Well, since I disagree with your analysis, I don't really see any point to continuing. I see the Primary commandment as Love GOD. The others are explanations of how one does that.
Things have appeared to have changed Jim.
Firstly we had two commandments, now we have one commandment and now we have some 'others' from somewhere.
We can come back to this, but what you appear to be ignoring is the logical problem that your initial statement has.
When you say that loving God is done without the knowledge of the doer, it is done because the do gooder is doing something good, hence they are loving God. This negates the command to love God as it is an automatic result of loving others, there is absolutely no need to have the commandment to love God, you only need to tell people to love others.
It isn't hard to understand Brian, Love GOD, love others as you love yourself.
I know it isn't difficult to understand, but I have extreme difficulty harmonising this with scripture. For example, it makes a mockery of the crucifixion and resurrection, it also makes a mockery of Jesus charging the apostles to preach the Gospel.
The love others as you love yourself is essentially the Golden Rule, which has been around a lot longer than Jesus, so people knew this rule (the Jews certainly did) and there was no need for Jesus to come to earth.
It really is as simple as that.
And it simply ignores far too much of the Bible. What about sin, sacrifice, repentence, rebirth, you just seem to pick a tiny little piece out of the Bible and call it Christianity. With the faith you have you could basically call yourself anything you wanted to. Why not call yourself a Jew, or a Hindu?
If you wish to believe that you are not saved, then that is fine.
I am definitely condemned according to the Bible.
However, I believe that after you die you will be judged, not on some profession of belief, but rather on the life you lived.
Which is not Christianity, and certainly not what Jesus said you have to do to be saved.
This is a belief statement Brian, what I believe. It is not a sermon, not an Epistle, not a gospel, just a statement of what I believe.
I know, and I am interested in how you come to call it Christianity.
see the Primary commandment as Love GOD
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Jesus seems to disagree with you, He seems to think there are two seperate commandments.
Also, Jesus' primary commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. I am having difficulty harmonising Jesus' words with your version that's all.
Loving God with all your heart, soul and mind cannot be satisfied by your criteria. To love someone this way you really need to be at least thinking about them and not rejecting them.
It is interesting that Jesus makes this statement becuase it is consistent with God's jealous nature that is reported in the Old Testament. Love God first with everything you got and THEN love others as you love yourself, this is what Jesus said, which is not quite what you are promoting.
I suppose one more Xian sect won't make much difference.
I still kinda wondering if we agree or not, or if I'm just nit-picking.
Only you can judge that.
If I take the above quote literally then it means that if I spend 10 hours a week doing volunteer work for others and donate 15% of my income to charity I'm more likely to wind up with salvation than someone who spends 5 hours a week and donates 8%. What is the cut-off? (3.7 hours and 6.27% maybe)
I don't think I have ever said that there is some abstract standard or that people will be judged in comparison to what others do either. Instead each person is judged inividually based on their own efforts and capabilities.
Salvation is not something you earn IMHO but rather a given. You do not earn points. Instead, as I have said, you are expected to try to do what is right, not do what is wrong and when you slip, acknowledge that and try to do better in the future.
I think that we can also safely assume that some people perform good works because they like being told what wonderful people they are, while others serve anonymously. Are their deeds judged equally? I would just contend that we are judged on the condition of our heart, and not our deeds or our understanding of doctrine.
Again, I don't think that salvation is something earned. I think that is a given. Your judgement though will be before a Judge with Absolute Knowledge, not just of what you did or why you did it. People seem to be concentrating only on those good things a person might do but that is only a small part of life, one piece of a complex combination of good deeds, neutral deeds, bad deeds, opportunity, timing, motivation, capabilities, and all of those factors will be known to GOD.
One other point is that often the discussion seems to turn to charity or the poor. Sure, charity, the sick and poor, those less fortunate than ourselves are a fact of life. But I don't think that GOD says "Take care of the poor!" Instead, we are commanded to try to love others as we love ourselves. Soup kitchens are fine, but helping the person behind you in line at the check out counter is too, or kneeling down when you talk to kids so you are at their level, or saying high to someone or a simple smile.
When I was a Christian I felt that it was because I loved Jesus that good deeds flowed automatically, doing good was not something I had to think about, it was just the way things were.
What I am wondering is if Jar has got things the wrong way round. Instead of loving others first and this some way shows that you love God, doesn't it make more sense that by loving God with all your heart, soul and mind, (which Jesus says is the most important commandment)would result in the joy of knowing God which would automatically fill you with love for your fellow humans and thus you would do what you could for them?
When I was a Christian I felt that it was because I loved Jesus that good deeds flowed automatically, doing good was not something I had to think about, it was just the way things were.
What I am wondering is if Jar has got things the wrong way round. Instead of loving others first and this some way shows that you love God, doesn't it make more sense that by loving God with all your heart, soul and mind, (which Jesus says is the most important commandment)would result in the joy of knowing God which would automatically fill you with love for your fellow humans and thus you would do what you could for them?
I think that knowing God fills us with an impartation to naturally willingly perform good works.
But...
Where does this leave people like you, Brian? If God is dismissed as an outmoded human construct, what is it that motivates you to be nice and helpful to all of the people that you encounter?
I think that what is being said is that IF God exists, He is basically saying to you, "Very well, Brian...Im not going to go out of my way to prove myself to you, and you very well may never believe in me, but there will be a day of accountability and you will be judged on the second part of the greatest commandment seeing as how you see no logic in the first..."
And looking at it from a teachers point of view, its always better to have a class who expects a final exam even if none will be given! :)
“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way”--C.S.Lewis
As we are getting near the end I'll respond to both jar and Brian in one post.
jar writes:
One other point is that often the discussion seems to turn to charity or the poor. Sure, charity, the sick and poor, those less fortunate than ourselves are a fact of life. But I don't think that GOD says "Take care of the poor!" Instead, we are commanded to try to love others as we love ourselves. Soup kitchens are fine, but helping the person behind you in line at the check out counter is too, or kneeling down when you talk to kids so you are at their level, or saying high to someone or a simple smile.
I agree completely. Nicely said.
Brian writes:
When I was a Christian I felt that it was because I loved Jesus that good deeds flowed automatically, doing good was not something I had to think about, it was just the way things were.
In my own experience I wouldn't say that good deeds flowed automatically, but I will say that after I came to the knowledge that I'd accepted Christ as Lord, I viewed the things that I said and did in a different way. One of the things that I noticed is that I was much more conscious of how I talked to, and about, other people. I had a higher sense of awareness of how what I said and did affected others.
Brian writes:
What I am wondering is if Jar has got things the wrong way round. Instead of loving others first and this some way shows that you love God, doesn't it make more sense that by loving God with all your heart, soul and mind, (which Jesus says is the most important commandment)would result in the joy of knowing God which would automatically fill you with love for your fellow humans and thus you would do what you could for them?
OK, but I think the main point that jar is making is that you can love God without knowing Him by name.
As I see it, God has planted in all of us the ability to choose between good and evil and when we choose goodness we are in fact choosing Him. My view is that it is about loving the goodness and hating the evil. And as far as Christianity is concerned I go back to what I said before, and that is that when we accept Christ as Lord we have a more acute awareness of good and evil to guide us in the way we ought to go. This does not make us better than our Atheistic next door neighbour, but if we are sincere then we should be better than we were previously.
Edited by GDR, : Restructured paragraphs as it looked like I was attributing to jar things that were my own thoughts.
Edited by GDR, : I accidently put a quote from Brian in with jar's quote. Sorry
When I was a Christian I felt that it was because I loved Jesus that good deeds flowed automatically, doing good was not something I had to think about, it was just the way things were.
Then it would behove somebody on the "fundamentalist" side to discuss those words.
All that is necessary is to read them, hear them and keep them as written.
There are a lot of people reading these threads who aren't going to do that. They are going to form opinions based on what thet read here, not in the Bible.
If you have the courage of your convictions, come out of hiding and discuss the scriptures. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of those of us who point out how nonsensical your dogmas are. :)
There are a lot of people reading these threads who aren't going to do that. They are going to form opinions based on what thet read here, not in the Bible.
I sure hope they read the answers to my question:
how does one conclude that the "sheep and the goats" (invoked as some kind of proof text) is a causal one (ie: a sheep is declared a sheep because of their good works) and not a consequential one (they did good works because they are sheep)?
how does one conclude that the "sheep and the goats" (invoked as some kind of proof text) is a causal one (ie: a sheep is declared a sheep because of their good works) and not a consequential one (they did good works because they are sheep)?
There are several very definite indicators.
The story first says that ALL the world was gathered. There is no mention that there was some subdivision of peoples, but that all nations were gathered.
The story then goes on to select the sheep and goats. The sheep react in a very specific manner. They are surprised, they dispute the decision, asking "When have we ever done anything for you?"
The goats too are surprised, and they too dispute the decision, asking "When have we ever NOT done something for you?"
The message, at least for me, is pretty clear.
The sheep just did what is right, not for GOD or for Jesus but only because it was the right thing to do. The goats though are surprised because they believed they were followers, that they NEVER failed to do for GOD.
Jesus goes on to make it even clearer. He does not say that what was done was because of Him, but rather that GOD accepted the acts as being for Him, as done for Him without the individual even realising that what was done was for GOD.
how does one conclude that the "sheep and the goats" (invoked as some kind of proof text) is a causal one (ie: a sheep is declared a sheep because of their good works) and not a consequential one (they did good works because they are sheep)?
It seems to me that when one reads the passage that the salvation is a direct result.
Matthew25 writes:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry etc.
We can also observe that through life experience that not all Christians are more generous or loving than all non Christians.
We are also told directly that in the same book that calling on the name of Christ does not automatically make one a sheep.
Matthew 7 writes:
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Here Christ clearly states that it is those who do the will of the father who enter the kingdom of heaven and that not everyone who acknowledges Christ as Lord is in the Father's will.
I contend that the two passages together indicate strongly that the sheep are sheep because of their good works and that it isn't strictly consequential.
Paul seems to agree when he writes this:
Romans writes:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
However we can read from the book of John that we are not strictly on our own in our ability to respond to Christ and his message of love.
John 13 writes:
25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
The Holy Spirit reminds us but we still can reject that which we are reminded of.
Paul in Romans tells us that we can learn of God from his creation as well as from scripture. One cannot learn Christianity from learning about God from his creation.
Romans 1 writes:
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
All in all I contend that the scriptural evidence that indicates that it is not what we believe that brings salvation but it is how we reflect God's love to us on the world around us.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
