Previous 21 - 30 Next
I will pray for you and your house :-)
That's nonsense. Christian pastors and Catholic Priests are shephards of a spiritual flock. There is no indication by history or logic that they are even mildly good stewards of check books, let alone political ideology. Is there any limit to the number of bad political ideas that Christian theologians have endorsed?
Going to bed now. Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
You keep missing the point. What does being zealous for God look like when there are no threats (internal or external)? You keep saying God wanted them hot but that does not explain what being hot means. Mr Giles and I have radically different views of what being hot means. You have not given a single example of a New Testament character displaying anything like what Giles is advocating. I can list dozens of examples of characters being asked to give and share earthly possessions (as an example of living one's faith, seeking gold, and dawning white robes).
Who believes they are rich but are really poor in scripture? Believe it or not the entire New Testament presents a juxtaposition of rich and poor, righteous and unrighteousness, Jew and non Jew. The point is not class warfare. The point is God is turning the current worldly ways of thinking on it head. That is what the Sermon on the Mount is. That is why the first shall be last. That is why the man who submits has power. Laodicea is simply a continuation of that theme. Persecuted churches are doing well. Thriving churches battle sin. Laodicea however, a church that has no such obvious reversal becomes the worst of all. Why? Because they think the are rich and blessed but they are really poor and despised.
Overt. Readily apparent. If your Diety comes to you and demands you to be more zealous, and to repent for it I think the obvious question for an observer should be what it means to be zealous. It could mean to go and kill in the name of Christ. It could be trying to do something that demands martyrdom. From this text alone it is not readily apparent.
We agree on abortion. As for repentance, you seemed to imply that you knew what God wanted them to repent for. There is nothing in the text that suggests that they should be zealous about calling sin, "sin". I want you to tell me how Mr. Giles position could be supported by this rather cryptic condemnation from your perspective. Jesus doesn't seem to be that hot on emphasizing "calling out sins."
We agree on abortion. As for repentance, you seemed to imply that you knew what God wanted them to repent for. There is nothing in the text that suggests that they should be zealous about calling sin, "sin". I want you to tell me how Mr. Giles position could be supported by this rather cryptic condemnation from your perspective. Jesus doesn't seem to be that hot on emphasizing "calling out sins."
A life of ease demands more. "go and sell everything you have and give to the poor.". A life of ease is too easy. God would almost rather they had problems and he could address them or that they were persecuted so that he could comfort them, but a life of ease. . .? It simply is much harder to reach them (think the camel through the eye of a needle). There is nothing of internal or external sin that had not been addressed (only a lack of love due to ease and prosperity). The cure was to buy gold and clothe themselves. Does that sound like judging to you?
You are choosing to read in a sin that is not there. You are doing this probably because you were taught the easy thing, they were not preaching and witnessing hard enough. The truth is much harder however. It is easier to be religious under oppression than it is under assimilation. In the churches where there was the threat of anhialation everyone hunkered down and shared, and bled together, and became unified. Where there was no such threat sin crept in, or worse (Laodicea). There was no overt sin in Laodicea. There was only the threat of assimilation. There was nothing to bind them. They felt blessed. They felt the reason for their blessings is that they were doing OK. The problem with this is the problem of the rich young ruler.
You are being just silly now. Repent for what? As far as abortion goes there are sincere divisions among Christians as to when life begins. As God knows all, I care more for living souls than potential life. I care more for the well being (spiritual and otherwise) for the mother that can choose who is responsible for her actions than the fetus that does not and who isn't. You condemn the mother for her very human failings while giving so much more weight for a fetus that is not yet a moral being. That is wrong.
Previous 21 - 30 Next