Do they think we're morons?

All things are possible - but there are ways to reduce the chance of
error by comparing like with like, by context and by analysis of the
original words used.

Phil

 

You can remove the last bit - an immortal soul is not an original
Christian belief but an import from ancient Greek and Roman theology..

Phil

 

*Ding*.

Which is why the Biblical salvation is *always* in the form of
resurrection at the return of Christ.

Phil

 

You may think so - I prefer to take the opinion of the people who
debated this back in the 1890's when our decentralised system was set
up..

Phil

 

You forgot one -

People with sense: It really doesn't really matter.

 

So how do your resolve parts of the bible that don't agree with other
parts? Hardly "precise", is it?

 

Oh, quite so. It's fine not to vote *as long as you don't care about
living in a democracy*. I don't see how you can simultaneously want
to live in a democratic society and refuse to partake in the process.

 

They find a different translation/interpretation that doesn't
disagree.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

You miss the point - the chapter is about *faith* (in fact it starts
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do
not see. This is what the ancients were commended for" and is hence commonly
called "the faith chapter").

It does indeed discuss the patriarchs (and King David, and the prophets
and apostles) in the context of faith and what they did in order to
demonstrate that faith. And part of that demonstration was that they
lived their lives as "pilgrims and strangers" on the earth - even those
that lived in an established country and were not nomads.

Hence it is *entirely* appropriate.

And establishes a principle.

Actually they are - in lots of places.

Phil

 

Because you represent all that's negative about religion.

 

Actually, I can stop you there. I didn't say that. And I wasn't, for
the record.

We agree on that.

What is your relationship with Muslims, then, and how does that relate
to the teachings of Christ?

 

By whom?

 

And NT characters. And it is about faith generally - it uses the people
it does as an *example*.

Indeed it is.

It's not just pleasures.. it's the whole attitude to the human world.
As it says:

"And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
People who say such things show that they are looking for a country
of their own."

Neither of which come under the heading of politics but under the
heading of "working for a living".

People like David you mean? Specifically appointed by God via one of
his prophets?

Indeed. But we don't have that appointment mechanism now.

He was making a point that (at that time) his followers loyalty had
changed so that they were no longer part of the earthly political
system. As his followers their responsibility was to "seek first the
Kingdom of God".

Indeed they were - they were looking for a political messiah who would
free them from the Romans and establish Gods Kindom then (despite
Jesus many times telling them his role then was quite different).

There will come a time when that Kingdom will be established and Jesus
will rule in a very literal sense - having returned to set up Gods
Kingdom. And in that Kingdom the immortalised, resurrected believers
will indeed be charged with acting as rulers and judges - and will have
all the power of God at their command. They will no longer be
falliable, mortal creatures.

My bad - that was my extension from memory..

Indeed I should.

Indeed. In fact - more than allowed - we are commanded to work in order
to support ourselves and our families.

Indeed. And serving God is mutually exlusive with serving anyone else.

I disagree.

I made 1 error in quoting from memory (I'm at work remember and don't
have a Bible here - but I'm now using an online Bible to make sure).

'considerable mis-quotes' is stretching the truth a little. One
paraphrase from memory..

Phil.

 

My ethics are based on nothing of the sort. I take no part in the
political process because I believe that God is in control of who is in
power and when. My beliefs would be (hopefully) the same regardless of
which political system I lived under.

And how you get from "I take no part in politics" to "my ethos is
dependant on people taking decisions that I regard as ungodly" is a
mystery to me.

By exclusion from Gods Kingdom - yes.

... which is quite a leap of logic but never mind. You are obviously
convinced of your viewpoint (as am I) and I suspect that ne'er the
twain shall meet.

Phil.

 

Dunno about you, but I need a drink

 

Face it Phil, that's true of 99.99999% of the population. If you think
that you've had a chance, up until now, of convincing Tim or anyone
else of the validity of your viewpoint, you're sadly mistaken.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

OK - my bad assumtion. Sorry about that.

The same as my relationship with anyone else: "whenever it lies within
your power live at peace with all people". Sure - I disagree with their
theology and basis of belief just as I disagree with people like the
Mormons but I hope that doesn't affect how I treat them personally. And
I'm more than happy to discuss my beliefs with them and hear what they
believe and why.

I hope I am mature enough to disagree with people without going the Ian
Paisley route!

Phil

 

Because I'm not speaking from a broad, inclusive,
anything-you-believe-is-OK-as-long-as-your-heart-is-in-the-right-place
way?

Phil

 

God.

Phil.