Christianity: "Over and Done"

Please tell me where Christians are forbidden to Judge others. And I hope your are not quoting from the Sermon on the Mount. Because that Sermon on the Mount was for the Jews only. The Bible commands us to warn thoses who are in danger of Hell.

 

lol.

Ree-fucking-diculous!

Is your brain by Hasbro?

 

Send me a copy:

Darrell A Kitchen
c/o Wat Greensboro
2715 Liberty Road
Greensboro, NC 27406

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

This is a personal attack:Campbell 34----------you stupid motherfucker,you wouldn't have enough sense to come in out of the rain!I respect REAL CHRISTIANS--but even though you THINK you are a christian,you are one of the poorest examples of a human I have had the displeasure of reading.I would shun a person like you in a minute and so would everyone else in here who has responded to your self-righteous pontifications,and in fact I would become VERY rude to you if I saw you in the flesh.(maybe I'm not speaking for others).Banned or otherwise I will never read another post of yours or anyone like you .-------------------------------

 

Please tell me you're joking...ALL OF JESUS DISCIPLES WERE JEWS! JESUS WAS A JEW!!! Most of the people he preached to were JEWS. EVERYTHING Jesus said was told to Jews, because that was his culture and upbringing. It NEVER says that some of Jesus' rules only apply to Jews. If you're going to believe that, you could say EVERYTHING Jesus taught was only for the Jews.

The meaning of the entire new covenant was that the Jews were no longer God's "chosen" people, but now EVERYONE is included. The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus explaining to the Jews the New Covenant, and how it differs from their old covenant, and how NOW EVERYONE WHO PICKS UP THE CROSS MUST FOLLOW THESE GROUND RULES. Yes, it was to Jews who chose to pick up the cross, but it was also to ANYONE who picks up the cross, he was just explaining it in relation to Judaism because that's what his audience at the time was predominantly made up of!!!

And the sermon on the mount is not the only instance where Jesus gives us a clue that being a pompous ass does not impress God. Let me ask you this, Campbell: If Jesus wanted us to run around frantically warning people about enternal damnation, then why did he instruct nearly everyone he healed NOT to mention it??? You would think people who have been healed by him would be the most effective preachers. But Jesus doesn't want a million followers who are only following him because they want to be physically healed, or because their afraid of going to hell. That's not what free will is about.

You're only saying this because if Jesus preached that you couldn't be a fear-inducing hypocrite, the entire foundation for your faith would be shattered.

GET YOUR EGO OFF MY GOD!!!

 

Not that you would know but The Sermon on the Mount (as well as most of Jesus Sermons) were most definately for Jews living under the Law.
Not only were they Jews assembling in Judea to listen to a Jew but the Old Covenant is certainly in effect, what they were practicing and (at that time) Jesus had not yet fulfilled the Law.
Its after the Death of Christ (and Resurrection) does the New Covenant come into effect.

Why you are 'laughing' at Campbell explaining very basic truths about Christianity when you dont have clue #1 is whats laughable here.
Try and open your mind once in a while and maybe learn something..even from Campbell.

 

Wait, wait....didn't you just say that the sermon on the mount was only for jews? And now you're quoting the sermon on the mount to make a point? Well, I'm not a Jew, so I guess the path isn't narrow for me...

 

You are no xian campbell, but some kind of nutter.

I've been through this nonsense with others here before. If Jeus commands were not meant for xians, then clearly the thing has absolutely no value whatsoever for humans.
Any value there ever was in c/anity is discarded in favour of some nonsensical cultus of 'belief' - even though that belief, according to your view, isn't to make us better people, or change our negative actions towards our fellows.
It becomes no more than an emotional prop, combined with much psycho-babble which could only appeal to those with extremely limited intelligence, and often, evil in their hearts which they seek to justify with this insane and spurious doctrine.

 

Yes, I did say that the Sermon on the Mount was directed to the Jews. It was the first time Jews were ever told that the Law they so religiously follow will not save them. Yet this does not negate any truth that can be grafted from what Jesus stated during His Sermon. And that truth is, most of the world is headed for Hell. Jesus tells you flat out, narrow is the way that leads to life eternal, and few there be that find it. Jesus is telling the truth.

 

So one of Jesus commands was that if your eye offends you, you should pluck it out. Do you really think Jesus wants us to obey that command. Do you really think Jesus wants true followers of His to be plucking out their eyes. Or is there something else He is trying to convey ?

 

Well you know, I might not have enough sense to come out of the rain. Yet if I thought you were in trouble, I would do all that I could to warn you. Because a true Christian will warn others of danger, even when it's not politically correct.

 

Darrell, I will have to figure out how to make some copies from these old tapes, yet as soon as I do, I will send you a copy. I have your adress.

 

Well that must be something they've taken on themselves then, because you already said that we don't have to follow any teaching given by jesus for the 1st c jews.
If it was meant for them only as you claim, nothing said in the bible has any relevance whatsoever for us. Your parroting of the so called 'prophecies' is equally meaningless.

Maybe the injunction to spread this insane infection to others - what you call 'praching' is likewise a deviation from the true c/anity where we don't obviously have any rules or even guide lines as to how to conduct our lives.

 

Campbell...a parting thought, and then I'm taking a vacation from HF...it's been interesting...though opinions have often differed strongly, I do appreciate the discussions with you and others here on the Christianity forum.

Anyway: you once specifically told me, as I reminded you again not long ago, that the Bible (I'll guess your favored version is KJ) is 100% literally-true, not metaphorical or symbolic in any sense. So, in this answer to Black Bill, you're not following your own guidelines.

Using your past statements, the logically-correct conclusion is that believers should pluck out offending eyes and cut their hands off.

 

Jesus taught using parables, metaphors. Even though the times were rather barbaric, I strongly doubt Jesus meant for people to literally maim themselves.

But this is the hypocrisy of Christianity. They say that the bible in general and the words of Christ in particular is the word of God (when in fact they aren't, they are gathered accounts of MEN). Yet when they get caught masturbating in a train station bathroom stall they don't run out and cut off their hands as penance.

 

No, I did not say 1st. c Jews, you did. I said, the Sermon on the Mount was directed at Jews. Please don't put words in my mouth, thats not the way to win an arguement. The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount was to show the Jews how good they would have to be if they wanted the Law to save them. Jesus so raised the bar for good works that the Jews understood that no one could be that good. What Jesus was telling the Jews was that good works cannot save you. And I might point out this teaching comes right out of Moody Bible Institute, which I attended many years ago. This is main line Christian teaching.

 

The liberal part of me would like to agree with you here, but I wonder....
Jesus was prepared to be 'maimed' himself, and the fundies take it as a blood sacrifice to appease their angry yaweh.
They have no choice but to reject the teachings as not applicable to them, because otherwise, taken in their literalist way, 'plucking out the eye' or whatever could only mean self-harming.

The tendency towards this kind of thing is evident from a study of historical figures within the xian tradition who have practiced various forms of self-harm, such as the self flagellation of monks in the middle ages (and more recently), the wearing of hair shirts etc.
Mediaeval monks were even proud of the head lice with which they were infested, calling them 'god's pearls' (the eggs look like small pearls).

Today's fundies mortify themseleves by abandoning all sense of reason - making themselves stupid.

Also, where he speaks of 'those who have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom' he seems to be legitimating a drastic form of self-harm. At least he fails to condemn such psychotic acts.

 

I was quoting one of your 'fellow travellers'.

Your argument here though is nonsense. Jesus words, if they had any value whatsoever, were for christians, and were meant to lay down moral guidelines for life on earth.

I don't care where you got your ideas from - the fact that you rely on institutions to inform you of how to understand the bible is itself a deviation from the way things should be. Learn to think for yourself. Don't be brainwashed by proffesional religionists. They are the scribes and pharisees of our age.

 

I believe the Bible to be 100% true, yet I do believe the Bible can and does use metaphorical language. Yet when it does this, I find that it is always clear to be metaphorical. Jesus was speaking in the extremes to explain to the Jews that to be justified by the Law, would require and extreme adherence to Law. Which to all present, that would be impossible, and that was the main point Jesus was trying to make. Salvation cannot be gained by the good works of the Law.

 

The Sermon on the Mount took place before there were any Christians, and it was directed at the Jews of that time. Jesus first had to deal with the requirement of Salvation. The Jews believed good works would save them, Jesus had to inform them, that good works can't save anyone. The reason I mentioned Moody Bible Institute, was because you suggested that my statments were not main line, I tried to point out that they were. My beliefs have not been formulated by professional religionists, for I myself don't even attend church because of my job. And you are mistaken when you call everyone a scribe or pharisee, because the people I know are those who put God before religion.