Christianity and the End Times

Name a few. The only one I've ever heard told is the temper tantrum in the temple, but it seems logical that if it really was His Fathers House he would have every right to chase the marketers out the door. Got any more?

We have discussed these topics at length many times here at EvC and still have not resolved our basic differences regarding our particular Christian beliefs, dogmas, and literal interpreted meanings which are the basis for our faith.I can see the argument over the necessity of Jesus being only human for the story to have any meaning. To merely anthropomorphize God as a God/Man means that His sacrifice was no big deal, according to you. To portray Jesus as a fallible human, however, shows us no standard of perfection which we believe that God demands from humanity. If He couldn't do it, none of us ever will.If, however, God is grading/judging/evaluating us by weighing what we could have done versus what we actually did and do, your argument begins to become more clear. Not saying I agree with it just yet.

Unless of course God actually existed. Lets say that He did. Would you expect to understand Him? Would you find it silly that others claimed to have any sort of understanding? Maybe they were improving their understanding while you were off fishing. Or maybe while you were fishing you meditated peacefully and improved your understanding without you even being aware of what it was that you were gaining an understanding of.Its all about belief. Forget evidence.

Why is belief worthless? It's a foregone conclusion that people will disagree.You seem to think that for anything to be valid everyone has to agree on its substance. It is true we should be wary of exploitation. What I ask is "why does growing up involve abandoning all belief?" Belief serves a human purpose. It inspires. It fuels the imagination. It provides hope. It resolves inner angst (though in some cases it DOES cause it)Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I don't believe that God usually gives us direct answers. He stimulates our thinking. We don't simply all receive one similar answer. Faith and GDR disagree in minor matters. Faith is highly dogmatic and her belief centers on strict Biblical Inerrancy as well as Gods infallible perfection. This leaves little room for discussion. GDR emphasizes Jesus as a living presence and disregards strict interpretation of the book as limiting and even idolatrous. No. People make up their own stories based on what their inner perception is. No. They lie to themselves. Highly doubtful. If so, God is unlike what we have taught that He is. I can see why you would conclude that it is better to ignore Him altogether rather than risk finding out He is the wrong God!

Believe what you want. You've never trusted Him anyway. I've yet to meet a drunk with any real wisdom. (unless you are one and I don't know it!)

Is it a lie? You have indicated that you dont even believe that He exists. You interpret His message as working for the people. You trust humans.

Why would He torture you? Do you have a documented reason?

tghats what you get for believing the message yet ignoring the messenger.There is no evidence even in the Bible that God would torture you specifically.

Care to quote it?

Do you feel as if you resemble those on the Left hand? Is there any reason why you could argue on their behalf, even if you were not obne of them? Is God obligated to save everybody regardless of their behavior and actions?

Tell me. Would you just open the doors to your home and let anybody who walked by enter and stay the night...without so much as an impression of their character? Yes yes, we know about doing for the least of these in regards to feeding and clothing...but I am talking about literally sharing the space that you occupy. It is my belief that God desires all to live in His "house" yet He won't simply invite them all in since some carry viruses that can infect others. Hence the sheep and the goats. You cant simply let goats in with the sheep.

If you consider them equally valid they are equally valid to you. The question is whether or not they all offer the same benefits

If you invited a stranger into your house and could control whether or not they stole, would you thus be controlling any and all of your guests? Would you (if you were all-powerful) allow them to simply steal whatever their freewill wanted? Would you nevertheless invite everyone in? Is there no standards for your guests?

I just read an interesting take on this parable here.To wit:

quote:

---

...It is most commonly interpreted as an injunction to help the poor; most Christians (in the West at least) read this more or less as the sheep being Christians, the goats being non-Christians, and ‘the least of these my brothers [and sisters] being the poor in general.(...)

Firstly, as Dick France points out in his commentaries, Matthew never has Jesus refer to his ‘brothers’ or sisters as anyone other than those who do the will of God by becoming his followers. This is particularly clear in Matt 12.49, when Jesus is rather radically proposing that his new family are the disciples gathered around him (which of course includes women).

Secondly, Jesus is clear that to follow him means to be homeless; in reply to a teacher of the law who would follow him, Jesus replies: ‘Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head’ (Matt 8.20 = Luke 9.58). In other words, if you follow Jesus you will be like him, and this is to be without home, a wandering stranger, reliant on the charity and provision of others.

Thirdly, at the end of Jesus’ second block of teaching in Matthew (which Matthew attaches to the sending out of the 12 in chapter 10) we have a very similar ideawhoever receives the disciples in effect receives Jesus, and how they treat the disciples is in effect how they treat Jesus. (These verses, Matt 10.40-42, don’t have an exact parallel in the other gospels, though there is a similar saying in a different context in Mark 9.41).

​

Thus...

To follow Jesus means (to risk?) being hungry, thirsty, naked, as stranger, sick and in prison. This has not been hard to imagine for many Christians in many parts of the world in many times in history. In fact, it is perhaps only in a rich West that Christians could have misread this teaching, by naturally reading themselves in the role of the powerful helper rather than the powerless in need of help.

It raises big questions about the status of those who don’t appear to have named Christ as Lord (Romans 10.9), but have responded to Christ in being the ‘sheep’ who have assisted his disciples because they are his disciples. This question was raised by someone listening to me teach on this recently, who works in inner cities primarily with Muslims. ‘If my Muslim friend helps me out are they counted as sheep?’ In a sense it asks the bigger question of whether it is possible to become a Muslim follower of Jesus rather than become a Christian.

Finally, it suggests a rather different model for mission. We are not going as the strong with resources to help the weak, but we come as the weak ready to receive from those to whom we have been sent. And of course, this is the idea behind the idea of finding the ‘person of peace’, taught by Mike Breen and others from the sending of the 12 and the 72 in Luke 9 and 10 and Matt 10.

---

It makes the idea of being a homeless (or very poor) suffering Christian a hard life to follow and, if in fact, that is what God wants, few will actually do it...likely myself included. I at least want a place to lay my head. What makes you think everybody should end up in Heaven? Some of them likely would refuse to follow the protocol.