ARCHIVE - You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

[missedmarks]

My two cents.

Honey or Vinegar? Im not sure. I do know we are to strive to be like Christ.

Christ was very Gentle with his rebukes....for the most part...In the case of the Pharisees (forgive my spelling) he was rather harsh. Three things we should keep in mind.

1. Jesus had the ability to know peoples true natures. He Knew the Pharisees were unbelievers. We don't.

2. Jesus was without sin. There was no plank, no speck, no nothing for him to remove before aiding his brother.

3. Jesus was humble. Jesus said, never think yourself better then you are. He lived that statement, and he was the son of God. We humans tend to use a rebuke as a manuver to make ourselves supirior to others (how many time have you let someone in on 'the truth' with a smug smile of satisfaction)

So Honey or Vinegar...I don't know..I just know that we have some mighty big shoes to fill.

 

[Goose]

Evangelion,

So if we agree, then why did you bring up the point to begin with?

 

[Goose]

My two cents.

Honey or Vinegar? Im not sure. I do know we are to strive to be like Christ.

Christ was very Gentle with his rebukes....for the most part...In the case of the Pharisees (forgive my spelling) he was rather harsh. Three things we should keep in mind.

1. Jesus had the ability to know peoples true natures. He Knew the Pharisees were unbelievers. We don't.

2. Jesus was without sin. There was no plank, no speck, no nothing for him to remove before aiding his brother.

3. Jesus was humble. Jesus said, never think yourself better then you are. He lived that statement, and he was the son of God. We humans tend to use a rebuke as a manuver to make ourselves supirior to others (how many time have you let someone in on 'the truth' with a smug smile of satisfaction)

So Honey or Vinegar...I don't know..I just know that we have some mighty big shoes to fill.

I think I agree with you on the most part. What about Jesus calling Peter satan though? I don't think he was nice here and Peter is one of his apostles.

Mar 8:33 "But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

 

[Evangelion]

Goose, my point was that you had taken the "hate his father and his mother" quote out of context. (As I saw it.)

You appeared to be reading it too literally.

 

[Goose]

Just for the record, I don't believe in hell. (No, I'm not a Universalist.)

Or immortal souls.

Oh, and I don't believe that we go to heaven when we die, either.

Just so you know.

Ok.

 

[Goose]

Goose, my point was that you had taken the "hate his father and his mother" quote out of context. (As I saw it.)

You appeared to be reading it too literally.

I wasn't proving a point with it. All I asked was what I thought Beanie would think about the verse. I wasn't trying to prove anything with it or I would have provided something of substance with it. I bet that's why Lion and I are both confused as why we're equivocating or nothing.

 

[beanieboy]

Was Christ calling Peter Satan, or was Christ directly addressing Satan, whom was using Peter to doubt himself (christ)?

If Christ was calling Peter Satan, then I guess Peter was tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

 

[beanieboy]

I wasn't proving a point with it. All I asked was what I thought Beanie would think about the verse. I wasn't trying to prove anything with it or I would have provided something of substance with it. I bet that's why Lion and I are both confused as why we're equivocating or nothing.

As Evagenline said, I think you take things out of context to make a point. As Satan did. You said that you weren't trying to make a point. I say, you were trying to prove that God commands us to love and hate.

You were trying to make a point. So that means, you told a lie.
You are trying to show that God calls for us to hate, which I believe is also a lie, or a misunderstanding.
And you focus exclusively on harshness, which makes me question your understanding of loving one's neighbor altogether.

And further, I have pointed out that I am not a christian, which means I question the bible as the literal word of God. Because of translation, it often means something completely different anyway. So, I take it all with a grain of salt. I am the first one to say that a lot of the bible seems relatively whacked to me, and have said as much.

 

[Goose]

Was Christ calling Peter Satan, or was Christ directly addressing Satan, whom was using Peter to doubt himself (christ)?

If Christ was calling Peter Satan, then I guess Peter was tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

Evil has a spirit. Peter was filled with this spirit then. It wasn't the Holy Spirit. Spirits guide our actions. Peter, at some point accepted that evil spirit. He, like you and I, have control to accept and deny things. We have a will. Actually, Peter said a lot of dumb things through out the bible and Jesus addresses them accordingly.

 

[Goose]

As Evagenline said, I think you take things out of context to make a point. As Satan did. You said that you weren't trying to make a point. I say, you were trying to prove that God commands us to love and hate.

The point, if you could call is that, was that I know you would think that. I think I mentioned that earlier in a post. You did take it that way. The verse means that you need to do away with everything. Even your own life. As for the love hate thing: Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. It's the Word of God. I don't know how much clearer I, or God needs to get.

You were trying to make a point. So that means, you told a lie.
You are trying to show that God calls for us to hate, which I believe is also a lie, or a misunderstanding.
And you focus exclusively on harshness, which makes me question your understanding of loving one's neighbor altogether.

I'd like to see you prove your point(again). I usually focus on other things. But since you have such a hang-up on harshness, I feel we need to talk about it.

And further, I have pointed out that I am not a christian, which means I question the bible as the literal word of God. Because of translation, it often means something completely different anyway. So, I take it all with a grain of salt. I am the first one to say that a lot of the bible seems relatively whacked to me, and have said as much.

Good luck in your search then. You're going to need it.

 

[beanieboy]

Those are descriptions of love. Not love itself. You don't know what love or the consequences of love are. You're only confusing yourself. If you did know what love is, you would have accepted Jesus. But you CAN learn what love is, like I did, if you accept Jesus. Reading a verse isn't going to clear it all up for you. It can only describe what love is.

Jesus must reign in your heart for you to understand it all. God is love. You do not love Jesus. God is also an all consuming fire. I'm sure the Sodomites can attest to that.

YAHTZEE!

I ask about love. You bring up sodomy.
Never ceases to amaze me.

 

[beanieboy]

Evil has a spirit. Peter was filled with this spirit then. It wasn't the Holy Spirit. Spirits guide our actions. Peter, at some point accepted that evil spirit. He, like you and I, have control to accept and deny things. We have a will. Actually, Peter said a lot of dumb things through out the bible and Jesus addresses them accordingly.

So, Peter was possessed?

 

[beanieboy]

.

 

[beanieboy]

Goose:
The only time christ was gentle was when someone's heart totally broke down and repented or followed him. God in the OT did the same too. You can see their heart by their actions. Running to Christ, weeping for Christ, etc. I'd like to see scripture otherwise. PLEASE don't take it out of context or it will be a waste of our time and space.
________________________________

The ONLY TIME christ was gentle was when someone's heart was totally broke down and repented? The ONLY TIME? Most of the people didn't know who he was. He spoke to them. They sought him, but repentance came second. Was he harsh to them first?

Was he vicious and name calling to the woman at the well? Was he name calling Zacheus in the tree? Is it written anywhere that he was walking around name calling any tax collector? Any prostitute? Was he nasty to the men hanging with him on the cross? He was quiet when questioned under Pilot. He was quiet under his tormentors. He didn't call any of his disciples "sinners" before asking them to follow him. He was gentle with the man who turned away, because he was rich. He said nothing harsh to him. He said nothing harsh to the woman about to be stoned. He told her that her sins were forgiven and to go sin no more. She didn't run to him. She didn't come to him out of repentance. But he was far from harsh to her.

That's an indication right there that you don't even have knowledge of the Gospels. You only see the part that fits your vision. That is blantantly false. Is that the proof you seek?

Some of what I said I believe is incorrect. It's just confusing when you and Knight and Lion seem to keep agreeing with each other, yet I can't say that you specifically said that we are to Hate out of Love for one another. You only said that Love and Hate are not exclusive.

 

[beanieboy]

Re: Re: Talk the talk and walk the walk, that's love.

Re: Re: Talk the talk and walk the walk, that's love.

Lion - so, you hate your son, because you love him. But he loves this girl. And 2 years later, they decide that they are going to get married. Do you still hate him? Do you hold this against them for the rest of their life? They never repent of living together, but they do get married for legal reasons, and because they feel they are ready.

I'm still curious about this. I would like to see how, in a very common, practical situation like this, it would resolve, or not resolve, itself.

 

[Lion]

Bells bells...ahh the bells.

Bells bells...ahh the bells.

bb-Whoa there, slow down fella. I wasn’t ignoring you I just hadn’t gotten to the computer yet today.

In the first place if my son really loved this girl, then he wouldn’t be making a whore out of her. If he really loved her he would consider what harm his selfish actions would produce for and in her, and then not do it because of his love for her.

So, let’s say instead, that after two years of demeaning this woman, and destroying her reputation so that he could please himself, he found that he truly did love her, repented, moved out and asked for her hand in marriage. Then I would welcome them with open arms, thankful that my son had turned back to loving God and his wife to be.

Or… we take your prospective. They never repent, but they decide to marry because of legal reasons and they feel they are ready, whatever that means.

The punishment for having sex outside of marriage, as stated in the Bible, is?

That the two offenders get married. That’s the sentence. Life in marriage. Sort of strict but that’s the way God works.

So, once they got married, I would accept them back, however I would still be talking to my son, trying to bring him back to the Lord. Knowing full well that without God to cement them together, the chances for them staying together is very slim. (More than 80% of the marriages where people lived together before marriage end in divorce).

 

[KurtPh]

The punishment for having sex outside of marriage, as stated in the Bible, is?

That the two offenders get married. That’s the sentence. Life in marriage. Sort of strict but that’s the way God works.

And the product of this unhappy union? What becomes of them? After all, isn't it required that those who are married are required by the Bible to have children?

 

[beanieboy]

If he is unrepentent, though, technically, isn't he still a fornicator? And she as well?

I mean, if I kill some guy, and say I'm sorry, I'm still a murderer.

btw - I wasn't suggesting that you weren't answering. I just didn't want the post to get lost in the shuffle. There is a lot of good conversation, here, and I was wanting to see an applicable example, and see it followed through.

 

[Goose]

Re: Re: Re: Talk the talk and walk the walk, that's love.

Re: Re: Re: Talk the talk and walk the walk, that's love.

I'm still curious about this. I would like to see how, in a very common, practical situation like this, it would resolve, or not resolve, itself.

It's actually very common for sons to repent this way. I've heard of such stories.

 

[Lion]

Married is married

Married is married

bb-Nope, not at all. The Bible does not require repentance to be married, just a simple"I do."


Hey, I have to go on a three day (hopefully) hockey trip, early in the morning, so I won't be able to post till Sunday night or Monday.

Keep checking things out bb and don't die in the mean time.

See you all in a few days. By.