that even a thing anymore? I would think rational, logical people would abandon such ridiculous concepts.
The notion of "heretic" is a necessary complement to "dogma".
What I hope no longer exists is the desire to burn them...
Heretic, dogma, same difference. Like I said, I would think rational, logical people would abandon such ridiculous concepts.
Since, quite evidently, they do not.... what do you conclude?
I would think that would be evident.
Uhhhhh.............
“the Word-Faith “prosperity gospel” is little more than New Thought with a Charismatic veneer thrown over it. It is heresy because it makes God into a cosmic slot machine and turns salvation into a self-centered acquisition of physical blessings. It is the perfect example of “culture religion.” The cross plays almost no role in it whatsoever–except that (according to some of its leading preachers) Jesus died spiritually before he died physically (a very gnostic idea) so that he died a mere man abandoned by his divinity. He died a “sin slave to Satan.” He descended into hell to exercise his power of faith to conquer sin, sickness and death and rose from death by the power of that faith. (I heard this all the time from students who transferred to ORU from a leading Word-Faith Bible institute across town.)
This doctrine of guaranteed healing and financial prosperity through the “spoken word of faith” ought to be opposed with all might by all evangelical Christians. In my opinion, churches and evangelists who teach it are proclaiming a false gospel.
Roger Olson
My current professional status since 1999 is Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. Before joining the Baylor community I taught at Bethel College (now Bethel University) in St. Paul, Minnesota. My alma mater is Rice University (Ph.D. in Religious Studies). I graduated from North American Baptist Seminary (now Sioux Falls Seminary). During the mid-1990s I served as editor of Christian Scholar’s Review and have been a contributing editor of Christianity Today for several years. My articles have appeared in those publications as well as in Christian Century, Theology Today, Dialog, Scottish Journal of Theology and many other religious and theological periodicals. Among my published works are: 20th Century Theology (co-authored with the late Stanley J. Grenz), The Story of Christian Theology (winner of the Gold Medallion Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association), The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology.
The Word of God speaks of people like this
“It is necessary that any overseer you appoint be blameless, as he is entrusted with God’s mission. Look for someone who isn’t pompous or quick to anger, who is not a drunkard, violent, or chasing after seedy gain or worldly fame. Find a person who lovingly opens his home to others; who honors goodness; who is thoughtful, fair, devout, self-controlled; and who clings to the faithful word that was taught because he must be able, not only to encourage people with sound teaching, but also to challenge those who are against it.
Titus 1:7-9 VOICE Translation
“But if anyone spreads false teaching that does not agree with the healthy instruction of our Lord Jesus, teaching others that holy awe of God is not important, then they prove they know nothing at all! It’s obvious they don’t value or hold dear the healing words of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are covered with the clouds of conceit. They are loaded with controversy, and they love to argue their opinions and split hairs. The fruit of their ministry is contention, competition, and evil suspicions. They add misery to many lives by corrupting their minds and cheating them of the truth. They equate the worship of God with making great sums of money. We have a “profit” that is greater than theirs—our holy awe of God! To have merely our necessities is to have enough. Isn’t it true that our hands were empty when we came into the world, and when we leave this world our hands will be empty again? Because of this, food and clothing is enough to make us content. But those who crave the wealth of this world slip into spiritual snares. They become trapped by the troubles that come through their foolish and harmful desires, driven by greed and drowning in their own sinful pleasures. And they take others down with them into their corruption and eventual destruction. Loving money is the first step toward all kinds of trouble. Some people run after it so much that they have given up their faith. Craving more money pushes them away from the faith into error, compounding misery in their lives!”
1 Timothy 6:3-10 TPT
Unresponsive LFOD.
Oral Roberts University is similar to the Trump University established by another CON MAN, Trump.
Oral Roberts and Donald J. Trump put money over people.
They, Evil Genitals, preach about "contributing" ten percent of their members' GROSS INCOME to these backwood fundamentalist churches that are born from "greed", control and stupid, self-proclaimed "preacher men", who came to "The Jesus" after an all-night drunk.
Jesus wasn't patronizing toward the poor. Jesus did not promise to take from the rich and give to the poor as some sort of benefactor. And Jesus certainly did not encourage the poor to steal from the rich. Jesus was not a revolutionary and Jesus was not a socialist.
Jesus taught that being rich wasn't important; that pursuing material happiness wasn't what is important. Thinking in terms of money and material wealth is not what Jesus was about. Jesus taught that the materially poor could be rich in spirit.
Jesus taught that the poor seeking riches aren't any different than the rich. Jesus taught that being jealous of those with fine clothes, big houses, and luxurious life styles would not provide spiritual happiness. Jesus taught that we should turn away from the ideas of rich and poor and all be one in spirit; without envy or pity toward each other.
Jesus basically taught that the rich live once and die for eternity, we shouldn't envy the rich.
Actually... He gave us several aphorisms on wealth. He enjoined the wealthy to give to the poor. Perhaps most famously, He told us that the chances were better for a camel to pass through the Eye to the Needle (an impossibly small Jerusalem gate) than for a rich man to enter heaven.
So... you are completely wrong.
Key phrase is 'give to the poor'. Jesus didn't claim authority to take from the rich to redistribute to the poor; giving to the poor was a choice. The quote you provided explains that gaining and protecting riches will not provide any sort of spiritual happiness. It isn't possible to save a rich person's soul by taking away their wealth; it must be a willing choice by the rich person. Using authority to take riches is not charity. Envy and avarice by rich or poor will prevent them from entering heaven.
Your interpretation of what Jesus taught has been twisted to fit a secular philosophy that isn't morally sound.
Everything Bob said is about Jesus telling the wealthy to give to the poor...not one word about the government taking it from the wealthy and distributing it to the poor
That's correct. But don't interpret that as some sort of vindication for the rich.
Jesus taught that the rich have damned themselves. Claiming a God given right to strive for riches is blasphemy. Enriching oneself by denying the poor only earns damnation.
Of course not.
Jesus lived two thousand years ago, in a state - the dying Roman Republic / the rising Roman Empire - which did not consider alms for the poor to be a regalian responsibility. The religion of his upbringing - Judaism - considered charity to be an important personal responsibility.
So on both the secular and religious sides, Jesus did as was then done...
That was two thousand years ago! Shit has happened. Society has become unimaginably more complex, and the state has had to keep pace.
Jesus was in the business of saving souls, so if a rich man wants to save his, he knows what he must do. Obviously, not many give a shit...
Jesus was also in the very pragmatic business of alleviating misery. "Love your fellows" has real-world consequences. No follower of Christ can see misery and ultra-wealth in the same image, without retching.
And we are still being confronted with the same moral questions that have not changed over the last two thousand years. Complexity has not provided an answer to those moral questions.
And a follower of Christ cannot give or impose salvation on anyone. A follower of Christ cannot damn anyone, either.
The secular approach of forcing the rich to be compassionate is not based upon any sort of Christian morality. The revolutionary zeal to appropriate the riches of the rich and redistribute those who not so rich isn't a morally sound approach. Socialism is immoral according to the teachings of Jesus.
However, there is not any sort of divine right that allows the rich to enrich themselves, especially to enrich themselves by denying the poor. While taking away the accumulated riches would be morally wrong, preventing the rich from continuing to enrich themselves would be morally acceptable. Forbidding usury would be compatible with Christian morality, as an example.
We're not connecting. I think we agree about the rich man: he's not a follower of Christ regardless of church attendance.
We're not connecting at all about the other party: the poor.
Redistributive taxation didn't exist in His day (along with all the other stuff we've invented since then). We cannot expect guidance from Him to include Obamacare...
It is my not at all humble opinion that Christ would not only condemn the ultra-rich (as He did in his own time), but also promote all means possible to improve the plight of the poor.
Not stopping at the border.
That's historically wrong. Bread and circuses was supported by taxes. The Roman government did collect taxes and the Roman government did redistribute those taxes through public works. The Roman government created jobs paid for by taxes. Jesus was quite familiar with taxes; the apostle Matthew was a tax collector.
Not would but did; wrong tense. There isn't any doubt because Jesus already condemned the ultra-rich.
There is no divine right to lend money at interest, sell stocks, form insurance companies, or collect service fees. All these activities are about enriching oneself by denying the poor. Jesus was not an advocate for arbitration outside courts nor a proponent for eminent domain. Jesus did not make the argument that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; that's a secular idea.
Jesus did condemn what we call finance, there is no doubt.
Perhaps in the later Empire, but not in Jesus's time. Games were paid for by the wealthy.
(I know this because I just finished binging an excellent historical novel series called SPQR .
)
The Televangelists take money from the poor and give it to themselves.
Exactly!
Your post is lying and deceitful. Those pastors did nothing of the kind. Nor is what you posted the Gospel (good news) of Jesus
Jesus NEVER ONCE advocated for Govt to replace personal responsibility and trust in God for our provision. The Body of Christ is to care for the needs of others voluntarily from the heart and as a way to glorify God as our provider.
Jesus said the poor will ALWAYS BE WITH US- He never said anything about stealing from others to give to those who didn't earn it.
Jesus NEVER advocated trusting govt for your health
Jesus NEVER supported govts of any kind as being part of the life of believers
Scripture does not record Jesus or the Apostles giving MONEY to the poor.
He met their spiritual and sometimes material needs. He healed their physical afflictions
God provides to those who walk in the Holy Spirit so that we can give to others and glorify God
“And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work...Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God” 2 Corinthians 9:8,10-12
The Gospel is the Good News that God has appeared to man in the person of Jesus, paid the penalty of our sins for all who trust and believe in Him. That we believers are to share this good news, call all people to repent, turn from their sins and worship and serve the Lord. And we are to make disciples of all those who make this decision. That is the Gospel
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-2,12,14
“Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:6-11 NLT
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17
I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Luke 13:3
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to risefn from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. Luke 24:46-48
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2:37-39
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matthew 28:19-20
... bearing false witness in the name of the Lord...
thanks, Bob
The word of God is a false witness. Everything I stated is either a direct quote or a correct summation of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
you are the one spreading falsehoods
You are... amazing, lfod! I could not have imagined such a sentence...
That as supposed to be a question of you
That be language which?
Throwing God under the bus now? Wow.
So Paul's whole thingy about demanding subjection to governing authorities and that the rulers are the servants of god is bullshit?
I really really do not think you should ask lfod about Christianity. His particular variety is... strange...
In addition to being insupportable.
No. His point was that Jesus didn't intend that the believer was to subjugate others governmentally. God's call to the believer is a personal one between Himself and the believer. It is not a call to subjugate others through government.
Concerning the point by Paul that you mention we are to subjugate ourselves to those who rule over us, as long as what we are asked to do doesn't go against God's law. Those who are believers have answered God's call and as such we are, in a sense, royal children of the King. None more so than Jesus himself. Yet even he humbled himself and paid his taxes.
Thanks for giving me your interpretation of LFOD's interpretation of what Jesus supported. Of course NEITHER is supported in Paul.
Chapter and Verse on that equivocation please.
Point?
You must be reading a 'New' bible. KJ says he paid a 'temple tribute', NOT taxes. Taxes could be considered 'rendering to Caesar', NOT subjugation to government or rulers.
Funny that you think you're qualified to make such a claim.
The point would be the next thing you quote from me. Do you really not get that?
You are never going to understand because you read the Bible like a lawyer. You don't care what it actually says, you just try to take the words and make it fit your agenda.
Satan himself said that Jesus could summon angels to protect him, yet when he stood before Pilate he submitted to his authority. He didn't have to, but he did.
As qualified as you are to pontificate.
I note that you failed to support your BS about the equivocation.
So your entire intent is deflection. Why bother?
I'm not the one making up equivocations that don't exist, you are.
You're rambling...Where's the 'taxes' part?
Perhaps because I'm at a loss about that which you claim I equivocated on. It takes more than simply stating that I did.
Do you understand English? I'm thinking you are using a translator that isn't quite translating.
Uh... If they don't exist, how am I able to make them up? Do you get it? If my "equivocation" doesn't exist, how are you able to say they don't?
Sorry. I've dumbed it down as much as I can.
The statement you made about subjugating ourselves to rulers. Here, I'll put the equivocation in bold.
Chapter and Verse on that equivocation please.
Quite well thank you.
Exist in the BIBLE. But of course you know that yet chose to deflect since you are desperate to avoid admiting that you just made shit up.
No you're not.
Nope, you've deflected as much as you can.
You're doing it again. You're just claiming it's an equivocation. How about explaining why you think it's an equivocation? Simply stating that it is doesn't make it one. If I simply stated that you're an idiot, would that make you an idiot? Obviously not.
Seriously? You get the concept of God, do you not? Even if you don't believe He exists, you should at least be able to grasp the concept, right? So, if God says have no other god before Him and, for example, my rulers tell me to worship the FSM, do I really need to show you chapter and verse in order to convince you we are to obey our rulers unless what we are asked to do goes against God's will for us? If God says, thou shall not murder but my government asks me to go out and kill gays, who do you think I should obey?
From the Christian perspective, the purpose of those who rule over us is to promote God's morality over those whom they rule. When they fail to do so, say, kill Jews because they are Jews for instance, I have no obligation to obey those rulers because they have departed from the purpose for which they were made rulers.
Because it meets the definition. Perhaps the word qualifier is more your speed.
So Chapter and Verse on that qualifier?
So your posit is that Christians don't have to follow a ruler who isn't right and just.
So despite the LAW, your belief is that you don't REALLY subjugate yourself to a ruler, do you?
Definition of equivocate:
So, how is...
How am I equivocating here? How am I concealing the truth? How am I not committing to what I have said?
Not exactly but I can see why you wrote this. I was a bit too vague concerning the quote you are responding here. I should have been more specific. I said "I have no obligation to obey those rulers because they have departed from the purpose for which they were made rulers". I should have been more specific. What I meant was that I have no obligation to obey the commands my rulers issue that go against God's will for me. I did not intend to convey the idea that if they issue even one command that goes against God's desire for me gives me the right to no longer obey any command rulers have issued. If those who rule over me issued a command that I must kill any Jew I can find I wouldn't do it, but I would still obey any command from those rulers that were just.
I don't see where you get this. Yes, I do REALLY subjugate myself to earthly rulers. But when their rule conflicts with God on any particular thing, I will obey God before them.
As for chapter and verse, read the book of Daniel.
synonyms: prevarication · vagueness · qualification · ambiguity · uncertainty · ambivalence · indecision · doubt · beating around the bush · evasion · dodging · hedging · fudging
As I said before, the part in bold below is a qualifier, or a qualification if you will.
Then you just post MORE qualification. WHERE is this qualification that you keep talking about?
From your comment.
I posted the definition of subjugation, there is NO 'unless' or 'except' in there.
Why do you want me to read the Old Testament when this discussion is about what JESUS said about subjugation to government rule?
Fail.
A qualifier is not equivocation. If you meant qualifier, you should have said qualifier.
I DID, TWICE.
synonyms for equivocation: prevarication · vagueness · qualification · ambiguity · uncertainty · ambivalence · indecision · doubt · beating around the bush · evasion · dodging · hedging · fudging
A qualification is a standard.
Now, STOP deflecting and just admit that you can't support your claim...
Um, deflecting? You said I was equivocating, which you change to qualify because you apparently realized that I was not equivocating but don't acknowledge it and then claim I'm the one deflecting? Nice.
If you read the book of Daniel, you'd see that I can easily support my claim. But you're not going to do that, are you?
You don't acknowledge that qualification is a synonym of equivocation. Expand your vocabulary.
You still haven't explained WHY you want me to read the Old Testament when this discussion is about what JESUS said about subjugation to government rule?
Oh and BTFW, if you can so easily support your claim, WHY are you still tapdancing? DO IT!
I've read THREE versions of the Bible. KJV, NIV and Jehovah Witness.
Right. I know what a synonym is. It means a word that is the same as or nearly the same as. What you apparently don't understand is that synonyms are not different words for identical contexts. For instance:
equivocate: use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.
There isn't anything I am trying to hide or misdirect. Traits necessary for your accusation. If you disagree, what portion of my statement do you find disingenuous?
Still? As if you have asked before. Anyway, I want you to read it because it would answer your question.
Then why did you post this as a blockquote?
I didn't post that.
BTFW, your comment aren't YOUR language. You allege it is the language or at least the spirit of the bible but are unwilling or unable to support your claim.
I didn't make an accusation, I asked a question which you've tap danced around for days now.
You've been disingenuous every time you've deflected and refused to support your claim. Note that unlike you, I ANSWERED your question.
I did, in my 9.2.12 comment.
Telling me to go read Daniel is a cop out. When I'm asked to support my comments, I don't tell members to go read The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran to find the answer. The LEAST I would do is to tell them which verse to read.
Just answer the question yourself Drak. You said that you can easily support your claim. So DO IT, Chapter and Verse. Oh and since you insist that it's in Daniel, I expect it to be from Daniel...
Okay. Daniel 1:1 through Daniel 12:13
Well there you go Dulay, Drakk just gave you chapter and verse: he gave you the range for the entire book of Daniel. So his answer is yet again to tell you to go read the book of Daniel.
I doubt you will get anything more specific.
Proving yet again that he can't 'easily support' his claim.
Uh, yeah. I easily supported the claim. The fact you won't look at the evidence is hardly my fault. The entire book of Daniel is about the very subject we are talking about. Daniel and his companions not only have to decide which laws of man to follow and which not to follow when they conflict with God's laws, it isn't even his nationality's government. It's a foreign one. Yet even so, he faithfully serves the foreign ruler when it doesn't conflict with God's desires for him.
But hey, what's the point, right? It wouldn't matter what evidence I provided. You're just going to ignore it anyway and claim I'm not cooperating.
I asked you to support your claim. Here, let's review it AGAIN:
You predicated you claim by saying that it was Paul's point. Daniel isn't Paul, IS HE?
Daniel was an old testament self proclaimed prophet and had NOTHING to say about Paul's point about what Christian's actions should be.
Um, where do you think Paul got it, genius? You do know Paul was a Pharisee before he became a follower of Christ? Do you think he was unaware of Daniel? Do you think that, if you were standing there before Paul when he wrote it and asked him for an example from scripture to back it up, he would not turn to Daniel?
What's more, Jesus lived in the same manner Daniel did concerning this issue of submitting to governing authorities, as long as it didn't go against his Father.
So, if you think this is all just an equivocaton and Daniel has nothing to say about this, what do you think Paul's point was, when he told Christians to submit to the authorities appointed over them?
Paul wouldn't need Daniel to 'back it up' because Paul didn't say it, YOU DID...
You're deflecting AGAIN. The question is, WHERE did YOU get your qualification from? It sure as hell wasn't from Paul and as I said, Daniel is an OLD TESTAMENT prophet, NOT a Christian prophet.
Out of curiosity, is this the passage that you were referring to ... where Paul states that people should obey government?
Your point, it seems, is that this passage (Paul is the attributed author) states clearly that the authorities are doing God's will. Clearly they are, in this passage, positioned as God's representatives. God has delegated to them the responsibility of dealing with the people.
Drakk, it would seem, is arguing that you cannot just read this passage directly. That you must also go to the book of Daniel and read it in its entirety. When you are done you will realize that Romans 13 as written is not exactly precise. So, following this logic, when Romans states that rebelling against authority is rebelling against God, what it really means is that rebelling against authority can only be done if the authority is not representing God's will. ( Something like that. )
Interesting. If this is true, and the people were to follow the authorities as god's servants for the good of the people, how would the people know when the authorities are not being true to God's will and that they must be disobeyed?
I had a similar discussion with Drakk years ago regarding this passage:
I was apparently reading this passage ' out of context' . The balance of the Bible ostensibly shows that God really does not support owning human beings as property that can be beaten as would be indicated by a direct reading of this passage (and others).
That's is the question that Drakk is desperately trying to avoid answering.
They twist themselves into such pretzels...on one hand we're told that the Bible is the word of God and must be followed to the letter, then we're told to forget that old rule and follow Jesus and the New Testament and now we're told that the explanation of the new rules is in the old rules.
I have always been fascinated by the idea that the Bible is ostensibly produced (via inspired men) by a perfect God to communicate to His people. Yet it cannot be read in plain language. God apparently engineered the Bible in such a way that only authorities can offer the true meaning. Oddly, the authorities do not agree. So, really, there is no known authority.
At this point the answer moves to spiritual communication where God speaks to one's heart and guides one through the Bible.
And this is all of course perfectly reasonable and logical. No concern whatsoever that, in addition to what I just noted, the Bible itself is demonstrably errant, self-contradicting, and —due to changes of languages and myriad translations over thousands of years— extremely questionable as a representation of the original sources. The original sources, by the way, are also questionable since many of the tales appear to be rewrites of even more ancient stories far predating the OT.
But, not a problem. No big deal. The Bible is divine because ... it just is.
Well, let's see. Since you reject scripture, how about common sense??? So Paul says to obey those appointed over us. Do you think Paul intended that, if the authorities demanded all worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster rather than God, Christians are supposed to worship the FSM? Well? Do you? How about the government wants us to sacrifice our children? Or are you going to stick with your infantile argument that unless Paul says "... unless the authorities ask you to do something that goes against God" then we're supposed to just do whatever the authorities tell us to do??? I mean, that seems to be the basis of your whole argument. That we aren't supposed to take what Paul says in any sort of context or apply any sort of common sense, we're apparently supposed to just mindlessly follow that verse literally?
I mean, is that how you read that verse? Paul says a whole lot of stuff about the way Christians should live but you take that verse to mean "unless the government doesn't want you to do those Christian things"? So, again, what the hell do you think that verse means?
So, to answer your question, the qualification comes from scripture and common sense. There isn't a shred of deflection here. I can't put it any more simply than that. I think I know what your problem is, though. To you, the Bible is just a bunch of nonsense so you literally don't have a clue about what any of it is about. You probably have a better understanding of the Cat in the Hat than you do the Bible. So all you do is take those verses, isolate them from the rest of the Bible and think you're making some sort of point here. Well, I tried to answer your question honestly but it seems unless the answer fits your ideas you don't want to hear or consider it. That's boring the crap out of me. Have a nice day.
I haven't made an argument other than to point out the FACT that you have FAILED to support your claim that there is an exception to Paul's instruction to submit to the ruling authorities.
So your argument is that the bible is subjective.
OH THE IRONY!
You are deflecting AGAIN Drakk. The question is about what YOU said, NOT what Paul said.
I stated what it means WEEKS ago in my 9.2 comment. YOU insist that it doesn't mean that yet haven't cited one word to prove your posit.
Yet you've proven that you are incapable of quoting the scripture that contains your qualification which YOU claimed was a 'point by Paul'. As quoted above, no such qualification exists in Romans 13 or anywhere else in Paul's writing. Yet you insist that YOUR interpretation MUST be accepted as the gospel.
I don't have a problem.
You must have missed this part of Paul's letter to Timothy:
Since you claim to be a Christian, you seem to have some work to do...
By what criteria do the subjects reject the authorities (who they believe are the representatives of God?). If an authority told these people that they must sacrifice their first born (ala Abraham and Isaac), would they do it? Should they do it? How would they know?
Even today, Christians accept that if it comes from God then no matter how bizarre, it must be true. Questioning God is not an option. You, for example, believe that God put Trump and every other leader in office because of the Bible. You do not reject this based on common sense even though you have access to history and modern information that is far beyond what was known by the ancient subjects. So by what criteria do these subjects question the authorities who God has placed to represent Him?
Indeed, how about common sense? Common sense would reject the claim that authorities are representatives of God. Common sense today, when applied to the Bible, would conclude that the Bible is an ancient collection of writings by ancient men to control and influence their followers. Common sense would not ignore the fact that the Bible is errant and logically contradictory and conclude that this is not really the word of a perfect God — the supreme entity, arbiter of objective morality. When Ken Ham, et. al. conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old and thus dinosaurs coexisted with human beings, they are blindly accepting as true what they read in the Bible ... no matter how utterly ridiculous the resulting 'truth'; no matter how contrary that is to well-established modern knowledge. Common sense (and critical thinking) is not always compatible with faith; faith requires belief and that sometimes does not correlate with common sense.
Your argument to the above typically takes the form of: 'Who are you to question God?. Just because you do not understand God's intentions is no reason to conclude that the Bible is errant or illogical or that God is not exactly what He claims to be.'. In other words: 'who are you to think your common sense should be applied to divine matters?'.
I suspect that those ancients who tried to use common sense likely were dealt a similar 'who are you to question God?' retort. Except back then there were harsher repercussions than simply a retort.
Part of the problem is common sense, and to a larger degree, logic is not utilized when examining god or the bible. Many are taught or indoctrinated to NOT to question such things or other religious "experts." They are taught/expected to believe and accept any dogmatic nonsense they're told, no questions asked or accepted. In their minds, dogma trumps reason or critical thinking.
In the past, many people were executed or tortured for daring to think and question the brainwashing.
Now they're just told it's a sin, because knowledge is detrimental to brainwashing. We have people in here who put their religion above their country - that's absolutely astonishing (and yet they think they are patriots).
The disconnect caused by belief is the most curious part to me. In ancient times, gods were the substitute explanations for the lack of science. I can certainly see how people would hold that God had human authorities to represent Him.
It fascinates me how well that works even today with all the information at our fingertips. Take Dr. Francis Collins, one of the leading scientists in genetic research, a demonstrably brilliant, well-read individual. He is a Bible believing Christian. He is not lacking for information yet holds beliefs forged by ancient men.
My main explanation for modern religious belief such as that held by Dr. Collins is that the promise of afterlife is something some people must believe to be true. They are simply unwilling to accept a reality where this life is all that we have. That difference between everlasting spiritual existence and a single mortal life which terminates is profound and I do understand why people want more than simply the life we have.
Why some of us accept our fate and others refuse to do so is a fascinating question.
It really is. You've seen the same comments I have, where these people don't believe their lives have any meaning if there is no god - so they think atheists don't believe our lives have any meaning. Very fascinating, although also pretty sad.
Personally, I think eternity would be awful. At some point you'd get bored - and if you were just energy, what the heck would you do all day (the people who somehow imagine they'll be corporeal in heaven also astonishes me)?
I'm not sure he's even read the bible. He's clearly never read Romans.
I have noticed that some people can read and re-read words (indeed, even 'study' these words for 50 years) yet still come away with an inexplicable interpretation of same.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll begin to improve now, as this is a stupid argument.
It boils down to emotional comfort/need. I suppose the prospect of a loving god granting immortality can give one the warm fuzzies or make reality more palatable for them.
You thank me for pointing out 2 Timothy 3 yet KEEP DIGGING.
I'm just wrapping up my D.H. Lawrence rereads.
Self Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.
And yet so much of Daniel is repeated in The Revelation of Jesus Christ written by John, a disciple and friend of Jesus.
Calling someone's post "lying and deceitful" is not very "Christ-like", but, neither are many of these Evangelicals, in my humbled by the years' view, especially, those self-appointed "preacher mans" that "come to the Jesus" after an all-night drunk.
Your interpretation of what the Bible and Jesus say and mean is just so far off the mark its no wonder evangelicals can justify supporting a tool of the devil while trying to claim moral values. Please refrain from trying to force those nasty tenets on the rest of us.
Just in case anyone would like to read the "proclamation", here's a link . Be prepared for some serious dog-whistiling!
Certain parts are quite comical. There isn't enough mustard on the planet for the pretzel they twist themselves into.
The entire "evangelical" system is one of politics, not religion. They want to force their beliefs on everyone and ignore every other religion. They seem to worship cash, power and one political party.
Yup, to the evangelicals and the one political party, god is green and he folds.
I think that is true for the leaders. The followers, on the other hand, believe the leaders have special privilege to talk with God.
To be clear, you are talking about evangelical fundamentalists. Mainline Christianity, excluding Baptists, tends to advocate a much more nuanced and scholarly interpretation of scriptures as compared with Fundies. Whom, I might add, are considered dumbasses by most doctors of theology at most of the top seminaries. Of course fundamentalism has grown exponentially as compared with mainstream Christianity so it is debatable who speaks for Christianity anymore. Politics had much or more to do with this phenomenon as spirituality did...
For the most part, fundies are indeed the low-hanging fruit possessing most of the problems we talk about.
But religious people in general do rely upon authorities to give them the truth. I am not suggesting they do no independent research and thinking, but rather that there is a hierarchy of authority in the religion and it is presumed these religious authorities know more than the average believer and are trusted on their word alone. The higher the authority in the hierarchy, the more profound the truth.
Contrast this with science where there are no authorities. Experts, yes; authorities, no. There is no uber-scientist (Pope Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, etc.) whose word alone is taken as truth. All scientists are only as good as that which can be demonstrated through empirical verification.
Faux evangelical christians, do as I say not as I do, how many "family values" men have had affairs and paid for their mistresses' abortions.....they are the worst.
Exactly. Look at the ultra right wing Christians Duggar family. For YEARS they said that all child molesters should be executed, (not something I disagree with), because the bible says they should be. Then the son, Josh, is found to be molesting his prepubescent sisters. Still waiting for Jim Bob to kill his son....
I think Jim Boob was also molesting his daughters.
That family sure have hypocritical faux christian values.
Could be, but it's rumored that Josh is the father of some of his siblings....he boned his mother...that's so gross.
They are some strange people no matter how you look at it. Jim Bob said that "God forgave my son...".
I would love to see that shit in writing.
He only "forgave" his son, but no one else....that family is just plain nuts
Always amazing what rumors some folks will fall for!
LOL, well to be fair there are a lot of proponents of sex education being a parental responsibility
I.....don't think that's what they meant.....
LOL!
I know several Christians, good honest people, but, do they follow Jesus 100%, all the time, every day? No, not even close and they don't deny it one bit.
................
Good. You know some humans, who are all flawed in some way or another.
Christians don't proclaim to be perfect.
That’s for sure!