FriarTed my point was not if it was forever or just a very long time, it was a noticable difference between the text of Satan and Co. and the people not in the Book of Life.
In Satan and Company’s case they will be tormented for that time period (either ages of ages or forever). In the case of those not in God’s Book of Life it is the smoke of their torment that goes up for that period of time. There is a difference in wording that appears unneeded if the fate of both were equal.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
So after warning us that we will judged by the standard we use to judge, Christ
then tells us to beware of people who are “dogs”, “swine”, “false prophets”, “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, and “corrupt trees”. But in recognizing which people qualify as such, aren’t we “judging”?
[/QUOTE]
I think there’s a qualitative difference between being wary of someone because of their actions (the course Christ recommends), and assigning a punishment to someone based on their actions (what God says he reserves for himself), and it is only the latter that I would really consider “judging”. It is this latter role that one assumes when saying Stalin and Hitler are/should be in Hell.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Hey, maybe Jesus is telling us to be cautious & compassionate & consistent in judging!
[/QUOTE]
No, I still think he’s saying “don’t judge. Be discerning, but don’t presume to dole out punishment”. Also, as he’s supposed to *be *God (in most views), I think he gets to do all the judging he wants.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Just a sneaking suspicion.
[/QUOTE]
I personally think that it’s impossible to not do God’s will. 
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You gotta love the Bible in that respect. It is so fair and balanced, it demands behavior in one verse, then lets you off the hook in the next. That’s how so many of the faithful talk themselves into believing they don’t really have to give away all they own, or love their enemies, or turn the other cheek; because just a few verses further along, they can seize on some words that justify the complete opposite. No wonder there are a thousand different churches, all based on the same book, but lacking any agreement on just which verses trump the others.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how you get that at all.
I’ve always seen that passage the way Friar Ted sees it.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I don’t see how you get that at all.
I’ve always seen that passage the way Friar Ted sees it.
[/QUOTE]
But of course you do. And you cannot comprehend how any Christian could interpret it otherwise. Such certainty must be a comfort.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I personally think that it’s impossible to not do God’s will.
[/QUOTE]
God is in control, and if God allows it it is God’s will. This does not mean that there is not evil, and does not mean that there are no forces opposing God.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You gotta love the Bible in that respect. It is so fair and balanced, it demands behavior in one verse, then lets you off the hook in the next.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree with this, it is more restrictive in these cases, not less. The limits have been defined on both sides and we should strive to hit the very narrow mark between the 2 lines drawn. To miss is to sin, which literally means ‘to miss the mark’
What do you folks think about the following?
http://www.christianagnostic.com/day_page_4_19.html
[QUOTE=vivalostwages]
What do you folks think about the following?
http://www.christianagnostic.com/day_page_4_19.html
[/QUOTE]
It sounds a lot like the sermons at my liberal Christian Church.
[QUOTE=vivalostwages]
What do you folks think about the following?
http://www.christianagnostic.com/day_page_4_19.html
[/QUOTE]
Statements in it appear to range from OK to very unlikely but possible to out right blasphemy.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Statements in it appear to range from OK to very unlikely but possible to out right blasphemy.
[/QUOTE]
I can see the first two, but what did you consider “out right blasphemy” in that link?
LilShieste
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I can see the first two, but what did you consider “out right blasphemy” in that link?
[/QUOTE]
The main one is:
[QUOTE=]
For the homophobic, Christ becomes gay
[/QUOTE]
Now lets jump off the homosexual bandwagon for a bit. The above states that Christ became a sinner. It may have well said that Jesus was a murderer or thief. If this is true then Christ did not overcome the world, God, the Father, would not have raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus’ death would have been justified. Satan would have clear title on the world, no salvation would be possible. Game over.
Of if the Father did raise Jesus from the dead, He violated his own order of righteousness.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Now lets jump off the homosexual bandwagon for a bit. The above states that Christ became a sinner.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does no such thing. Leviticus and Paul each condemned homosexual actions, but neither condemned homosexual orientation. To “become gay” is not to engage in particular behavior, but to have one’s orientation changed.
(This, of course, is overlooking the fact that you appear to have misread the actual words. The intent of the statements was that the person should perceive others as of different race or sexual orientation, not that Jesus, himself, would physically change. But “changing to gay” does not, in and of itself, make Jesus a sinner in any event.)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, it does no such thing. Leviticus and Paul each condemned homosexual actions, but neither condemned homosexual orientation. To “become gay” is not to engage in particular behavior, but to have one’s orientation changed.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus could have had homosexual temptations, I could accept that. The behavior of homosexual sex, or for that matter premarital sex, which by definition homosexual sex would fall into is a sin, as such Jesus never could have done that.
Well, of course not! He was Jewish!
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Now lets jump off the homosexual bandwagon for a bit. The above states that Christ became a sinner.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is the part where the confusion comes in.
The linked page wasn’t attempting to portray Jesus as coming back as a sinner, per se (though, I don’t think that would necessarily be a problem). In the context of the other examples it listed, I don’t think it’s fair to deduce that Jesus would be a sinner if he returned as a homosexual, as it wouldn’t be fair to deduce that Jesus would be a sinner if he returned as a black woman.
As tomndebb mentioned, it’s primarily a perception thing.
LilShieste
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
In the context of the other examples it listed, I don’t think it’s fair to deduce that Jesus would be a sinner if he returned as a homosexual, as it wouldn’t be fair to deduce that Jesus would be a sinner if he returned as a black woman.
[/QUOTE]
I personally don’t like the use of the word homosexual (or gay) to refer to a person directly as I do see that act as a sin, and I want to think of the person as a person, saying that a person is a homosexual is to me calling them a sinner. Yes we all are sinners, and in that sense it is appropriate if it was taken as that.
I much prefer the term homosexual orientation, this does not indicate a sin, but a temptation for a particular type of sin. We all have our own temptations and Satan exploits our weaknesses as God can use our strengths.
If Jesus was someone with homosexuality orientation, as I pointed out above, I could accept it. I don’t see where being a black woman is listed as a sin so I don’t know why you brought it up.
Is it your contention that Jesus could have sinned (without the world literally going to hell in a handbasket)
My theology is a bit rusty, but I’m a bit dubious that Jesus being free of sin and perfect is universally accepted. It would certainly seem to abstract the humanity, which to many Christians defeats the purpose.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
My theology is a bit rusty, but I’m a bit dubious that Jesus being free of sin and perfect is universally accepted. It would certainly seem to abstract the humanity, which to many Christians defeats the purpose.
[/QUOTE]
Well, hardly anything is universally accepted, but it’s standard Christian belief that Jesus did not sin, the classic “proof text” for this being Hebrews 4:15:
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”
(the previous verse makes it clear that the “high priest” is Jesus)
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I much prefer the term homosexual orientation, this does not indicate a sin, but a temptation for a particular type of sin. We all have our own temptations and Satan exploits our weaknesses as God can use our strengths.
[/quote]
While I disagree with your position, I see where you’re coming from.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
If Jesus was someone with homosexuality orientation, as I pointed out above, I could accept it. I don’t see where being a black woman is listed as a sin so I don’t know why you brought it up.
[/quote]
I only brought it up because it was alluded to in the link.
The writer of this article (for lack of a better word), is assuming that one has as much control over sexual orientation as they do over their race or gender. This is why I didn’t interpret “Christ becomes gay” as an implication of sin - it was equated with the other two traits, which are (obviously) not sins.
So, to re-iterate what I said earlier in this post: I see where you’re coming from. The main reason I disagree, is based on my belief that sexual orientation is not a sin (i.e., a choice), but an immutable trait.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Is it your contention that Jesus could have sinned (without the world literally going to hell in a handbasket)
[/quote]
That’s correct - it’s exactly like elucidator explained. That’s a whole 'nother discussion, though. 
LilShieste
I had read the text which I had linked to this way: if we’re all made in God’s image, then we may imagine God to look like us and feel the way we do, no matter our color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.