Recently, someone put forth Martin Luther King, Jr. as somewhat of a model Christian who stood for non-violence, peace and love. There were immediate responses which called him an adulterer in a seeming attempt to discredit his Christianity. I do not know if he commited adultery or not and that is not the issue here.

Using the above as an example only, I would like to hear your opinion with respect to the following three questions:

Do you expect Christians to be sinless because they rebuke sin?

Do you have the impression that by virtue of being a Christian who spreads God's teachings against sin, the Christian believes that they are holier than thou and without sin?

If a Christian sins, in your eyes, does this discredit them from answering their call to spread the Word of God concerning sin, forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ?

Believe me, I realize that it is sometimes difficult to do but, I would truly appreciate it if we could stay on topic here and address the three questions above. Thanks! :)

True--

When a politician commits a "social" sin, we expect that politician to lie about it. We expect denial.

Like other aspects of social organization and common life, though, we do have higher expectations of Christians, who pronounce that superlative standard.

It bothers me not when Christians sin. But when they feel they have some "right" to behave as shamefully as, say, politicians, and deflect issues and deny culpability, it's that much more of a dagger right into Jesus' side. And that's almost sick enough to be funny to me.

But when these shameful, denying people try to encourage, enforce, or cause a standard that THEY THEMSELVES refuse to live up to in practice, then I don't care whose banner you wave, you're taking part in the very cesspool that Christian philosophy claims to transcend.

Non-christians don't need to be annoyed by the sin; after all, the sinners often go out of their way to be annoying. I expect this annoyance of people in general, but not from people who claim to be above such conduct.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

True,

I must apologize for the irrelevance of my last post. I hadn't properly noticed the limitation on considerations.

Unfortunately, yes, Dr. King committed adultery. But it wasn't his Christianity they were after, but his credibility as a man who stood for family and unity. His Christianity was the tool exploited in that campaign.

So: No, Christians need not be sinless since they rebuke sin.

No: The idea that someone is an evangelical Christian does not automatically make them holier-than-thou.

No, a Christian who sins does not discredit their need to answer God's call.

There. Nice and neat, just like you asked. As one note, however, I need to add the idea that most Christians are already aware of this kind of moral construct, and are happily ready to exploit it and wash themselves of their own sin. That rampant practice is more discrediting to Christianity, and unfortunately, it's rife among the faithful.

--Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

Tiassa,

You are sooooo lost, it's ALMOST funny. I don't have time to get into it with you right now, but you are sooooooooooooooooo lost, and as in lost, don't think I'm only talking about your soul. I'm talking about your lack of intelligence. Sorry, I'm just stating facts here. You wouldn't know what Christianity was if it walked up and bit you in the ass.

And to answer your question TS, no, I do not believe that anyone is stupid enough to actually think that Christians are sinless. There may be a few Christians who may have totally missed the point of the entire religion and entertain the idea themselves anyway, but they would have to be pretty dense not to get that message (like borderline retarded). What I think that you are talking about, is the fact that lots of people like Tiassa and many others on this board, WANT to believe that we think we're sinless, and that our religion somehow teaches us that we are sinless, so that when they see a Christian committing a sin, they can jump up and point and say, "Ah ha! See, I told you your faith was a bunch of BS! If your faith meant anything, then all of you Christians would be perfect!" Which of course, in their little tiny teeny feeble brains, gives them the scapegoat that they are looking for, to deny the faith. When in reality THEY KNOW that this little stupid arguement or justification of theirs makes no logical sense whatsoever, but that's ok, as long as they don't have to humble themselves to their Lord that's all that matters. Talk about some illogical BS.

The Bible and the faith and Jesus made it very, very, very, very clear that WE ALL fall short. Waaaaaaaay short. Everyone on this earth is a sinner, like it or not. So what does that tell us boys and girls? Very good! Yes, that Christians sin too. What a concept. So why then, Tiassa and others, is one of your most major contentions with Christianity is the sin of Christians????????? If anything, the sin of Christians, just like the sin of everyone, PROVES that the faith is 100% correctamundo. Come on guys, this is easier than algebra.

Oh, and I missed that one. Hey TS, were you aware that WE wash away OUR OWN sin??????????!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!! Tiassa, I'm sorry, but you are soooooo ass-backwards! Homey, I don't have that kind of power for crying out loud! If I was powerful enough to wash away my own sin, then logic tells you that I would have to be powerful enough to avoid sinning altogether. But of course you're wrong, and of course that's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Of course, what else would I expect. You know, I'm getting bored. You non-believers out there need to come up with some LOGICAL debate. I'm sick of the same repeated illogical rhetoric. You make no sense.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited January 06, 2000).]

Lori--

Quite simply, my beef with Christians and sin is when the alleged Christian who is allegedly sinning chooses to deny the sin through political arguments; how can a Christian employ a process it decries in pagans?

Okay ... let's take a very blatant example that I've used in other contexts before:

* A pastor from a community near Seattle was arrested in Florida for Lewd Conduct; specifically, he stood accused of masturbating in a public restroom. Now, frankly, I could care less. If asked to offer an opinion, it would be that everybody masturbates, and that it would be wise, next time, to do it privately in his home or hotel room, or at least in his car.

But the pastor's first response was that he was the victim of a politically motivated smear campaign. Personally, I expect this from presidents, senators, governors, and others of that sort. But the elders and his congregation came to his defense and ... not only did it turn out to be true, that he had been caught in this act, it also became apparent that he had attempted to enlist the local sheriff in a coverup. THAT is what I object to.

I don't expect Christians to be without sin, but if y'all are supposed to be in possession of a better philosophy, how does a Christian justify that kind of deceit in trying to bury evidence of the sin through lies and graft?

This is an idea that's so common among American Christians it's sad. Christ didn't just heal the symptoms, did he? He didn't make the appearance of a wound go away; from what I understand of the Christian tradition, he healed the causes of the symptoms.

Truly, Christians might believe themselves imperfect in Christ's image, but that's no excuse to abandon the philosophy and take part in the kind of political spinning that Christians have, since their inception, argued against. Of course, to be fair, it's a practice that, since their inception, they have engaged regularly.

That's what I don't get ... Christians claim to have the best thing going, and choose instead to run with the dogs while complaining about getting fleas.

Sorry, I'd rather be lost in a Christian land than found and saved in corrupted grace. If Christ is ever to move me to his faith, it will be because I understand how that faith interacts with my station in life. By and large, though, the simplicity required to maintain a faithful regard would be a step backward in my ability to relate with the world at large.

And to withdraw myself from humanity, in general, in favor of a cause so lost that it might not find itself in my lifetime ... well, True might think me dumb, and while I have my own shortcomings, I'm not that bloody, outright stupid.

What it comes down to is this: So I convert, and then I get old and die, and on my judgement day, God says: "You have besmirched My Name with your ill-conceived representations of My House."

Or is that part of faith, too? The assumption that God's as pleased as punch with your interpretations, as long as you put Jesus' name at the top of the list?

Oh, and Lori, dear, if accepting things blindly and never exploring the more difficult facets of that faith constitutes intelligence, then I choose blissful ignorance.

On the other hand, I could assert that your blind faith is self-destructive. Certainly you might examine the faults of your faith, but do you ever transcend your own moment in order to perform that examination? Hmm, I think the roof might be leaking--don't see any cracks in the ceiling, so it must be fine. Um, don't you have to GO OUTSIDE to see the roof?

Or is your roof and ceiling made of glass, so that you can see that answer? In that case, I need not remind you about throwing stones.

You're so damn haughty for one of God's humble flock. Have you got anything better than "lack of intelligence", or the presence of the antichrist to offer? Have you any ideas that aren't prescribed by the Bible? Or is evolution still a sin to you?

If you'd like to demonstrate your lack of a lack of intelligence, then I would suggest that you, and other posting Christians who lack a lack of intelligence, might wish to address some of your history, and some of your philosophy, and stop making yourselves and your perceptions of God the focus of your faith. There is much to learn from those people whose footsteps you follow. I can't believe you would give that up just because it's easier to limit yourself to one book.

:rolleyes:

--Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 06, 2000).]

tiassa,

I'm really shocked to see that you are beginning to understand some things (though surely not all). Also, you are correct. The childish ones, the back sliders, and the fakers do discredit Christanity greatly. Isn't that what the Bible always predected about the last days? Isn't that Satan's goal to weaken God's people with confusion and self serving lusts?

As for your later posts, let me sum it up with this. To be a Christian is to follow Christ,... not the actions of other Christians (good or bad). You live by mob rule. We live by the Living Word of God!

Jesus is my Rock,
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited January 06, 2000).]

truestory-In regards to your question, I expect of Christians what I expect of all others. Practice what you preach. If they preach purity, then they should be pure themselves, or at least try to be. Sometimes the effort alone is a triumph. But few things frost me as much as someone telling me that I need to be peaceful and keep a kind heart and listen to what they are saying when they are lashing out violently at others who's opinions differ from theirs. This, unfortunately, has become the stereotype of Christians, and if it is to be mended then it is up to the Christians to mend it.

I do not expect Christians to be sinless because I do not expect of others what I do not expect of myself.

I do not believe that all Christians are holier-than-thou, but there are plenty of obnoxious boors in their ranks, as in other ranks.

If a Christian commits a sin (by my definition) it only discredits them if they do so without acknowledging that they are only human. Jim Baker, Jerry Fallwell, and Jimmy Swaggart come to mind as those I count as discredited. Crocodile's tears these circus clowns cry. But anyone who stumbles and gets up saying "oops..." or has the guts to face up to it is only made more credible by their actions.

Generally speaking, those who take up the cloth are led by the purest of intentions, to minister to those in need. They suffer with their faith when church politics get in the way. Then their faith is tested to the sorest degree and the sinners are exalted to high church offices while the saints stay down here in the muck and slime, right where they're needed most.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Thanks for your responses everyone!

I'd like to offer some comments, if I may...

It would be useless to expect a Christian man or woman to be sinless even if they rebuke sin, because we can walk with Jesus Christ and rebuke sin for the rest of our mortal lives but none of us will ever be sinless in this mortal lifetime as we know it. With the exception of one unique individual, we are all sinners here on this earth, including Christians. So, I expect everyone to sin, including Christians.

To be honest, there are some Christians who give me the impression that they believe that they are holier than thou and without sin by virtue of being a Christian and spreading God's word against sin. To be honest, there are also some non-Christians who give me the impression that they believe that they are holier than thou for various reasons. It is useless for any one of us to think such a thing about ourselves. We are all sinners and we are all in this world on equal footing in the eyes of God. God knows that only Jesus Christ could be without sin. So, no matter what we do, God loves us all. God hates our sins, but God still loves us all equally.

While we are here, none of us are discredited by our sins in the eyes of God and none of us can be discredited from spreading the Word of God. Yes, God hates the sins of the Jeffrey Dahmers and the Mother Teresas of this world. However, God loves the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world as much as He loves the Mother Teresas. A Jeffrey Dahmer will not be discredited as a Christian and refused salvation in the eyes of God if he truly repents for his sins, truly asks for God's forgiveness, truly accepts God's great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and has the Spirit of Jesus Christ with him when his mortal body dies. God will know this man's true spirit on his judgement day.

Conversely, a Mother Teresa will not be credited as a Christian and granted salvation in the eyes of God if she does not truly repent for her sins, does not truly ask for God's forgiveness, does not truly accept God's great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and does not have the Spirit of Jesus Christ with her when her mortal body dies. God will know this woman's true spirit on her judgement day.

If sin discredited someone from answering their call to spread the Word of God concerning sin, forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ, then it would have been uselss for God to give us the Word to spread. God knows that, with the exception of one, we are all sinners. If sin discredited one from spreading God's Word, then none of us would be fit to spread the Word of God, with the exception of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is unique in that He was the only man to have ever lived a sinless life. He is also unique in that He was both all man and all God and could not possibly sin against Himself. God is something which we, as men and women, will never be. However, it is Jesus Christ who showed us HOW to live a perfectly pure and sinless life and Jesus Christ is the unique model for Christianity. As Oxygen pointed out, as men and women, we can strive to be Christ-like... that is, we can strive to be pure in heart, like Christ. We can strive to be without sin, even rebuke sin as Jesus Christ did. However, we can never BE pure and sinless as men and women because, unlike Jesus Christ, we are not God. So, it is useless to expect to find pure Christianity in men and women. You will never find it in them. It is useless to look to men and women to set the standards for Christianity because they cannot. Jesus Christ alone set the standards for Christianity. It is useless to put forth other human beings as representative of Christianity, because they are not and can never be Jesus Christ... Jesus Christ is the only one without sin and the only true representative of Christianity. As men and women, we can sometimes identify by a Christian's actions whether or not they were with the Spirit of Jesus Christ at a given time in their life. If, as ISDAMan pointed out, they slid backwards, it does not discredit their Christianity. By truly repenting for our sins, whatever they may be, by truly asking God's forgiveness, by truly accepting God's great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and by going to God with the Spirit of Jesus Christ on our judgement day, our sins will be forgiven. When that will happen is different for each of us. So, we need to be prepared by striving to have the Spirit of Jesus Christ with us always because we need Him with us in order to be judged free of sin before entering the pure and sinless Kingdom of God.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with us all!




[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 07, 2000).]

With regard to question 1 do not expect Christians to be free from sin. If we were, we would need no Saviour and the whole question of following Jesus would be moot.
Question 2: I am not holier then thou, I am a servant of Jesus who is called by virtue of his baptism to spread the message of forgiveness and reconcilliation. I cannot be greater then the one I serve who said that he comes to serve, not to be served. If anyone has an attitude of "holier then thou", they have missed the point totally.
Question 3: If a Christian sins, he can ask for and get the forgiveness that is promised to all. This is shown by the three fold denial of Peter being changed to a three fold affirmation of faith by the questions that Jesus asked him and the commands that he gave to "feed my and tend my sheep."
The transmittal of this story over the years must have given great hope to people(I know it did, and does to me)as they fall due to their humanity and rise due to the forgiving power of God. Relating their own personal story of falling and rising as they spread the message of Jesus can only help to convince people of its power as they see how God works in ordinary peoples lives.

Wonderful, frank - and thanks!

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always!

Ts,

quote:
, God loves the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world as much as He loves the Mother Teresas. A Jeffrey Dahmer will not be discredited as a Christian and refused salvation in the eyes of God if he truly repents for his sins, truly asks for God's forgiveness, truly accepts God's great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and has the Spirit of Jesus Christ with him when his mortal body dies. God will know this man's true spirit on his judgement day.

So what about these type of people that are so F*&^%d up in the head that they simply cannot understand or feel that they have commited horrendous sins?
Is there a chance that their 'true spirit' is sinless enough for God?
Do you think God can take into account a persons psyche?
If so, dont you think that we all suffer from some kind of warped psyche?

TS,

I'm not certain whether you understood my grounds for stating that one should be careful when making assumptions about whether or not Dr. King was a true Christian.

In the thread you are referring to, I posted a webpage address that contained one Christian woman's argument against MLK being a Christian. You may not have read that page, but her arguments were persuasive, and they had nothing to do with his alleged adultery. Since many of the links on that page were broken, I would like to post a link to one of Dr. King's papers on Mithraism and its influence on Christianity below, along with the conclusion of that paper:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol1/491123-A_Study_of_Mithraism.htm



Conclusion

That Christianity did copy and borrow from Mithraism cannot be denied, but it was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action. It was subject to the same influences from the environment as were the other cults, and it sometimes produced the same reaction. The people were conditioned by the contact with the older religions and the background and general trend of the time.

Many of the views, while passing out of Paganism into Christianity were given a more profound and spiritual meaning by Christians, yet we must be indebted to the source. To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing.



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS,

Here is another paper written by Dr. King, entitled, "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection", followed by an excerpt from that paper:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol1/491123-What_Experiences_of_Christians.htm



The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?

We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him. We must remember that the Logos concept had its origin in Greek thought. It would {was} only natural that the early Christians, after coming in contact with the Greeks would be influenced by their thought.



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS,

Here is another paper entitled, "The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically", where Dr. King criticizes fundamentalist thinking:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol1/491123-The_Sources_of_Fundamentalism_and_Liberalism.htm


When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God. Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man {was} lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death. The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule by many. But this does not shake his faith--rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil. The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn't influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God.\[Footnote:] Sores, op. cit., p. 54.\

Others doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he was {is} willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.




------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS, Lori, ISDAMan & other Christians:

In light of the above information regarding the theology of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., coupled with the Christian "test of spirits", do you still think MLK was a true Christian? Or do you think that maybe his guiding spirit was antichrist, as it has been previously defined on this board?

Note: This question has nothing to do with Dr. King's other accomplishments in his lifetime, or whether or not he sinned - the question is simply, "Do you believe MLK was a true Christian?"

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS,

I know you asked that we stay on topic here and address your 3 questions, which I will do in a moment. However, the point of my previous posts in this thread was that the entire topic was "off-topic" in the sense that your reason for posting it was due to a misunderstanding of what I had posted in another thread (at least, that's how it appears to me).

Now to answer your 3 questions:


Q1. Do you expect Christians to be sinless because they rebuke sin?

No, but I do expect a sincere effort on the part of the alleged Christian.

Q2. Do you have the impression that by virtue of being a Christian who spreads God's teachings against sin, the Christian believes that they are holier than thou and without sin?

Yes, in many cases they do display the "holier-than-thou" attitude. They do acknowledge that they are sinners, but with the "That's okay, I'm still better than you because I'm forgiven" attitude.

Q3. If a Christian sins, in your eyes, does this discredit them from answering their call to spread the Word of God concerning sin, forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ?

It depends on the situation and the sin. Do they keep repeating the same sins over and over again, with the idea that they will be forgiven over and over again? Is it a one-time sin that they are truly humiliated by and repentent for, and for which they have paid the price for having committed? And what about the sin of "spiritual rape" - forcing one's beliefs on others? Does the Christian who is spreading the word remember to kick the dust from their feet and move on when their audience tires of hearing it? All of these are factors when determining how seriously the rest of the world will take individual Christians.



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

Upon coming to this page today, I see that you have made a number of posts. Thank you. While I have only glanced at them as of yet, I noticed that you seem to think that this thread was directed at you or something that you said. I will go back and read your posts in detail but, first, I wanted you to be assured that I was not thinking of you or anything that you said when I started this thread. In fact, the example was not directed at anyone or based on anyone's specific statements or posts.

I hope this clears some things up!

------------------
Yesterday's history. Tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a "gift." That's why we call it "the present."
What will you do with your gift of today?

frank t,

I misread your post in the string "The Survival Of The Judeo/Christian Religion". I am so very very sorry. Please, forgive me. Welcome to exosci Brother!!!

Bring more Christians,
ISDAMan

TS,

Thank you for your reply. This was the statement you made at the beginning of this thread:


Recently, someone put forth Martin Luther King, Jr. as somewhat of a model Christian who stood for non-violence, peace and love. There were immediate responses which called him an adulterer in a seeming attempt to discredit his Christianity. I do not know if he commited adultery or not and that is not the issue here.

The original conversation was between Lori, Flash and myself, where Flash first implied that MLK was an adulterer, and I responded mostly by cracking up over her remark. Then Lori asked if I could clarify the remark Flash had made, which I did. I went on to post the webpage address where the Christian woman argued that MLK was not a true Christian (her argument was completely unrelated to adultery, which wasn't even mentioned on her webpage), and I stated that Christians should be careful about counting MLK among their ranks.

Although adultery is not the issue here, I feel that the question of MLK's Christianity is at least part of the issue here, and I believe that the original conversation between Flash, Lori and myself is what prompted this thread. That is the reason I responded in the manner I did - I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions about why MLK's Christianity was in question.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Sorry to go off topic here, gang, but I don't want to ignore some of the off-topic questions.

tab':


So what about these type of people that are so F*&^%d up in the head that they simply cannot understand or feel that they have commited horrendous sins? Is there a chance that their 'true spirit' is sinless enough for God?
Do you think God can take into account a persons psyche?
If so, dont you think that we all suffer from some kind of warped psyche?

Yes, tab, there is a chance for everyone and yes, God can take into account a person's psyche.

God will judge us in accordance with our exercise of our gift of free-will. If a person loses their "free-will" at some point in their life they will be judged in accordance with their exercise of free-will prior to losing it.

By the way, as sick as we all might think Mr. Jeffrey was, during interviews in prison he stated that he knew right from wrong all along, turned his back on God, and decided to give into the evil urges and commit his horrible acts anyway. As far as I could tell, the way he explained it, his free-will was still in tact. Only God knows for sure.

This situation has been addressed before: If a person is born without free-will due to disease or illness, they are like infants who were never introduced to Jesus Christ and, therefore, never had the opportunity to be baptized in the Spirit of Jesus. It is my understanding that such individuals will not be judged... They will go into what is commonly referred to as limbo, a natural state of happiness but separated from God.

No, personally, I do not think that we all suffer from some kind of warped psyche. If we do, however, then it comes down to whether or not we have the ability to exercise our gift of free-will.




------------------
Yesterday's history. Tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a "gift." That's why we call it "the present."
What will you do with your gift of today?

Searcher,


However, the point of my previous posts in this thread was that the entire topic was "off-topic" in the sense that your reason for posting it was due to a misunderstanding of what I had posted in another thread (at least, that's how it appears to me).

As I explained, that was not my reason for starting this thread. I truly hope you understand that.

The excerpts were quite interesting. Thanks.

In answer to your question, do I "still" believe that Martin Luther King was a true Christian?... Well, Searcher, I never said that he was...

As I pointed out previously in this post, unless you or someone else can tell me that he truly repented for his sins, truly asked for God's forgiveness, truly accepted God's great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and went to God in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, I cannot answer that question. Only God can. As I stated previously, the only true Christian I can be certain of is Jesus Christ.



------------------
Yesterday's history. Tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a "gift." That's why we call it "the present."
What will you do with your gift of today?

Searcher,

That's God's business to know a man's heart. As long as a person that claims to be a Christian is bearing the fruit of God and feeding God's sheep, I have no cause against him. There are some that do good in truth and others that lie to themselves. Rest assured, God knows each man's heart. What somone says about the life of another person has no effect upon what God sees.

Man judges the works and God judges the Heart,
ISDAMan

TS & ISDAMan,

Thank you for your responses. No offense, but the answer I am most interested in is Lori's, for 2 reasons:

1) she's the one who originally presented MLK as a Christian, and

2) she's the one who has written the most about the Christian "test of spirits".

It seems extremely clear to me from the man's writings that he fails this test big time. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all if he hadn't falsely presented himself to the people as a Christian. Most people took him at his word without even bothering to take a peak at the man behind the curtain, so to speak. Even I know that a true Christian believes that Jesus was the Son of God - why do the Christians on this board (and nearly everywhere else) want to overlook that "test" when it comes to MLK?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,


It seems extremely clear to me from the man's writings that he fails this test big time. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all if he hadn't falsely presented himself to the people as a Christian. Most people took him at his word without even bothering to take a peak at the man behind the curtain, so to speak. Even I know that a true Christian believes that Jesus was the Son of God - why do the Christians on this board (and nearly everywhere else) want to overlook that "test" when it comes to MLK?

First, my apologies. I know you are looking for an answer from Lori, however, your statements peaked my curiosity here so I took the time to look behind the curtain and read the web pages in their entirety which you say makes it extremely clear to you that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a true Christian.

As I stated previously, only God can be the judge of that. I was curious though to see if he, in fact, denied that Jesus Christ was God/the Son of God as you alluded. What is extremely clear to me, after reading his written college theology assignments (which he was being graded on), is that he was under instruction as to the specific issues which were to be addressed within certain contexts and restrictions such as the use specific sources. Never once in these college papers did I see him express a personal belief that Jesus was not God/the Son of God.

Although a "partial" explanation was posted up front concerning Martin Luther King, Jr.'s discussion about the development of certain Christian doctrine, to the contrary, Martin Luther King, Jr. went on to express that the most adequate explanation for these doctrines, including that of the Sonship, was the actual experiences that the Apostles had with the historic Jesus. That is... the spiritual uniqueness of Jesus, which the Apostles themselves observed, could most adequately be explained through the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther King, Jr. did not explicitly express his personal faith in these assignments because that is not what the assignments were about. As a matter of fact, at one point, his instructor commends him for his personal restraint in this matter.

Let me clarify, please... I have seen a number of men and women of the past who have made great and positive contributions to society. I don't think that I have ever asked myself if they were Christian or not and, although I pray for their souls, I have never pondered about their salvation.

I am wondering, though, if you are willing to go back and re-read the papers, keeping in mind the circumstances and purpose for which they were written. If you do, please let me know if you still hold the same opinion?

I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.



------------------
Yesterday's history. Tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a "gift." That's why we call it "the present."
What will you do with your gift of today?

By the way...

Lori!!! Lori!!! Are you out there? :)

TS,

This is the introductory note from the paper on Sonship:


During King's second year at Crozer Theological Seminary, he took a two-term required course in systematic theology, Christian Theology for Today, with George W. Davis. For the first assignment of the first term, Davis asked his students to use George Hedley's The Symbol of the Faith, an examination of the Apostles' Creed. In this essay, King follows the book's structure and argument closely. When he discusses the "probable" influence of Greek mythology on Christian thought, Davis prods, "Is there any doubt about it?" On balance, King shows himself willing to abandon scriptural literalism, remaining confident that this would not undermine the "profound foundation" of the Christian doctrines. Davis commented, "Well done," and gave the paper an A-.

As far as I can tell from this, he was not being asked to play Devil's Advocate in any way. He was asked about whether or not he had any doubts. If he thought it was all hooey, he was free to say so - he didn't. Would you abandon your own beliefs so easily, TS?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS,

This is the introductory note to the paper on Fundamentalism:


This essay for Davis's Christian Theology for Today focuses primarily on religious liberalism and its ability to accommodate scientific discoveries. King makes substantial use of The History of Fundamentalism, by a former Crozer professor, Stewart G. Cole. King's interpretation of the two movements is for the most part uncritical of liberalism and scornful of fundamentalism: "Unlike liberalism, fundamentalism is essentially a reactionary protest, [fighting] to preserve the old faith in a changing milieu." Davis circled the word "Psychologically" in the title and commented: "You do not do justice to this. Think of what the psychological factors are which lie back of these two movements." King received a B+ on the paper.

It seems clear enough from this that the scorn for Fundamentalism is King's alone.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

TS,

This is the introductory note to the paper on Mithraism:


During the first semester of his second year at Crozer, King wrote this paper for Enslin's course on Greek religion. Mithraism, a sect of Zoroastrianism characterized by the worship of Mithra as the defender of the truth, was a monotheistic mystery religion prevalent in the ancient Roman empire before the acceptance of Christianity in the fourth century. Followers of Mithra became less common after the Roman emperors banned their cults, and Christianity gained the popularity once belonging to Mithraism. Enslin gave the essay an A and wrote: "This is an exceedingly good paper. You have given a very complete picture of the essential details and you have presented this in a balanced and restrained way. And furthermore you know how to write. You should go a long way if you continue to pay the price."

Maybe you're seeing something here that I'm not seeing - there's no clue here as to which direction he is "retraining" himself. Perhaps his true belief is that Christianity evolved mostly from the mystery religions?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Hey, lookie, I haven't posted in this thread yet. (rubbing hands together, chuckling evilly) Let's stir up the fire!!

Okay, just kidding. I'm in a good mood today, go figure!

In answer, Truestory, No, I don't expect Christians to be completely sinless. Nobody is perfect, I think that's a fact we can all agree on. People make mistakes, and if they cause harm to someone else, I think they ought to try to repair the harm to the best of their ability, no matter what religious beliefs they have, if any.

I think one of the main problems I have is with hypocracy in people. (People in general - not just Christians are hypocrites)

For example, I have a co-worker who calls himself a Mormon - yet he is one of the most cut-throat capitalists I have ever met. He convinently throws away whatever part of his faith that is in the way of his financial success, and feels no remorse (as far as I can tell) at walking all over the people under him to make his job easier, pay a little more, or make him look good in the eyes of the CEO. Yet this man badgers me constantly about being a "heathen" or a "atheist" or whatever slur (and he does intend these as slurs) comes to mind when I decline his invitations to read the Book of Mormon. I hold myself responsible for my actions towards my co-workers, I don't lay the blame around me when I screw up like he does. I don't try to cheat people out of their vacations because I changed my mind and want that week off instead (like he has done to me!). Yet he is able to put on this angelic smile and tout the wonders of God like he's not this monster in real life. People who haven't worked with him have no idea what a slimebag this guy is, but I have seen his true side, even though it took me about a year to catch on to him. He's very deceptive. Boy, talk about the antichrist!!

THAT is the kind of person I object to, and unfortunately they seem to exist in all walks of life, belong to all kinds of religions and organizations, and come in all sizes, shapes, and colors.

Searcher,



When he discusses the "probable" influence of Greek mythology on Christian thought, Davis prods, "Is there any doubt about it?" On balance, King shows himself willing to abandon scriptural literalism, remaining confident that this would not undermine the "profound foundation" of the Christian doctrines. Davis commented, "Well done," and gave the paper an A-.

For the student to abandon scriptural literalism "without undermining" the "profound foundation" of the Christian doctrine by no means can be equated with an abandoning of his "belief" in the Sonship of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is God/the Son of God "is" the "foundation" of Christianity.

If you read King's subsequent sermon's, that he holds and preaches this doctrine is very evident.

Searcher,


King's interpretation of the two movements is for the most part uncritical of liberalism and scornful of fundamentalism: "Unlike liberalism, fundamentalism is essentially a reactionary protest, [fighting] to preserve the old faith in a changing milieu."

Here, King is addressing two movements within Christianity. Making use of Cole's "History of Fundamentalism," one of the points King makes, for example, is that it is considered inflexible on the part of fundamentalists to interpret the Bible literally. That is something which I, myself, have always cautioned against. That the divine truth is not contained literally in the dotting of every "i" and the crossing of every "t" in the Bible is considered a "liberal" rather than a "fundamentalist" point of view within Christianity.

Again, this in no way can be equated with the abandoning of the belief that Jesus Christ is God/the Son of God.

Searcher,


You have given a very complete picture of the essential details and you have presented this in a balanced and restrained way.

O.K., Searcher, maybe we are seeing the instructor's commendation differently. My point was that the purpose of these papers was not for King to profess his personal faith. I take the intructor's comment to mean that King was successful in keeping a "balance" in the paper by restraining from over-emphasizing the side which he holds as his personal belief.

What do you interpret the instructor's comment to mean?

Either way, however, can this really be equated with King's abandoning his belief in the Sonship of Jesus Christ? In this paper, King makes it very clear that, although there are many surface similarities between mystery religions and Christianity, Christianity is by no means a "mystery" religion. Christianity is fundamentally unique in that it is based on the knowledge of God through the observed and recorded historical fact that God came to us as man in the form of the divine Jesus Christ.

Ooops... Sorry for the edit. Hope it did not cause you any problems.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 09, 2000).]

Skye,

"Pittsville" at work with this guy, huh? :(

I am curious, though... Do you love him anyway? If so, how do you reconcile his actions?




[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 09, 2000).]

True' -

Curious question...

Do I love him? No. Respect him as a human being? Yes. Respect him as a worker? No. How do I reconcile his actions? I figure he has lost sight of the real meaning of life. We are not here to "one-up" eachother. What we ARE here for might still be up for debate, but it's not for competition and money-grubbing reasons, that I'm pretty confident of.

Skye,

I believe that respect is good and of course, always welcome.

Thanks... More curiosity follows... :)

You say that he has lost sight of the real meaning of life... then, you go on to say that what we ARE here for might still be up for debate.

Is that to say, in some way, that you believe the real meaning of our common life is to respect each other?

I believe that we are here to love each other, no matter what. Without love for each other, I see us as nothing but bitter and stagnant souls. Love brings us to live and grow in peace, with ourselves and with each other.

What do you believe we are here for?


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 09, 2000).]

truestory,

That was a very well thought out question!!!!!

With Jesus, We Have Nothing To Fear,
ISDAMan

True'-

I don't know the whole story as to why we are here.

Part of me thinks there isn't any specific reason - we've outgrown our ecological niche, and I'm not sure if that's what was supposed to happen with our species. We sure aren't doing a very good job taking care of this planet that we've "figured out", which makes me fear that the days are numbered for our species. Mother Nature has a way of removing species entirely from the face of the planet, and I doubt we could stop Her if She got sick of us ruining Her great green globe. An earthquake here, tornado there, hurricanes and floods for good measure, and the globe is fresh again. I don't believe that humans are any more special than any other animals, in the big picture anyway. So what's to stop us from going the way of the dinosaur??

On the other hand, since we are here, we might as well at least LOOK for meaning. We can strive to improve and repair this globe that we've polluted so badly. We can strive to improve and repair our interpersonal relationships. We can strive towards a lot of things, and perhaps that's what we're here for.

Maybe it's a race for knowledge - can we figure out how to straighten up the damage we've done before we hit "critical mass", or will Nature get sick of all the weeds and decide it's time to turn over the soil and start over? I sure hope it's the first scenario - I really don't want to get hit with that cosmic rototiller!!

In a way, though, I find it reassuring that life will go on after I and the rest of the human race is gone. I think that the life force that everything springs from is much less delicate than our little planet. Even if our entire world was smashed to pieces, I believe that life will go on, in other parts of the universe. Even the end of the world is not the end of the story, and that, somehow, reassures me.

Love, though, is certainally a worthwhile persuit. It is much easier on your heart to soften it with love, instead of hardening it with hate. I really don't hate this guy at my work, I feel sorry for him primarily. His cut-throat attitude will eventually hang him.

I THINK TIASSA AND OXYGEN SAID IT QUITE WELL, BUT I DO WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT AND WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

(1): Do you expect Christians to be sinless because they rebuke sin?

ONLY IF THEY'RE DEAD.

(2): Do you have the impression that by virtue of being a Christian who spreads God's eachings against sin, the Christian believes that they are holier than thou and without sin?

YES I THINK SOME DO, BUT THIS IS TRUE OF MANY GROUPS. WHY DO I BELIEVE THIS ?
BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD OUTRIGHT THAT "SO AND SO IS NOT SAVED BECAUSE…………." AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY THEMSELVES WERE SAVED.


(3): If a Christian sins, in your eyes, does this discredit them from answering their call to spread the Word of God concerning sin, forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ?

THIS IS A REAL GRAY AREA HERE.

SHOULD SOMEONE LIKE JIMMY SWAGGART BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY? HAD HE
ONLY BEEN CAUGHT WITH A PROSTITUTE I COULD HAVE JUST SMILED
ABOUT IT AND LET IT GO, BUT ACCORDING TO AN INTERVIEW WITH THE
WOMAN IN QUESTION "HE TRIED TO PERSUADE HER TO BRING HER VERY
YOUNG DAUGHTER INTO THE ACT". BE IT RIGHT OR WRONG I HAVE NO
COMPASSION OR RESPECT FOR THIS PERSON AND HAVE DIFFICULTY CALLING HIM A PERSON. DO I WANT THINK THESE ACTS DISCREDIT HIM, OR ANYONE LIKE HIM? DAM RIGHT!!!!!!!!

I ALSO FIND IT STRANGE THAT JIMMY CAN BE FORGIVEN AND RETURN
TO PREACHING THE GOSPEL, BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN A
HOMOSEXUAL BE ALLOWED TO TEACH, PREACH, ETC. THERE APPEARS TO
BE A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE THAT MANY, IF NOT MOST CHRISTIANS
DON'T SEE AS BEING CONTRADICTORY. COME ON GUYS………… GET REAL.

I TRY TO BE OPEN AND HAVE RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS AND I AM CONSTANTLY SEARCHING FOR MEANING. BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL I LET SOME PUSHY POMPOUS ASS CRAM THEIR VIEWS DOWN MY THROAT.
THESE TACTICS MAY WIN AN ARGUMENT, BUT THEY SURE AS HELL FAIL GET THE POINT ACROSS TO ME AND OTHERS LIKE MYSELF.

I'VE READ AND BEEN OPEN TO THE BIBLE, BUT I FOUND INCONSISTENCIES WITH IT AND I CANNOT HONESTLY SAY OR FEEL THAT THIS IS "THE WORD OF GOD" PLEASE DON'T COME BACK WITH THIS STUFF THAT THE 'HOLY GHOST WILL GUIDE YOU'. IT IS JUST TOO EASY TO USE THESE TACTICS WHEN YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN SOMETHING.

I'M OPEN TO YOUR POSTING, BUT AS I'VE POINTED OUT IN THE PAST IN OTHER POSTS, THE SAME THINGS ARE BEING REPEATED AND SAID HERE THAT I'VE HERD AND BEEN READING SINCE THE 70'S, AND THE ONLY THING FOR SURE THAT CAN BE SAID IS THEY HAVE DO HAVE SOME HISTORICAL TRUTH TO THEM. ALSO I HAVE NO INTENTION OF ARGUING ABOUT THAT WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN.

IF YOU THINK I'M BEING UNFAIR, KEEP IN MIND I DON'T THINK SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, OR ANY RELIGION IS CAPABLE OF EXPLAINING THE TRUE MEANING, IF THERE IS ANY. I THINK IT IS JUST AS USELESS TO USE SCIENCE TO TRY AND SAY THERE IS NO GOD. ALSO PHILOSOPHY, LIKE RELIGION IS JUST A BUNCH OF NON PROVABLE IDEAS.

I STARTED THIS A WEEK AGO AND A LOT HAS BEEN ADDED SINCE THEN. MY OPINIONS AND IDEAS ARE MUCH MORE SIMPLISTIC THAN THE OTHERS. I WISH I HAD THEIR ABILITY TO EXPRESS MYSELF. ANYWAY…………………………

IT SEEMED FROM READING A FEW MORE OF YOUR RESPONSES YOU HAVE TONED DOWN YOUR RESPONSES. I LIKE THAT SINCE IT LEAVES IT OPEN FOR DEBATE AND I PERSONALLY FEEL LESS DEFENSIVE. AS I SAID ABOVE NO ONE, INCLUDING YOURSELF LIKES THIS CRAM IT IN YOUR FACE APPROACH. THEN AGAIN I COULD BE CONFUSING YOU WITH SOMEONE ELSE WHO USES THIS APPROACH, AND I DON'T MEAN LORI. IF LORI IS SERIOUS ABOUT HER VIEWS, SHE WILL LEARN SOMETIME BY TONING DOWN SHE CAN GET BETTER RESULTS.

Skye,

Thanks for your response and I hope you don't mind my following with this discussion. I find it to be very interesting. Thanks again.

What I don't understand is this...

How can a man's negative actions towards you be truly reconciled in your heart by figuring that he has lost sight of the true meaning of life if you, yourself, do not know what that is?

Do you think that if you were able to love him unconditionally, despite the wrong which he has done, that you might find peace in this relationship at work?

Searcher,

Thanks for pointing the name thing out to me again! :)



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 10, 2000).]

Zapper,

Thanks for your response and thanks for being honest.

It is perfectly understandable that the actions of hypocrites would discredit that individual's right to spread the Word of God in your eyes. Whether or not they will be saved through Jesus Christ, which is what Christianity is all about, is a matter between them and God.

One of the points which I have tried to make here is that salvation cannnot be found by looking to the actions of others who call themselves "Christian." It can only be found by looking directly to the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Despite Swaggart's actions, the Word of God, salvation through Jesus Christ, excludes noone, including homosexuals.

Contrary to popular opinion, Christianity is not a "social" club. If we can believe what we hear in the news, even Swaggart is starting to understand that... Thank God!


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 10, 2000).]

TS,

I believe you intended to address the above post to SkyeBlue rather than to me.


O.K., Searcher, maybe we are seeing the instructor's commendation differently. My point was that the purpose of these papers was not for King to profess his personal faith. I take the intructor's comment to mean that King was successful in keeping a "balance" in the paper by restraining from over-emphasizing the side which he holds as his personal belief.

What do you interpret the instructor's comment to mean?

I'm not sure - perhaps MLK had a tendency to go off the deep end sometimes (kind of like I do on this board :) ), and maybe the instructor was praising him on his improvement in this area. As I said, there's really little clue (in my opinion) what he meant by restraint.

But if I was a born-again Christian, I certainly wouldn't put the Christian concepts of the trinity, salvation and atonement down to "fundamentalist thinking" to please anyone. Nor would I suggest that the idea of Divine Sonship came from the Greeks, and that Jesus was really as human as you or I. My guess is that he really felt that way. Either that, or he was all too willing to prostitute his own beliefs for a grade, which seems kind of strange since I saw no clue that was even required of him.

Lori - would you have written papers that made such statements? ISDAMan - would you? Truestory - would you? How about you, Vinnie? Frankly, I can't imagine that coming from any of you on this board.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

To be honest, I find your question to be mute in that it is based on invalid conclusions and negative accusations stemming from out-of-context interpretations.

I've seen this same approach used where the Bible is concerned, whereby invalid conclusions and negative accusations are arrived at by focusing on out-of-context passages from the Bible.

I do not mean this in a negative way. You have indicated that you have a reading disability. Perhaps this has to do with reading comprehension...?

Although I will not answer your last question because of the erroneous premise which I find it to based upon, after reading for myself the material which you have presented and after reading subsequent sermons given by the Reverend, I now feel comfortable in answering a previous question...

I have seen nothing which indicates to me that Martin Luther King, Jr. was anti-Christ as you alluded.

May God bless you!

Zapper,

1) Jimmy was told to step down by others over him and in other ministries. He did not listen. As for what the woman said,... it may be true,... it may not. Who knows? God won't just let him get off scott free.

2) I've listened to many former homosexuals teach, preach, and testify of God. Please, provide the facts that you base your statement upon.

3) In the same way that a blind man can't be lead by a seeing eye dog he does not have, if you don't have the Holy Spirit fo God in you, you will not be led by Him.

4) There is a God and He Loves and Believes in You!!!!! ;)

Love thy neighbour,
ISDAMan

TS,
Oh really? Even homosexuals? Funny, cause that is not what the bible says...
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will NOT inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

ISDAMan,
Former??? FORMER homosexuals????? Figures :rolleyes:

Truestory-

Maybe we're using the word "love" to mean different things?? To me "love" implies a deep emotional bond, and that is certainally not something I would feel for this guy. I prefer the word "respect". What are you meaning by "love" in this context??

I think the thing that would bring me peace in our 'relationship' is if he would just leave me alone. Which he actually has been doing these last few months. I let him know that I was on to his tricks, and that helped quite a bit. I don't chase after him and warn everyone in his department that he's an a$$hole or anything, I avoid him if possible, and am politely disinterested if I can't avoid him. I leave others to discover his 'bad' side, it's none of my business! Of course, if I thought he was embezzeling or something like that, I'd have to blow the whistle, but he's not a thief. He's just a jerk. I don't wish ill upon him, I just wish he'd stop being so two-faced. If he'd at least admit he was a jerk, ironically, I'd like him a lot better! But he has to put on this whole big "I'm Mormon and therefore a good guy" show, and in the mean time he's sharpening his letter opener for a good back-stab. If I were Mormon, I think I'd be severely insulted by the way he uses his faith as some kind of shield.

Now, to be fair, outside of work maybe he IS a really wonderful guy. I have no idea, I don't really care to associate with him outside of work, but it's certainally possible. I know he has the traditional large family, 4 kids I think, and I've met a couple of them. They seem to be well-raised, which makes me soften a little bit towards him. For all I know I've seen just the absolute worst part of him, and comparatively speaking it's not all that bad. I used him just because he's the biggest hypocrite I know. I choose not to associate with hypocrites, as much as possible. But I certainally wouldn't do something to harm this man, I have no reason to, nor any right to.

Flash,

There are many behaviors and lifestyles that are considered wrong in the eyes of God. However, we are ALL sinners. That is why we were given salvation. If we were all pure in the eyes of God and without sin, there would be no need for salvation. Salvation is for sinners and it is a gift for us all.

Salvation is the most loving gift from God which consists in living in complete communion with God. All we have to do is accept it. "IF" certain changes need to be made, God will let us know and through His love will bring us the individual strength to make the positive changes in our lives, if need be. Salvation begins in the present life and continues into everlasting life.

ISDAMan--

I wanted to intervene because it's one of the things I'm good at.

Thus, I turn your own statement to Zapper back at you: Please, provide the facts taht you base your statement upon.

Oh ... that's right, it's just a faith assumption which you take as fact. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you and suggest that there's any credibility to your snake-oil, soapbox preaching.

But I'm especially interested in your citations for statement #4 in your 1/10 post to Zapper.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular .... (Perdurabo; The Book of Lies)

TS,


I do not mean this in a negative way. You have indicated that you have a reading disability. Perhaps this has to do with reading comprehension...?

That was a cheap shot and uncalled for. It's just as well that you don't want to answer my questions, as I no longer have any desire to address them to you.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

My apologies if your feelings were hurt. It was in no way meant as a "shot."

I was seriously trying to understand how you would come so strongly to such erroneous conclusions that would cause you to make such derogatory accusations such as "prostitution" (among other things) about another human being?

The reading comprehension theory was, I believed, a benign consideration. Obviously, this has touched a nerve and, for that, I am very sorry. There are other more cancerous considerations, but I was hoping that such was not the case...?

Flash,

Sorry, I can't stay long. Perhaps you missed it when the Bible said that some Christians were those things such as homosexuals. You might reacll where God's Word says that Love covers <a>all</a> sins. God's plan of salvation includes everyone.

I love you with the love of Jesus Christ,
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited January 12, 2000).]

Hello ISDAMan,

I hope and pray that all is going well with your website!?

See you again, soon, I hope. :)