Greetings, dear Fester... and peace to you! I am not sure why I am posting at this ungod... ummmm... early hour (3:45am), but my Lord woke me up to share somethings and now I'm awake, sooooo... I would like to respond to your comments/concerns, if I may - thank you!
Wanted to start a new topic, one based on the idea of those of us who are naturally loving, naturally kind, and naturally good people,
You, then, are perhaps one of those of whom Paul said: "Whenever people of the nations to by nature the things of the Law, they are a law... unto themselves..."
without the bible or without anyone else telling us otherwise.
Ahhhh... Well, I don't think one NEEDS the Bible... or others to tell us, either way. But, if you must...
It wasn't long after I found out that the majority of the religious history I studied was a dead end road that I also discovered that I can be a friendly happy person, living a PERFECT life (in my mind which is good enough for me), not a thief, not a killer, paying my taxes and steering clear of everyone out here with an agenda...
I actually found that ALL of the religious history I studied was a dead end road, as not a one of them could lead me to life. I also discovered, however, by finding the One who COULD lead me to life... or, rather, being found BY that One... that I, too, could live a "perfect" life... and very happily so. I would like to say that I "be" friendly. But I can also be not so friendly if the situation calls for it. Usually, it doesn't..
I started this thread for those of us who are truly free and truly open minded, who have no religious crutch whatsoever.
Then, I'm your "man!" Let's DO this!
If you're among that group or lack thereof I should say, welcome to the thread!
Thank you! I am VERY glad to be here!
Now some unloving words from Jesus and the bible to back this belief......
Hmmmm... now, I am not so wont to agree that my Lord's words are in fact "unloving," but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I am curious, though, in light of comment regarding the Bible "not telling us otherwise," why you've invoked a statement from the Bible? Why is the Bible even IN this discussion, given your comments above? But, nevermind. Let's take a look, shall we?
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Not so sure I see a lack of love in those words, dear one. If such ones father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters... or even oneself... were, say, staunch followers of Hitler... and his actions against Jews during the German Nazi regime... and one was coming to Christ because could SEE that such conduct was, well, beyond heinous... then it makes absolute sense to ME that one would have to let go of one's "love" for oneself and these others. Deny all.
But that's not exactly what my Lord meant when he spoke these words, although such would be appropriate. He meant then, as he does today, that one who chooses oneself... or one's loved ones OVER him... cannot be his disciple. A good example of that would have been, for example, one whose family members were staunch believers... and thus followers... of the temple priests and the religious Pharisee/Sadducee and similar sects. Such one had come to KNOW that these were not only false... but oppressing and abusing God's sheep. One would KNOW that they should separate themselves and quit touching such an unclean thing... but could not bring themselves to do that. Because... they would rather have the "love"... and association... of such family... than the love and association of Christ. They choose... family... even when they KNOW that family is WRONG... over Christ.
What my Lord meant, therefore, is that as one coming, with the hopes of belonging, to Christ... one cannot choose Christ... and not "hate" these. Because their works are NOT his... but those of the Adversary.
Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."
Below, you offer how much affection you have for your parents. And that is not only your right, but your obligation. However, there are some father's who are not worthy of their own sons, let alone the Son of God. In this case, that fact that my Lord called the man's father "dead"... and to be left to the "dead," is indication that this particular father was not one set in line for life. He may have even been abusive (as some father's are). But that is not really the issue.
The issue is that man here was using his dying father as an excuse NOT to do something he was trying to convince my Lord that he WANTED to do. And so, my Lord was merely letting him off the hook if what he TRULY wanted was to follow him. The man's reaction TO this invitation was a revelation, however, of what was REALLY in his HEART (versus what was coming out of his mouth). If his dad's death was truly imminent, there is no way my Lord would NOT have TOLD him... let along go WITH him... to bury his father. Even IF the father had been abusive. Because honoring one's father and one's mother was a commandment still in force at the time.
Isa 66:16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many
Unfortunately, your version, as quoted here, is a misquote of the scripture. Here, let me help you, from the original Hebrew/Aramaic (as far as we have that version published):
"For by fire and by his sword will JaHVeH plead with all flesh: and the slain of the JaHVeH shall be many."
And this is true. By holy spirit (fire) and His Son (JAH's sword)... the Most Holy One of Israel WILL plead... with ALL of mankind. Because He does not want ANY to be destroyed. Unfortunately, there will be many, however: Gog and Ma'gog. But it will not be an unloving act on the part of God. He only acts against these to protect to HEARD and RESPONDED to His Son's plea... either directly... or by how they treated the brothers of that Son.
AND... it is only as a last resort and because such ones ARE evil, in an of themselves. They are those who would actually annihiliate the temple of God... for their own gain. Thus, as Paul wrote, the Most Holy One of Israel says of such ones, "Whoever destroys this temple, I will destroy him." So, in truth, such ones will have had it coming...
"Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.
Well, dear one, at the time there were animals who carried disease in their flesh, which disease could well pass to humans. And wouldn't eating such animals at the risk of, perhaps the entire nation (for plague is carried by rodents... and pigs and mice are both), be a most unloving thing? What, though, if a man... or men... said, "I don't give a hoot; I LIKE rodent. And I've never gotten sick before, so bump all that - I want ribs!"... and then plague breaks out? Is the Most Holy One of Israel's prediction that those who ate such things would die together so far fetched? I mean, even today earthling man himself makes such predictions. Do you not recall the whole mad cow debacle?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "
This is TRUE... and I think there are a lot of folks on this board who have seen this a reality. NOT because THEY wish it that way, but because the father, mother, son, or daughter wishes it that way. My Lord did not come in the way the Jews expected: a resurrection and restoration of Edenic bliss. "Peace." As the world gives it. He knew that his coming was going to cause divisions... SEVERE divisions... even in man's own household. Beause CHOICES were going to have to be made... between following him... and following the current Jewish system of things, including the corrupt priesthood, false dealings of the religious leaders, and "tampering" of the scribes (which the other first two groups used to mislead, misguide, and abuse God's people). One was going to have to choose to continue to be a part of that... or perhaps lose his entire beloved family. That exact same choice still exists today.
Sorry, but I love my mother and father more than anyone else, they have done more for me than anyone else.
But that is YOUR mother and father, dear one. Not everyone here can say this. Indeed, there are MANY... perhaps here, but certainly in the world... who could that they mother and/or father have proven to be their ONLY enemies. Because such mother/father chooses men... false christs and false prophets... over THEIR own flesh.
I could never listen to these instructions, they completely defy the commandment to honor one's mother and father. They also defy Proverbs 6:16-19, as well as Malachi chapter 4, just before the end of the OT.
No, they don't, dear one. So, long as the "law" of one's father/mother is JUST. And without hypocrisy. If not, then one CANNOT follow the law of one's father/mother. But to do as YOU suggest, one would have to stick to one's father... and that father's laws... even if that father was HITLER. Or Idi Amin. Or one of the current leaders in the Sudan, who has absolutely NO problem with what he is doing to the people of Darfur. Or a man of the Taliban or strict Shiite Muslim who believes a daughter who has been raped should be shot to death because she is no longer "clean." Could you truly follow the "law" of THAT father??
You are trying to use your affection for your own parents to invalidate what my Lord said and meant. Perhaps your parents are worthy of such affection and loyalty. I have absolutely NO reason to doubt that. But the "family" that my Lord was referring to had left the law of God... which law is LOVE... for the law of men... which law bound heavy loads upon God's people which those who imposed them couldn't carry themselves, and hypocritically pointed the finger, judged, and condemned others, while those who did such finger pointing, judging and condemnation... existed in similar if not the very same sins.
If anything the Jewish people were correct to reject Jesus of Nazareth according to the tale.
I realize that you are trying to qualify your statement with the words "according to the tale." But the tale, as you have shared it here, was not flawed. It is your understanding of its message that is flawed.
He was teaching people not to stone to death according to God's law
Which is a GOOD thing, yes? But the TRUTH is that you, yourself, then, misunderstand... and misinterpret God's law. Unlike me... and you... he did not transgress a SINGLE law. Here, he actually SURPASSED the Law... by FULFILLING it... with love. But I am curious that you care about such things…
he was teaching people not to honor the Sabbath and he himself violated his own Father's Sabbath on several occasions, (see John Chapter 5).
Unfortunately, you, yourself, misunderstand the Sabbath. It is not one day of the week, as many think. The Sabbath, dear one, GOD'S Sabbath... is EVERY day. On the 7th day... He "rested"... and we are still in that "day." Yet, while the creation was completed, the cultivation of that creation has been going on since that time. That cultivation is a learning... by earthling man... as to how to treat one another. The teacher of that work, for many (because not all are as... ummm... "friendly"... as you)... is Christ. And the "work" that that One did was to RELEASE... and so teach US to release... people from their burdens... and take such UPON HIMSELF. In doing so he, again, SURPASSED the Law... by FULFILLING it... with love. He fulfilled the TRUE "fast" of JAH... and left us an example to follow. Because most of us DON'T know how to be... ummmmm... "friendly"... without someone showing us how it is done - properly, and without hypocrisy. Isaiah Chapter 58. Again, this is “religious” stuff. What’s it to you?
He was a magician and sorcerer who did all kinds of things against the law (Deuteronomy 18),
Funny, though, isn't it, that the very one who mediated and wrote down the Law... prophesied about him, twice, in that very same Chapter? Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 Oh, but wait... perhaps you believe that prophet... was Muhammed? But that can't be, can it, because you have sworn off religion... and, yet, more religious stuff…
he did absolutely nothing MESSIANIC to fulfill any prophecy of any Israelite King,
To the contrary, he fulfilled every one. Should you wish, we can visit some (or all, if that's your preference), but note, it might take up quite a bit of board space. But, if you've got the time...
but rather was born in a way that suggests something unlawful happened.
Again, to the contrary, his birth occurred in such a way that absolutely "nothing" happened... which was COMPLETELY lawful. Actually, it is the only truly lawful birth that has occurred among earthling man, thus far.
Joseph didn't get to impregnate his virgin wife, instead Zeus.... excuse me.... the LORD did.....
Ahh, you believe Mary was... unfaithful. And, yet, Joseph did not divorce her. Why is that, exactly? Well, the record indicates that Gabriel visited him and set the matter straight. But let's not go there; let's go to why Joseph wanted to divorce her "secretly." It was because, had he attempted to divorce her publicly, he could have lost his own life. You see, Joseph wasn't all that honorable - but he was pious... and self-righteous. And wasn't willing to take the risk that Mary had in fact told him the TRUTH - that the child she was carrying was by means of holy spirit.
So, he had two choices, dear one... to "divorce" Mary: either, publicly... by announcing that she had be defiled... or secretly, unbeknownst to others. If he had don't it publicly, however, then he would have also had to produce the MAN... who impregnated her. Otherwise, HE was the man, himself. And as such, HE would have been liable TO DEATH... for defiling a man's daughter and then claiming her a harlot. He would have slandered her father's house and as a recompense, Mary's father could have put him to death.
He chose to do it secretly, however, for a reason: because he KNEW... she was a virgin. And had he openly claimed that she was NOT... and yet, she was pregnant... he would have lost his life. Because here he would have been stating that his "wife" was pregnant, by another man who could not be produced... and yet, she was a virgin. Had some other MAN had her... she certainly would NOT have been a virgin. And, yes, they would have checked. And known, one way or another. Absolutely.
So, now with all of that out of the way, I must ask - what's up with YOU, dear Fester? I get it that religion (and particularly "christianity") may have done "something" to you. But what has my Lord done to you that you should hold him in such derision? I am asking because, for someone who didn't seem to want to discuss religion, you certainly seem to have started a thread designed to do just that (for the religious, I mean, which I am absolutely not). So, what's with YOU?
I await your "story", if you care to share it, and bid you peace, in the meantime.
A slave of Christ,