its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 1,551-1,587 of 1,587

[Maria]

Robert wrote: "Mary - In reading Scripture, I find "poor" to mean: disabled from birth, unable to work, must beg. Current society has expanded that definition to every lazy bum with a hangnail. Yes, my church def..."

Poor is anyone who is down on their luck and needs some help - not forever help but help getting back on their feet, and taught how to stay that way.

I thought Christians were called "Christ"ians because they tried to have the mental frame of mind of Christ - "Christlike".

Sorry, Robert - I can't imagine Jesus calling poor people, no matter how or why they got that way, "lazy bums" or "malcontents".

What church do you go to again? Our Lady of No Compassion?

[Mary]

Robert wrote: "Mary - In reading Scripture, I find "poor" to mean: disabled from birth, unable to work, must beg. Current society has expanded that definition to every lazy bum with a hangnail. Yes, my church def..."

Very convenient interpretation.

[Giansar]

Robert wrote: "I sometimes get tired of the mice that roared and belittle the U.S. role in world affairs."
I don't think anyone would like to argue the decisive role of the USA in the world's affairs, but I think most people would not regard it as something to brag about. Of course the only person that would be willing to brag about his country's superiority over other countries is the shallow patriot from the famous George Bernard Shaw quote.

As to the poverty thing. Robert, are you sure that you are Christian and a follower of Jesus and not a laissez-faire fan and follower of Ayn Rand?

[W.]

Sorry Dave,
The "raging blood-thirsty warmongers and syncophantic (sic) cheerleader for the death penalty" is at best lame. What you have here is an attack. Whether in the long run, to run this society efficiently, one punishment or another is advisable is a matter of dispute and opinion. Opinions are what are measured by elections. You are free to not believe anything you want and use whatever you think is an adequate reason for that.
Regardless, the charity of Christians is not a matter of opinion. Show me the first "Atheists Memorial Hospital" or "Agnostics Orphanage" please. The numbers both in precedence and money spent are public record.
Now, every generation of believers tries to do two things:
1) to place themselves in the first century to understand the record better
2) bring the scriptures to the modern era to understand it better
LaHaye has taken the second approach. My own opinion is that he has tried and generally succeeded in remaining true to the scripture and it succeeds at that level. It is, however, not good writing. The characters are flat and motivation of the bad guys, evil as they are, is not fleshed out.

[Giansar]

Mwajani wrote: "Regardless, the charity of Christians is not a matter of opinion. Show me the first "Atheists Memorial Hospital" or "Agnostics Orphanage" please. The numbers both in precedence and money spent are public record."
Yes, they are a public records and they show no correlation between religiousness and generosity. The difference is that, indeed, an agnostic or an atheist will give her/his money for a hospice or a homeless shelter while a Christian will give to PRESBITERIAN hospice or St. Someone homeless shelter, which makes it more self-serving because he thus also promotes his religion.

Mwajani wrote: "bring the scriptures to the modern era to understand it better"
I'd say it's just the opposite. The books try to bend modern science, rationale, logic to fit the scripture. The result is bizarre because you cannot expect purely religious concepts such as young earth, scientific creationism (an oxymoron by itself) or salvation by faith alone to stand to modern science and logic. That is why Christianity in these books is so terribly infantile.

[W.]

A typical comeback, thanks Giansar, but predictable.
Firstly, some CUMMULATIVE study which proposes a negative result is logically suspect; you can't prove the negative, old boy.
How was the group chosen, etc etc.
BTW never saw a PRESBITERIAN hospice...must be the reformed church of Programers, but I digress. If your thesis is that it is impossible to find a group of the pious believers whose generosity did not make them build orphanages and hospitals that were not previously there, I think you fail.
If your thesis is that NOW people who identify as some sort of Christian give equal amounts to a broadened idea of charity (GIVE TO SAVE THE SNAIL DARTER TAPEWORM)) you may be right. People give to what they think is important and I for one refuse to give to SOME charities that do not do good up to my standards of good. So do you.
Secondly, you have not discussed my basis thesis. The attempt is to make immediate what is distant. "Bending" a miraculous event is sort of silly, donchatink? Just as a counter example on bending, The Big Bang occurring 13.7 Bil years ago was so abhorrent to Eddington and Einstein, among others, that they spent their not inconsiderable talents bending the data to fit a static universe model.
Rather than being an oxymoron "scientific" (a Christian concept) and "creation" are probably better documented now than ever previously.
You mention "young earth" which is not orthodox Christian thought except several centuries ago and within the last 20 or so. It is not part of any confession of faith and a topic I was not discussing.
To re-state my point, books are written to take us back to first century AD (like Joshua) and to bring a distant reality to the immediate. Your digressions did not further the discussion

[W.]

Maria said: "Oh, please! The baptist church is one of the most hypocritical organizations there is!"
I am confused.
HOW is this comment dealing with "Left Behind?"
What Baptist church are you talking about as there is no hierarchy, printed dogma, disciplinary compulsion or effective arm for retribution? I have no doubt whatever you can dig up something with 'baptist' connected to it in some way (suggestion: try Rockefeller, Jimmie Carter, John Williams for a few). My response would be the same: "That appears to be unfortunate and may even be sinful. If the man is dead, he sees his faults before him, you needn't comment. If he is alive then a believer has recourse (Mt 15, I believe). We are sinners and we try badly, intermittently and imperfectly to imitate the example of our adoptive brother. Forgive us."
Finally, I am trying to understand the use of a charge of "hypocrisy" in any argument. Please help me here.
If the argument, the process of words and ideas, correct what matter is it that the person is defective. "Sunlight can shine through a sewer."
If the argument is defective then no "ad hominum" argument in necessary.

[Maria]

Mwajani - not all comments on this board have to deal with "Left Behind". My comment about the hypocrisy of the Baptist church was no doubt in response to someone else's comment - who knows and who cares?

I don't think your approval is needed regarding the direction our discussion takes.

As to the hypocrisy - I was referring to Baptist preachers who lie, cheat, and use prostitutes - like Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, etc ad nauseum. They lived double lives - and were hypocrites and an embarassment to their congregations.

[W.]

Then perhaps one ought to specify what and to whom one is referring, donchatink? Your comment ("The baptist church is one of the most hypocritical organizations")included a few hundreds of millions of individuals, alive and dead; off hand, I would think you could come up with any sort of puppy in that big a litter, don't you?
You will forgive me, I trust, for MENTIONING the name of the thread and questioning the relevancy of your comment; if I suggested that you, personally, needed my permission to go off subject, I apologise. That was not my intent.
If you are going to make accusations about individuals, please try to provide a reference.

[Maria]

No harm done, Mwajani. Best wishes to you.

[Mary]

Mwajani wrote: "What Baptist church are you talking about as there is no hierarchy, printed dogma, disciplinary compulsion or effective arm for retribution? .."

Guess you have not heard of the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Will]

Those are fun to shout AMEN at any random point at whoever's preaching. It's never frowned upon no matter how loud you are. I've tried

[W.]

I think I did once. The statement stays. The SBC owns NO churches, can fire nobody but its own employees, has no required statement for membership. Any one church can do what it wants. This is kinda the thing about the history of baptists; its like talking authoritatively about fish in the singlular. Like I say with a few hundreds of millions of them here and abroad, in the past and present, no one is capable of saying what they are or are not. The very FOREIGN idea that it is a hierarchy like a caliphate is illuminating.

[Mary]

W. wrote: "I think I did once. The statement stays. The SBC owns NO churches, can fire nobody but its own employees, has no required statement for membership. Any one church can do what it wants. This is kind..."

No, they do not OWN other churches, but they can and do kick churches and people out. They DO require a statement of faith for missionaries (which they did not do prior to the 1979 conservative takeover).

[Maria]

The Catholic church also has no "disciplinary compulsion" - even for it's pedophile priests. They are not ex-communicated, just moved to another unsuspecting parish to molest a whole new group of boys.

[Darin]

D.seL wrote: "It is a great series for sure..and yes I am a Christian like most in this thread..what's alarming is that only a couple got the name of the last book of the Bible correct...its REVELATION brothers..."

That's what I was thinking!

[Maria]

What were they calling it? Probably putting an "s" on the end of it. I also knew a lady who swore the name of the book was REVOLUTION. :)

[Giansar]

W. wrote: "you can't prove the negative, old boy"
That is so true. Even if someone came up with something really outlandish like, say, an invisible dude living in the sky who loves you dearly but at the same time is willing to condemn you for eternity just for not believing in him. You couldn't prove him wrong.

W. wrote: "To re-state my point, books are written to take us back to first century AD (like Joshua) and to bring a distant reality to the immediate. Your digressions did not further the discussion"
The books try to fit current reality to scripture in its literal meaning. That is why the result is so absurd. I have read the Bible and while these books left me with many more questions than answers, one of the things I am quite sure about is that they were not meant to be understood literally. Jesus Christ himself taught using parables. Or maybe you regard the sower and the seeds parable as an agricultural advise?

[C. J.]

Maria wrote: "What were they calling it? Probably putting an "s" on the end of it. I also knew a lady who swore the name of the book was REVOLUTION. :)"

Yes some bibles call the book Revelations which is criticized and there are some who have their bibles (mine included) mention it as "the Revelation of Jesus Christ."

[Jerry]

CJ wrote: "Maria wrote: "What were they calling it? Probably putting an "s" on the end of it. I also knew a lady who swore the name of the book was REVOLUTION. :)"

Yes some bibles call the book Revelation..."

Your bible is more to being correct, original Greek has it as Revelation.

[C. J.]

Yes NIV (which isn't even a great version of the bible to being with, but I'm digressing) and other ones call it "Revelations" which could unintentionally be implied that there are many other revelations or many different things that are about God.

God has only A revelation for us. That is what we should do if there are events leading us toward or in the end-times.

[Giansar]

Jerry wrote: "Your bible is more to being correct, original Greek has it as Revelation."
God is speaking Greek, who'd think!
No wonder he never answers my prayers. My stupid Polish must be Greek to him!

[W.]

What something is "called" is perhaps wholly beside the point. Witness to that the White knight's song in Alice.
Jack Lewis once said that the world needed no more Christian writers. It needed more writers who were Christian.
Disbelief in the motives of people is an easy and cheap shot that does not bear any authentic response but I will not press the point until after I get back from my colonoscopy at St Null's Athesist Hospital.

[Jerry]

Giansar wrote: "Jerry wrote: "Your bible is more to being correct, original Greek has it as Revelation."
God is speaking Greek, who'd think!
No wonder he never answers my prayers. My stupid Polish must be Greek to..."

That's pretty funny actually Giansar. Just remember that one of the common writing languages at the time was Greek, hence why its important to look at the Isagogics of the writings. If you were to write your autobiography in Polish, it would be "Greek" to me.

[Giansar]

The point of my jest is that if the Bible is to carry the actual "Word of God" then its message must be deeper than its textual and linguistic level. Therefore nitpicking at words or saying things like "my bible is more correct than yours" or treating biblical texts literally for that matter is not sensible.

[Robert]

Gosh, I actually agree with Glansar for once. Hope my God doesn't strike me dead!

[W.]

None of this much to do about LB series...prolly too much to ask for

[Robert]

Somebody gabbing about the White Knight in Alice is admonishing us to stay on topic? Madre de dios!

[W.]

Ok, for the unread set. The white knight points out the inequality of a name vs what something is called vs what it is. How hard is that to fit into the discussion. No don't answer.

[Robert]

W. - yes, I get it that your little asides down a rabbit hole are topical and add to the discussion whereas everyone else's are just drivel. Been a self-centered jerk long?

[Giansar]

Keep it civil guys. Your grandchildren may be reading this ;).

[Glenn]

Well, people will say things when they remain anonymous that they would not say face to face. Pity, because it diminshes their opinions.

[W.]

Res ipsa loquitor

[Glenn]

Robert wrote: "Tim - I'm not self-righteous; in fact, I really could care less. It's just I sometimes get tired of the mice that roared and belittle the U.S. role in world affairs. If RSA could handle it's own affairs, then our CIA wouldn't have to meddle in your puny efforts and you could stand alone on the world stage."

Robert: "I'm not self-righteous." You're kidding, right? Tell us about the good that the CIA is doing in South Africa. And what affairs can't RSA handle? Terrorism? There isn't any.

What else do the CIA handle? Hubris? Send them your address.

"stand alone on the world stage" The USA don't give South Africa any financial assistance. If you would like to just send it to Pretoria. South Africa does stand alone.

Robert: "Tim - you conveniently forget that Mandela was a murderous terrorist and RSA has an apartheid past that still exists but is glossed over."

Do your homework. Mandela was never even charged with terrorism. And he never killed anyone. He was tried for treason; preaching against the ruling Nationalist Party, a minority govenment; calling for one man one vote; and organising armed resistance. He and the majority wanted to run their own country. My goodness, wasn't that why the American War of Independence was fought?

Robert: "W. - yes, I get it that your little asides down a rabbit hole are topical and add to the discussion whereas everyone else's are just drivel. Been a self-centered jerk long?" As a committed Christian shouldn't you be bringing people into the fold instead of insulting them and driving them away?

Please stop practising what you preach. Rather practice what Jesus preached. God bless you.

[Glenn]

Gee, I am so sorry that the discussion here has dried up. Where is W? Mary? Even Robert is gone! Was it something that I said?

[Glenn]

Maybe it is "Res ipsa loquitor." And maybe I am the guilty one!

[Mary]

Still here. Nothing much new to add.