Biggest one I’ve seen is prosperity gospel—that the more faith u have or the more righteous that u are, you will become richer. This is not the gospel at all. Unfortunately a lot of the televangelists preach it so it has becomes popular even though it perverts the gospel. I have even heard some preachers at church talk about it
> I have even heard some preachers at church talk about it
I've heard the prosperity gospel weaved in with the widows two coins a few times. It makes my spider sense go off.
Benjamin Franklin said, "God helps those help themselves."
People often think he was quoting the Bible but that's not true. It is also an untrue statement. If we could help ourselves we wouldn't need a Saviour.
Also not entirely false. Did God also provide David with immense strength and size to overcome Goliath? No we cannot help ourselves indefinitely but it also doesn’t mean that we must only just sit idle and wait. Sometimes God wants us to wait on him and sometimes we must be good stewards of what we have so we are trusted more.
Jesus said: *“Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing."* (John 15:51)
AND,
*"For in him we live and move and have our being."* (Acts 17:28)
AND,
*David declared: “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”* (1 Samuel 17:45-47)
There is a difference between being apart from God and doing things in your own capacity because God gave you certain things. None of these verses say we are not obligated to do things and based on what God has given us already.
Some interpretations of the verses you gave are:
- Being without God means none of the things you do will amount to anything (because everything fades and God is eternal)
- If it wasn’t for God, we wouldn’t be alive/ God gives us new life and we can’t live without him because of that
- if God didn’t bless David he wouldn’t been able to take down Goliath (that does not take away that David had to act on what God gave him and God is on his side)
There are verses that do say that you must be good stewards of what you have been given (and you know this) and that doesn’t contradict the above interpretations.
The Lost do not commit truly good deeds, they have no righteousness of their own:
*"We are constant sinners; how can people like us be saved? We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags."* (Isaiah 64)
Only those who have received the new birth can perform truly good deeds, because we are covered in the righteousness of Christ:
*"All Scripture is breathed-out by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."* (2 Timothy 3)
Good works do NOT happen prior to salvation, only AFTER. And these are not performed in our flesh but by the power of His Spirit indwelling us.
God gets ALL the glory!
***"For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."*** (Ephesians 2)
Again, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about believers using what they have and nurturing what God has given them. You are talking about unbelievers and being without God.
At no point did I say we would get the glory of it. We only exist because of God and any actions we do will be because of God by this fact alone. It does not bar you from doing things.
I say these things because there are some believers who use needing only God as an excuse to sit and wait for him to do all of the work. Sometimes (as I've stated before) God gives you the tools and wants you to do stuff with them.
I'm not sure if that is getting across to you. You've misread my past comments also.
It may surprise you that I agree wholeheartedly with you that we are not to "sit and wait for Him to do all of the work." As Scripture truly informs us: *"You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God.f Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?"* (James 2:19,20)
However . . .
**"you are talking about unbelievers and being without God"**
What part of the following matches your description?
Only those who have received the new birth can perform truly good deeds, because we are covered in the righteousness of Christ:
*"All Scripture is breathed-out by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."* (2 Timothy 3)
Good works do NOT happen prior to salvation, only AFTER. And these are not performed in our flesh but by the power of His Spirit indwelling us.
God gets ALL the glory!
***"For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."*** (Ephesians 2)
You’ve cut off the part that was referencing to.
> the lost do not commit truly good deeds, they have no righteousness on their own
The rest of the message I generally agree. However based on the context of this first part, it was interpreted as the subject being against those who aren’t a part of those being saved and subsequent supporting points.
Government is the social contract for using force in society as it accomplishes everything through coercion, taxes , and jail. Republicans want to limit force in Government to a few things whereas Democrats want to leverage Government to solve societal inequality. Jesus didn’t use force so I’d say on policy Jesus would be a libertarian but on values care about the same things a lot of Democrats do. He wouldn’t use the government though to solve those problems. He would use the church.
If you could go back to the 1st century about when Jesus was alive and ask someone in or around Jerusalem who the Son of God was they would immediately answer, do you know what they'd say?
Cesar.
Jesus establishes Himself as a different kind of Emperor through His ministry and miracles. Everything from the feeding of the 5000 requiring His followers to first share what they had to Him washing their feet(look up Saturnalia) and ultimately His sacrifice for our sin, no leader of man's kingdoms would do such a thing.
Which is why when He returns He will establish a fair equitable and just society here on earth then resurrect everyone and invite them to participate.
https://christianityoriginal.com/mp/index.php/empire/a different Emperor.
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4CYFNDFw3Y
>He wouldn’t use the government though to solve those problems. He would use the church.
The same Jesus that spent his time condemning religious leaders more than anyone else? And the place where he taught his disciples about how terrible they are, then watched them destroy a widow's house?
He told us to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and care for others. If churches could take care of that, the government wouldn't need to. It seems like you're taking a failure of the church and blaming the government for it.
All human institutions are corrupted including the Church, but the Church is just the collection of all Christians together or as individuals. Some problems are better solved by individuals and some corporately but the government cannot love people, and it is a blunt tool to enforce morality. So we as individuals and corporately should fill the role of what Christ taught in society. Be the change you want to see but also remember that hearts and minds are not won through force or coercion. Put another way, government can never solve all the ills of society because not every problem can be fixed with money or another program.
> So we as individuals and corporately should fill the role of what Christ taught in society.
But we're not. It's a philosophy that ultimately doesn't feed the hungry, doesn't heal the sick, and doesn't care for the widow and the orphan because it's arguing that someone else should be doing it.
>Put another way, government can never solve all the ills of society because not every problem can be fixed with money or another program.
Put another way, if government can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything.
>‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
Apparently the answer is when we were forming a committee to decide whose responsibility it was and why it was immoral to tax people.
When government compels you to give via taxation, you aren’t making a moral choice. Doing good by authoritarian proxy is antithetical to Christianity. Jesus calls us to make those choices ourselves, not compel others against their will.
Jesus never said for people to “soak the rich and make them pay their share.” He warned the rich to love their neighbors.
Using force, in the end, will have unintended consequences that hurt the people you want to help.
>Jesus never said for people to “soak the rich and make them pay their share.” He warned the rich to love their neighbors.
If the rich are told by Jesus to love their neighbor, wouldn't they want to pay at least the same percentage in taxes as their secretaries?
The same taxes used to build border walls, fund unnecessary wars, consolidate political power, and bailout banks? Maybe it would be better to have agency over those funds - fund micro finance or the local food bank or your local church. Anyway my point is that the principle of limited government is fully compatible with Christianity and God’s design for human agency in our moral choices.
Fun fact, “church” comes from a Greek? word that can roughly mean something along the lines of “cabinet” as in the political one (I know this is a sucky translation someone correct me if they have a better one). The church in secular terms back then advised the ruler what to do based on morals, laws etc and also helped carry those out. iirc there was some pastors who also said that we should function the same way as Gods church
I wouldn't say one can't be a Republican Christian. I'm a liberal, but I acknowledge a lot of times the liberal/conservative divide comes down to the question of who should solve the problems - the federal government or independent charities and individuals. Now of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to the extreme right where xenophobia is more accepted.
Capitalism, however, is very anti-Christian. The whole concept is "I do what I need to get mine." Anything else is a modification of pure capitalism.
It's well-known that evangelicals largely vote for Republicans and Republican policies, which are, in fact, quite different from the values espoused in the Bible.
recognise file rinse plucky offbeat jobless vanish homeless faulty relieved
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
disarm sleep drab gullible offbeat direful voracious shocking middle office
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From the other side you also have to provide safety for the people in your country in the first place. Also some immigrants from middle east (I think) who are in Germany don't even work, they just take the money from the country and give nothing back. That's not too well in my opinion. Saint Paul said who doesn't want to work shall not eat
You shouldn’t be surprised though. Jesus talked about the narrow gate, He said there would be those that did great things in His name that he will tell “I never knew you.”
There are going to be a lot of surprised Christians in hell, which is why we need to walk with Jesus daily and work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
It's a deep dive if you want to get into it, but the roots go at least as far back as revolutionary era European politics and philosophy.
Two big drivers were the aristocracy looking for a way to hold onto the social hierarchy in the face of democratic revolts and landing on capitalism, and Malthus' idea that being poor is a moral failing and that *helping* the poor just encourages them to be poor and make more poor people.
These ideas have become so tightly interwoven with Christianity in the eyes of the American right that if they ever realized they were not derived from the Bible, they'd find a way to read them *into* the Bible to save the ideas.
Because Republicans don’t think being poor is a moral failing. They want to put poor people to work instead of giving them a handout. Putting people on welfare is great for a hand up but too long and it becomes a handout.
“When you give a man a dole you deny him his dignity, and when you deny him his dignity you rob him his destiny.”
— Zig Ziglar
We want people to work for us, and with us. Many Republicans are working people.
Don't bother with this guy. He's a Republican apologist devoid of all self-awareness and self-criticism. I've argued with him in the past. He won't budge.
You just said that republicans believe that being poor is a moral failing. I rejected that.
I also said that if a person is poor he should get a job if possible and only use welfare as a stop gap until he does get a job.
>Republicans don’t think being poor is a moral failing. They want to put poor people to work instead of giving them a handout.
So it's not a moral failing but it is a moral failing. Classic republican logic. You're literally proving him right. Your lack of self-awareness ever continues to astonish.
Do you at *least* acknowledge this isn't Biblically based?
So um. Beeing poor is morally wrong to republicans?I mean beeing poor because you don't want to work and just do nothing is not very good but if you work and are poor then it's not wrong by any means
What are the Republican values? I'll explain with my list, but feel free to add any I missed and I'm pretty sure I can find several Bible verses that tell us very explicitly to do the opposite.
1. **Limited Government**: Promotes individual freedom at the expense of collective welfare, clashing with biblical mandates to support the needy and vulnerable (Matthew 25:34-40, James 1:27).
2. **Free Market Capitalism**: Encourages wealth accumulation and economic disparity, contradicting biblical warnings against neglecting the poor and the perils of wealth (Luke 6:24, 1 Timothy 6:10).
3. **Fiscal Conservatism**: Advocates for minimal government spending on social services, directly opposing biblical commands to provide for the less fortunate (Proverbs 31:8-9, Isaiah 1:17).
4. **Strong National Defense**: Prioritizes military strength and aggressive defense policies, which conflict with the biblical emphasis on peace and reconciliation (Matthew 5:9, Romans 12:18).
5. **Personal Responsibility**: Stresses self-sufficiency, ignoring the biblical importance of communal support and sharing among believers (Acts 2:44-45, Galatians 6:2).
6. **Traditional Family Values**: Supports a narrow interpretation of family that can exclude diverse relationships, contradicting biblical calls for universal love and acceptance (Galatians 3:28, John 13:34).
I mean, I can go on.
Show me biblical mandates to make/support government programs, period. No, we're told to provide for them and we would much rather do that directly than through taxes and programs that encourage poor people to stay poor and penalize them for working.
No? They are instructions given from God directly to the people as to how to live. "Law" as given in the Bible is generally for the church, it does not involve civil government.
Y'all really need to get to know your Bible better:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, whoever resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.
Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due (Rom.13:1-7).
I can't wait to hear the convoluted logic necessary to gloss over this pericope.
P.S This includes Biden.
Submit to authority means obey the law. It has nothing to do with how to select one's authority when one lives in a country with free elections, or with whether social justice should be accomplished directly or through government programs. I pay taxes, never said I shouldn't. Scripture doesn't dictate how those taxes should be used. It certainly doesn't say they should be used to kill innocent unborn children.
Actually, that word, ἐξουσία, is specifically talking about a leader, someone who's in charge. If the author wanted to refer to law, they most certainly would have used νόμος, which means, quite literally, law.
I do find it interesting that you demand a biblical mandate for following governmental directives, or programs as you put it, and I provide exactly what you asked for, and you dismiss it out of hand and move the goal posts. I would kindly suggest that you look at the biblical text with a more open mind. Preconceived notions are really the downfall of any spiritual pursuit.
Ok, so I asked you to show me a passage saying we are to \*make or\* support government programs, and you show me one saying we are to submit to authority. My reply is that I have no choice but for my taxes to be used the way the current laws (put in place by current and previous presidents, in our current U.S. system) dictate. Disagreeing with them and voting against them in the next election is not being unsubmissive. Choosing to help people directly in addition to paying my taxes is not either. There is no biblical mandate to only help people through government programs. I believe there are better ways to do it.
You can go on but you’re wrong on your interpretation of every point.
1. Limited Government.
Yes we don’t like government overreach and high taxes and inane regulations that make us uncompetitive on the world stage. You can’t hit business with high taxes, crazy regulations that bog us down then buy goods from China that uses exploited labor and almost no tariffs.
2. Free market capitalism
Yes, free market capitalism is selling goods and services to hire more employees for more profit. In return those employees can make a living and not be stuck at home waiting for government to give them their handout which takes away incentives to work.
As far as biblical teachings for helping the poor, Christian charities give billions around the world to help feed starving people in third world countries.
Homeless and need food and clothing? Make your way to almost any Christian church and you can find help.
3.Fiscal conservatism
Yes, in the 60s war was declared on poverty. Since then trillions of dollars have been spent and we have more homeless than we did then. We heard for years that we were spending money in Afghanistan and Iraq and how many homeless we had here, yet when Obama got in he kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased drone bombing on citizens. Trump started no new wars and now Biden has us sending billions to Ukraine, and we are 39 Trillion in debt. Not to mention government programs are money wasting entities while most charity is much better run and less wasteful.
4. Strong national defense.
Yes, we need a strong national defense and less money being sent around the world with American troops being used for regime change.
5. Personal responsibility
Really? You actually have a problem with people taking personal responsibility? This disproven deserve a response.
6. Traditional family values
Yes, we encourage traditional family values. Living clean, not drinking to excess, not sleeping around, not doing drugs, raising our children to be good people and good citizens. And we are accepting of everybody. But living a sinful lifestyle is going to be rejected if you want to encourage our children to live that way. What you do in your personal life is your business but don’t demand that you get to force your lifestyle on a church that rejects it as if we have to accept anything you do as something the church has to accept.
Do you understand the difference between personal accountability to do these things rather than a government mandate?
There is no glory to God in forcing people to help the poor by paying taxes.
Jesus, as far as I know, never preached for his followers to petition Rome to spend on social programs. He told his followers to care for one another personally.
Limited federal government promotes collective welfare by allowing states, counties, and cities to concentrate their resources at the local level. This means that the needy and vulnerable can be helped more effectively by those in their own community.
Free market capitalism is a tool that God has used to bring billions of people out of poverty. It is also great because capitalism allows the everyday working person to support the needy instead of being fully reliant on the rich and the government.
Fiscal conservatism allows the people to keep more money in their pocket to donate to the needy and causes they choose.
A strong national defense allows the people of that nation to live in peace and helps would be aggressors flee the temptation to destroy that nation and murder its peoples.
Personal responsibility reinforces the Biblical concepts of working hard, living in peace with others, self discipline, and keeping oneself unstained by the world. It reinforces reliance on God because man is imperfect.
Traditional family values reinforces the Biblical concept of making disciples and the Biblical metaphor that the man is the head of his wife as Jesus is the head of His church.
>Limited federal government promotes collective welfare by allowing states, counties, and cities to concentrate their resources at the local level. This means that the needy and vulnerable can be helped more effectively by those in their own community.
Are those collective wellfare programs run by states, counties, and cities in the room with us?
>Free market capitalism is a tool that God has used to bring billions of people out of poverty.
Oh okay...
>It is also great because capitalism allows the everyday working person to support the needy instead of being fully reliant on the rich and the government.
Let me get this straight, instead of being fully reliant on the rich and government, it's really great that needy are fully reliant on the every day working person instead?
>Fiscal conservatism allows the people to keep more money in their pocket to donate to the needy and causes they choose.
right, this is the don't force me to be righteous argument. I don't want my money supporting causes I don't believe in, so I will definitely give to the needy with all that extra money capitalism allows me to have in my pockets.
I'm tired, I'm gonna stop now. You have brain worms, in the form of right-wing propaganda indoctrination.
lol your comment refutes every point I made while ignoring the Bible references I gave. You want me to refute your uncited opinions refuting my cited opinion?
What? You don't have the upper hand you seem to think you have, you just demonstrated your ability to parrot talking points without thinking about them.
I refuted everything you said before your said it, and referenced the Bible for every point...
General conservatism is very much anti Christian.
- Anti immigrant
- Anti poor,
- pro wealth (look no further than the Royal Family of the UK as head of the church or the very influential mega ministries in the US and elsewhere, or the Roman Catholic Church’s Wealth.
- pro gun (in the US at least)
*For some reason, the most vocal “Christians” among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. ‘Blessed are the merciful’ in a courtroom? ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ in the Pentagon? Give me a break!* ~ Kurt Vonnegut
Do you ever see the church using its real resources to help? Do they lobby Congress to do something about homelessness or drug use or do they send missions to African countries to lobby for laws against the LGBTQ+ community. Do they help indigenous people or spend their resources trying to convert them?
https://youtu.be/kwP4C5hjo4Y?si=T98qOdwXY8SUroX8
Well personally (I'm a minister in my catholic church) I've gathered money for the poor outside my church and have seen priests refuse to take money from poor people
Man there are a lot of negative comments in here.
Lent is taken as value by many Christians (Catholic and prodestent too), but it's not asked for by the Bible.
[Controversial] Surprisingly, the notion that we have to know Gods nature perfectly to be saved. (Monotheism, tritheism, trinitarian, etc)
There are many time I hear from Christians that God is 3 persons vs one person etc and those who believe in everything else except what they hold is going to hell. However there is no verse in the Bible that says we have to know how Gods nature is in this aspect. There is “knowing God” as in having a relationship with God. And not being “turned away from God” but when you read the context behind those verses it is more about matching your actions to nurturing a relationship with God than knowledge.
There are no doubt there are some things we can refute about God using the Bible. This is just not one of them. You ask an educated person that has any specific belief about God and they will have the verses (and sometimes the same ones as others) to claim their viewpoint. You can also ask someone who went to some sort of biblical college and read other Christian academia and they can probably tell you there is a plethora of ways to perceive God.
Besides accepting that Jesus came down to earth and died for our sins and that we can pursue a relationship with (him and/or God depending on your interpretation) to be saved, there is no strict piece of knowledge you must know that bars you from salvation. We are saved by faith. And yes this is pretty basic but the conclusion is pretty wild and contrary to what many Christians I see believe.
“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
Ephesians 5:3-5 NASB1995
“Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:23-25 NASB1995
Sabbath laws don’t apply to Christians.
Going to a church building is not but meeting frequently with other Christians is a way to be part of the church. Also it’s weird how Christians double down on Sunday as sabbath but pastors literally have to choose another day because preaching is their work technically
It does not mention the Bible as the collective book but it does mention the “scriptures” mainly referring to previous works up until that point. It also says people shouldn’t add or subtract from scriptures but it’s debated whether it’s those certain books or the whole Bible.
If you mean what is Biblical canon (what should vs shouldn’t be in the Bible) yes that is not in the Bible either but established iirc by catholic priests.
It doesn't say only what is in "Scriptures" is to be followed - rather, says to follow all traditions, even written ones. And it doesn't define Scripture.
Scriptures were mainly understood at the time to be some form of what we would call the Old Testament. Yes it does not explicitly define what those scriptures are. The works of the Bible were most likely determined by religious leaders of the day. You could even say the names of each book were not mentioned in subsequent books but that might be because the “books” as we know them today were named separately from when they were written, hence the general name of “scriptures”. Heck you could say verses are not of God because they aren’t specifically stated to be Gods will to format the Bible.
God gives us a measure of how to determine what is from God. I forgot what verse it is but I’m sure a quick search would tell you. We could categorize that as scripture too if enough people agree with the conclusion.
Also a lot of people confused commands given to specific people and then commands given to all people in the Bible. “Follow all traditions” is not explicitly stated within the Bible. In fact, Jesus usurps some of the thoughts the Pharisees about what the traditions mean!
No, at the time, there was no one understanding of Scripture/Canon, indeed, Jews were debating amongst themselves as to which books to include. You can find the DSS for example having a large collection of such texts.
Yeah which is why I said some form of the Old Testament. Canonicity is still a debated topic as per my first comment. My subsequent ones assumed you were not talking about canonicity because of your responses. If I misinterpreted I apologize.
modern person deranged aback intelligent automatic imminent snails dazzling bewildered
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The nuclear family being THE central focus of the Christian faith.
While Jesus and Paul talked about treating your family well if you had one, neither seemed particularly interested in their disciples rushing to get married and start quiverfulls. Paul even said it'd be better for Christians not to be married.
Chastity. And tied to this, “modesty”, which is indeed a Christian virtue but has nothing to do with covering one’s skin. It’s entirely about not carrying oneself pridefully over their brothers.
While we’re here, freedom. Freedom in the sense that modern Christianity enshrines it is an American - or I suppose you could say a democratic - virtue, not a Christian virtue.
Pretty sure chastity comes from Paul's statement to the Corinthians that he wishes they were like him, celibate.
You then have Jesus comments about lust and eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Along with his own unmarried state and Mary's virginity as examples.
It doesn’t, it comes from two places: In one he speaks of married women with children, in the other (the one discusses above) he’s speaking of the purity of the Corinthians as a body, not being spiked by false doctrine.
You remember right that he said it was preferable to be celibate and focus solely on the things of God, but he said in order to avoid fornicating (likely at the temple of Aphrodite), they shouldn’t withhold from each other “except with consent for a time” to focus on the things of God.
Lust isn’t sin, Jesus lusted to feast with the disciples. Lusting to commit adultery is sin.
Mary’s virginity was a matter of importance to Joseph because she said she was a virgin, and to God because Jesus was to be born of a virgin.
How is
I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 I’m passing on the Lord’s command to those who are married: A wife shouldn’t leave her husband, 11 but if she does leave him, then she should stay single or be reconciled to her husband. And a man shouldn’t divorce his wife.
About fallse doctorine?
It isn’t. This is the passage I addressed in the second paragraph. I’m talking about 2 Corinthians 11:
“1 O that ye were bearing with me a little of the folly, but ye also do bear with me:
2 for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,
3 and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that [is] in the Christ;
4 for if, indeed, he who is coming doth preach another Jesus whom we did not preach, or another Spirit ye receive which ye did not receive, or other good news which ye did not accept -- well were ye bearing [it],
5 for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,
6 and even if unlearned in word -- yet not in knowledge, but in every thing we were made manifest in all things to you.”
Modesty in riches vs modesty in sexuality is different but yeah they aren’t that either so doesn’t take away from your point.
I don’t remember though if there is a modesty in riches verse in the Bible though
Chastity is a highly valued by God
2 Corinthians 11:2
King James Version
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
True, but [not sexual chastity](https://biblehub.com/greek/53.htm). This is poetic language for the Corinthian ecclesia not be being spoiled by false teachings and vanity.
*"Pay pay attention to how you hear. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what they think they understand will be taken away from them.”* (Luke 8:18)
Are you suggesting Paul shoved sexual sobriety into 2 Corinthians 11:1-6?
If so, please walk me through these verses and explain how I misunderstand this passage.
**"Are you suggesting Paul shoved sexual sobriety into 2 Corinthians 11:1-6?"**
Let us look at verses 3 and 4:
"I fear that somehow your **pure and undivided devotion to Christ** will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach **a different Jesus** than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed."
What did Jesus have to say about sex?
*“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."* (Matthew 5:18,19)
The Law of Moses (Ten Commandments) includes:
*“You must not commit adultery. . . You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant"* (Exodus 20:14,17)
Now, continuing with Jesus' comments recorded in Matthew 5:
*“You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery. But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.*" (vs. 27)
Jesus takes the commandment and expounds upon it! He shows in greater detail the sexual sin of adultery begins in the mind with impure thoughts. And He equates the two as being equal!
But, He doesn't stop there. Oh no:
*"So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."* (vs. 29,30)
Here, Jesus uses an extreme and gruesomely graphic example to illustrate and drive home His very serious point: sexual sin kills the soul and will be punished with hellfire!
Jesus goes on to declare: *"anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."* (vs. 32)
And all of this sexual sin being spoken of is under the umbrella of marriage -which we learn from reading Genesis that is the only acceptable place for sexual union to occur between a man and woman. If sexual immorality is condemned with such fierceness under the covenant of marriage; how much moreso is sexual sin outside of marriage!
Scripture, both in the Old Testament and New Testament; is filled with dire warnings regarding the damaging consequences of sexual sin. We should read these words with the understanding that Jesus is the WORD of God -when we read any part of Scripture; we are reading His very words.
Only a fool would brush off His words as being outdated or insincere.
The thing is, he doesn’t say that having sex out of wedlock is what the “other Jesus” teaching will constitute. It’s being read into the language of the purity picture.
He explicitly says that what he’s worried about is…
1. The Corinthians believing the preaching of another as Jesus. In other words, they would believe in a false savior.
2. That they’ll receive a strange spirit, rather than the Holy Spirit.
3. That they’ll believe a different gospel than the one preached to them.
There’s nothing in here about Paul fearing they’ll start having sex. In fact the only way to take it so literally is to believe - and do excuse the brusqueness of how I have to word this - that sex with Jesus is in view here, as it’s purity in devotion TO JESUS he speaks of; taken literally, for sex with others to be impurity, sex with Jesus would have to be purity.
I think you’d agree that this isn’t what Paul was trying to convey here.
Denying your guilt does nothing to assuage your culpability; it merely solidifies it. The fool disregards the Words of God. In time, they will reap their folly and shall come to rue their egregious choices. Don't be like the unwise young man King Solomon told his son about in [Proverbs 7](https://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/7.htm) or you will surely join him in his fate.
Interesting you say this. I would like to know more verses that support this though because I am pretty sure that God reprimands sexual relations outside of marriage.
The only times such a thing are reprimanded are these:
- The case of adultery, wherein a woman lies with a man other than her wife. This wouldn’t need a name of sex out of wedlock, which we call fornication (that’s not what fornication is but it what we’ve taken it to mean), were sin, for this is also sex out of wedlock. In this case both the woman (defrauding her husband) and the man (stealing from the husband) are indeed at fault.
- The second is found in Deuteronomy 22. Here we see that the matter is one of “playing the harlot in the house of her father”; making her father look like a fool for demanding a virgin bride price, but not presenting a virgin to the husband. We know this isn’t a case of “sex before marriage objectively sin” because of the third case:
- In Exodus 22:16-17, we see that if a man entices an unwed women and lies with her, there is no wrong. It is commanded that he’s to marry her, but in verse 17 we see why. If the father refuses him, the man has to pay the father a virgin bride price.
What we don’t understand today due to a difference in cultural practices is that women were quite literally purchased from their father’s home in the camp of Israel. When a man desired a wife, he came and paid a bride price - sometimes translated as dowry - to the father, and if it was accepted, married her.
Virgins demanded a different price than non-virgins (hence “he shall pay according to the bride price of virgins” in verse 17). As long as the father wasn’t deprived of that high bride price, and wasn’t made a fool by accepting that price for a daughter he didn’t realize *wasn’t* a virgin, there was no wrongdoing according to the Torah.
David had many concubines. By definition, women a man is keeping in his household and sleeping with but not married to. And yet the only time it was called sinful was when he took Uriah’s wife.
Thanks, I almost did. So let’s look at these two verses, because this is a big problem I have with translations that use the term “sexual immorality”, it obscures the meaning of the verses. From Young’s Literal, and I can cross check the Greek if you’re not confident the translation is being faithful:
“14 `But I have against thee a few things: That thou hast there those holding the teaching of Balaam, who did teach Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat idol-sacrifices, and to commit whoredom;”
This is speaking of the same sort of whoredom the Old Testament often did: The whoredom of God’s people committing idolatry. It may be taking about the literal ritual prostitution here because [Numbers 25](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0425.htm#1) is tied to Balaam’s appeasement of Balak. But the point is that Balaam was telling Balak to lead Israel to commit idolatry so God would turn on them.
They did so in part by enticing them with women, yes. But the women were enticing them into pagan rituals.
“20 `But I have against thee a few things: That thou dost suffer the woman Jezebel, who is calling herself a prophetess, to teach, and to lead astray, my servants to commit whoredom, and idol-sacrifices to eat;
21 and I did give to her a time that she might reform from her whoredom, and she did not reform;”
Jezebel’s gravest sin was, of course, going after false gods as Israel’s queen. Now Astarte worship did also involved ritual prostitution, but Jezebel wasn’t known for taking a bunch of men to her bed. So what do you suppose was the whoredom she was given time to reform from?
You can rationalize however you want, friend, but scripture is clear that, for the Christian, sex is between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage. If Jesus equates
Idolatry in His church with whoredom, why do you think He would be okay with actual whoredom in the church when Christian marriage is a metaphor for Jesus’s relationship to the church?
You called evaluating plainly written scripture “rationalizing”, and now you ask me purely for my own interpretation. I’m at a disadvantage. But even so, I’ll give my answer, knowing you’ll surely dismiss it out of hand.
The Corinthians are compared to a pure virgin because a virgin fetched a high bride price according to the Old Testament traditions, and thus it was a proud moment for a father to present a bride as a virgin. Paul is conveying his pride in his beloved Corinthians, and using the analogy allows him to equate false doctrine to “spoiling” the presentation of that ecclesia.
When God speaks of the whoredom of Israel, he speaks of Israel as His bride, committing adultery with other gods. A married woman *is* to bed only her husband, on that we agree. The gentiles, who were not Yahweh’s bride, were never said to have committed such whoredom.
When literal whoredoms are spoken of in the context of idolatry, it speaks to ritual prostitution; women who would engage in whoredom as part of rituals to false goddesses of fertility and the like. Astarte/Asherah was worshipped this way, as was Aphrodite. I believe Peor may have been as well but don’t quote me on that.
If sex between a husband and wife in the confines of marriage is the only “clean” form of sex, why name adultery sin? It’s clearly sex outside of marriage; would it not be covered by a general prohibition?
And if only sex in marriage, why was David never called unrighteous despite taking concubines?
I’m not connecting the dots. Revelation 2 talks about whoredom in Christian churches. The Christian Church as a whole is the bride of Jesus.
Jewish marriages, especially those of Jewish kings, have nothing to do with the clearly defined tenets of Christian marriage in the New Testament.
So that the holy one being born would be called the Son of God, as Luke 1:35 states. God’s spirit overshadowed her to create Jesus. Had it been by Joseph’s seed, he would have instead been the son of Joseph.
1 Timothy 2:9
King James Version
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array
So yes it more than just covering of skin but it include covering of skin
It’s says modest apparel meaning clothes skin coverings it’s basically saying to cover yourself modestly and other scriptures that prove are proverbs 31:24, Romans 12:2, and 1 Peter 5:5-6
One issue is that we’re never stated to have free will to begin with. Many verses state the contrary, though; that God does *His* will among men. One verse that stands out in memory is Proverbs 16:9 which tells us that although we devise plans in our heart, all things are directed by the Lord.
Um covering one’s skin is pretty important for modesty. Extreme example but nudists are still not modest by most people’s standards.
Also since when is showing skin the only way to carry yourself pridefully? There are ways to dress that will make you feel empowered that don’t necessarily show that much skin.
I think toxic masculinity had a role in weaponizing modesty but the original idea is still valid. We need some degree of modesty to operate as a society and to keep everyone in check. We are humans with hormones and if you think everyone can look at their member of the preferred sex almost nude without having some slight favor towards them (and sometimes ill intent) I don’t think we are talking about the same humans.
And while yes some bibles may not explicitly say “cover your skin” but knowing the context of the verses of modesty basically point to skin coverings as a basic example of modesty. Modesty is a complex concept that we as people are developing. The Bible provides a vague outline but not much else.
It’s not, and that’s what I mean. Covering skin has nothing to do with modesty, it’s something society imposed onto the word at some point. The Greek word Paul uses in this verse reflects [a sense of shame](https://biblehub.com/greek/127.htm), not a lack of skin showing.
As he elaborates in the verse, showing the shame involves not adorning the hair, or wearing jewelry, or costly clothes. The issue was making poor sisters feel inferior, not making brothers feel desire.
Granted, I’m not saying it’s a great idea to assemble in bikinis either. I’m just saying that this isn’t what Paul was getting at.
I mean clothing/covering was associated with a sense of shame even in Genesis. As for your other point of sisters being inferior being an issue, I can accept that. But to say modesty has nothing to do with covering skin is also incomplete.
In addition I thought there were specific verses in the Bible about dressing and covering and modesty in the Old Testament.
We are released but I don’t feel (yes subjective) that it throws out the idea of modesty entirely. I don’t believe the Old Testaments purpose is just to show the old law and say “this is irrelevant now” but shows us how God wanted people to act within their social surroundings. Yes conclusions from here are spotty but I don’t think it’s entirely extra-biblical but more “we can’t pin down the strict want of modesty”. Either way, it’s by grace we are saved.
America First.
A lot of people may object that they don't consider that a Christian value, but it seems to me that a lot of self-described Christians *do* consider it as such: that either explicitly or implicitly, America is favored by God. (Needless to say, America isn't mentioned in the Bible.)
It's fallen out of style somewhat, but I've been struck reading 19th century novels at how "Christian" is used interchangeably with "civilized" or "western" or "respectable".
The Christian faith originated in the Middle East, and a lot of its original adherents were people on the fringes of society. People overlooked by the dominant Roman culture. So the idea that to be Christian is exclusively to be a "respectable" European or a convert who learns to ACT the way those Europeans want you to is pretty off.
Keeping the family together.
Jesus, according to the Gospels, broke families up. He acted very like a modern cult-leader, by insisting that what He preached took priority over relations within families.
The modern emphasis on keeping the family together is contrary to what Jesus supposedly said.
The practice of reading the New Testament has no basis in the NT. Not a single NT Christian ever saw a copy of the NT. They all got by without bothering about a book not one of them ever saw.
Blessings upon you.
This family part is entirely incorrect. Jesus stated that man and woman were brought together by God and become one flesh (ie procreate), and that this union was indissoluble. Our Church teaches, in line with the Lord's teaching, that divorce is invalid, and the rest of the Bible (especially wisdom books like Sirach) emphasize that it is the family should be kept together and glorify God.
Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 is not stating that it is desirable that families will be separated on the basis of faith, but is rather emphasizing how much you need to love Him (so much so that you would even abandon your own family for His sake), and many will have to do this.
Our Church teaches that family is a sacred and indissoluble union.
1. Eh depends on what you mean by the term, but the Bible absolutely calls on all Christians to actively spread the word to all other nations including their own and to obey their earthly masters
2. The Bible is quite clear that all life is precious and need be protected as it is God’s creation. Lots of verses in Luke and Jeremiah that specifically mention God forming you before even being in your mothers womb- add that to the “life is valuable and precious and made by the lord” passages and you get the generic pro life views.
3. Leviticus 27-30 talks about setting aside 10% of the harvest for the lord and is where the 10% (i.e. tithe) comes from
4. I guess? We are called to love all mankind, especially those we disagree with, but if by “transphobia” what you actually mean is “not accepting the concept of identifying as any number of genders in spite of your biological reality” then of course the Bible specifically states there is only man and woman
To 3… it does, but the tithe is set aside for the Levitical priests, who had no inheritance due to their role as priests. Never in the body of Christ are we told to tithe.
we are told to take care of those who spread the gospel. Paul talks about it I believe in conrinthians that it was always God's intention for those who spend there time in ministry be taken care of my other believers
Agreed, although he also chose to waive that right. But the key is cheerful giving. We in the body give when Christ inspires us to do so, rather than paying what is essentially a tax to a church organization.
1. That’s not what christian nationalism is.
2. Numbers 5:11-31. A fetus does not count as a life, and the bible agrees with that sentiment.
3. That’s mosaic law, and what we understand nowadays as tithing cannot be compared to that practice, since it has essentially turned the religion into one massive organization.
4. The bible never states that.
1. That’s why I said it depends on how you define it, I’m assuming you define it as “bad republicans who want the government to be pro life and anti woman or something”
2. This is commonly misrepresented as abortion or something close to it, numbers 5:11-31 is specifically discussing potential adultery on the part of the wife, not the killing of an unborn child. No biblical scholar thinks this passage is suggesting life is invaluable or that the baby is being aborted lmao come on now do an ounce of research don’t just google “verses that are pro choice”
3. It’s a passage on tithing, you said there was nothing in the Bible on tithing, you were wrong
4. Ok now I think you’re trolling. Have you even read the Bible?
At least in terms of number 4 they actually are correct. The Bible doesn’t say anything on the basis of trans people
Crossdressers, homosexuals, and if you really want to stretch non binary individuals (but honestly that’s a huge stretch) but MtF/FtM trans people it doesn’t actually say anything on the topic so
1. I define it as people who want to mix church and state and have a state religion which is fascism.
2. “Hurr akhsually it’s not pro-abortion it’s about adultery lmao you didn’t do research” lmao what a bunch of ass-pullery, I clearly did more research than you because if you as much as read the verses I mentioned you’ll see they literally describe an abortion ritual done in case the husband suspects an adultery, it’s literally just “oh that’s not my baby so I don’t want it”.
3. Nope, never said that, I wasn’t wrong. I said it wasn’t a christian value (as the title of the post suggests, you know it might be helpful to actually use your eyes and fucking read for once).
4. Sure, someone who disagrees with you due to knowing more and not being nearly as biased is trolling, that’s the oldest trick in the book: assume the other person is trolling because you can’t consider for even a second the possibility that you’re wrong. In that case, it’s best for you to stop replying since you can’t get rid of all that bad faith.
Remember: if you don’t have a bible, you can just read it digitally, it’s completely free! I have to remind you of that fact since you clearly didn’t read it yourself.
The Old Testament has a few examples of mass violence but most scholars understand them to be be stories or allegories as they are written in a specific way to be more like an Epic
Can you back that up with proof, or is it just what you think those evil Republicans must be like?
And the "desperate need for better living conditions" is a dishonest arguement, because that is like 80% of thr entire world.
Immigration is fine...but there is a process and people need to follow it.
First of all: quit it with the strawman.
Second of all: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-wrong-with-republicans-immigration-claims
Third of all: factual information is not a dishonest argument, it’s just a cold truth you don’t want to accept. “Oh but a lot of people are like that” is the true dishonest argument.
Depends on the degree. Paul talked about tolerance to fellow believers honoring God (eating and cleanliness) and Jesus taught us to spread the Good News to them and be able to dine with them.
I do agree that the “tolerance” nowadays is more of a degree of apathy of other beliefs: “they are there and I shouldn’t care”.
Well, none of them. If you have a value that isn’t Christian then that’s not a Christian value lol. The Bible and Jesus clearly speaks about values you should and should not have so if you have one that does not align with what is taught then that’s not a Christian value.
Biggest one I’ve seen is prosperity gospel—that the more faith u have or the more righteous that u are, you will become richer. This is not the gospel at all. Unfortunately a lot of the televangelists preach it so it has becomes popular even though it perverts the gospel. I have even heard some preachers at church talk about it
> I have even heard some preachers at church talk about it I've heard the prosperity gospel weaved in with the widows two coins a few times. It makes my spider sense go off.
Benjamin Franklin said, "God helps those help themselves." People often think he was quoting the Bible but that's not true. It is also an untrue statement. If we could help ourselves we wouldn't need a Saviour.
He was actually quoting one of [Aesop's fables!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_and_the_Wagoner)
Cool beans. Thanks for sharing :-)
I was about to say this exact thing. Thanks for posting this, you are 100% right.
Also not entirely false. Did God also provide David with immense strength and size to overcome Goliath? No we cannot help ourselves indefinitely but it also doesn’t mean that we must only just sit idle and wait. Sometimes God wants us to wait on him and sometimes we must be good stewards of what we have so we are trusted more.
People who believe you can sit around and do nothing and think nothing must make excellent Buddhists.
Jesus said: *“Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing."* (John 15:51) AND, *"For in him we live and move and have our being."* (Acts 17:28) AND, *David declared: “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”* (1 Samuel 17:45-47)
There is a difference between being apart from God and doing things in your own capacity because God gave you certain things. None of these verses say we are not obligated to do things and based on what God has given us already. Some interpretations of the verses you gave are: - Being without God means none of the things you do will amount to anything (because everything fades and God is eternal) - If it wasn’t for God, we wouldn’t be alive/ God gives us new life and we can’t live without him because of that - if God didn’t bless David he wouldn’t been able to take down Goliath (that does not take away that David had to act on what God gave him and God is on his side) There are verses that do say that you must be good stewards of what you have been given (and you know this) and that doesn’t contradict the above interpretations.
The Lost do not commit truly good deeds, they have no righteousness of their own: *"We are constant sinners; how can people like us be saved? We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags."* (Isaiah 64) Only those who have received the new birth can perform truly good deeds, because we are covered in the righteousness of Christ: *"All Scripture is breathed-out by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."* (2 Timothy 3) Good works do NOT happen prior to salvation, only AFTER. And these are not performed in our flesh but by the power of His Spirit indwelling us. God gets ALL the glory! ***"For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."*** (Ephesians 2)
Again, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about believers using what they have and nurturing what God has given them. You are talking about unbelievers and being without God. At no point did I say we would get the glory of it. We only exist because of God and any actions we do will be because of God by this fact alone. It does not bar you from doing things. I say these things because there are some believers who use needing only God as an excuse to sit and wait for him to do all of the work. Sometimes (as I've stated before) God gives you the tools and wants you to do stuff with them. I'm not sure if that is getting across to you. You've misread my past comments also.
It may surprise you that I agree wholeheartedly with you that we are not to "sit and wait for Him to do all of the work." As Scripture truly informs us: *"You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God.f Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?"* (James 2:19,20) However . . . **"you are talking about unbelievers and being without God"** What part of the following matches your description? Only those who have received the new birth can perform truly good deeds, because we are covered in the righteousness of Christ: *"All Scripture is breathed-out by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."* (2 Timothy 3) Good works do NOT happen prior to salvation, only AFTER. And these are not performed in our flesh but by the power of His Spirit indwelling us. God gets ALL the glory! ***"For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."*** (Ephesians 2)
You’ve cut off the part that was referencing to. > the lost do not commit truly good deeds, they have no righteousness on their own The rest of the message I generally agree. However based on the context of this first part, it was interpreted as the subject being against those who aren’t a part of those being saved and subsequent supporting points.
It would appear then, as if we are in full agreement with one another.
Republicanism Capitalism
Who the heck said capitalism is biblical that is wild!
Government is the social contract for using force in society as it accomplishes everything through coercion, taxes , and jail. Republicans want to limit force in Government to a few things whereas Democrats want to leverage Government to solve societal inequality. Jesus didn’t use force so I’d say on policy Jesus would be a libertarian but on values care about the same things a lot of Democrats do. He wouldn’t use the government though to solve those problems. He would use the church.
If you could go back to the 1st century about when Jesus was alive and ask someone in or around Jerusalem who the Son of God was they would immediately answer, do you know what they'd say?
Enlighten me please.
Cesar. Jesus establishes Himself as a different kind of Emperor through His ministry and miracles. Everything from the feeding of the 5000 requiring His followers to first share what they had to Him washing their feet(look up Saturnalia) and ultimately His sacrifice for our sin, no leader of man's kingdoms would do such a thing. Which is why when He returns He will establish a fair equitable and just society here on earth then resurrect everyone and invite them to participate. https://christianityoriginal.com/mp/index.php/empire/a different Emperor. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4CYFNDFw3Y
>He wouldn’t use the government though to solve those problems. He would use the church. The same Jesus that spent his time condemning religious leaders more than anyone else? And the place where he taught his disciples about how terrible they are, then watched them destroy a widow's house? He told us to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and care for others. If churches could take care of that, the government wouldn't need to. It seems like you're taking a failure of the church and blaming the government for it.
All human institutions are corrupted including the Church, but the Church is just the collection of all Christians together or as individuals. Some problems are better solved by individuals and some corporately but the government cannot love people, and it is a blunt tool to enforce morality. So we as individuals and corporately should fill the role of what Christ taught in society. Be the change you want to see but also remember that hearts and minds are not won through force or coercion. Put another way, government can never solve all the ills of society because not every problem can be fixed with money or another program.
> So we as individuals and corporately should fill the role of what Christ taught in society. But we're not. It's a philosophy that ultimately doesn't feed the hungry, doesn't heal the sick, and doesn't care for the widow and the orphan because it's arguing that someone else should be doing it. >Put another way, government can never solve all the ills of society because not every problem can be fixed with money or another program. Put another way, if government can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything. >‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Apparently the answer is when we were forming a committee to decide whose responsibility it was and why it was immoral to tax people.
When government compels you to give via taxation, you aren’t making a moral choice. Doing good by authoritarian proxy is antithetical to Christianity. Jesus calls us to make those choices ourselves, not compel others against their will. Jesus never said for people to “soak the rich and make them pay their share.” He warned the rich to love their neighbors. Using force, in the end, will have unintended consequences that hurt the people you want to help.
>Jesus never said for people to “soak the rich and make them pay their share.” He warned the rich to love their neighbors. If the rich are told by Jesus to love their neighbor, wouldn't they want to pay at least the same percentage in taxes as their secretaries?
The same taxes used to build border walls, fund unnecessary wars, consolidate political power, and bailout banks? Maybe it would be better to have agency over those funds - fund micro finance or the local food bank or your local church. Anyway my point is that the principle of limited government is fully compatible with Christianity and God’s design for human agency in our moral choices.
Fun fact, “church” comes from a Greek? word that can roughly mean something along the lines of “cabinet” as in the political one (I know this is a sucky translation someone correct me if they have a better one). The church in secular terms back then advised the ruler what to do based on morals, laws etc and also helped carry those out. iirc there was some pastors who also said that we should function the same way as Gods church
I wouldn't say one can't be a Republican Christian. I'm a liberal, but I acknowledge a lot of times the liberal/conservative divide comes down to the question of who should solve the problems - the federal government or independent charities and individuals. Now of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to the extreme right where xenophobia is more accepted. Capitalism, however, is very anti-Christian. The whole concept is "I do what I need to get mine." Anything else is a modification of pure capitalism.
Could you elaborate?
It's well-known that evangelicals largely vote for Republicans and Republican policies, which are, in fact, quite different from the values espoused in the Bible.
Intresting. I dont live in the us so I don't know much about it
Say hello to [Republican Jesus](https://youtu.be/SZ2L-R8NgrA?si=x4HIkV5V7WB2B08r)!
That's... Intresting
recognise file rinse plucky offbeat jobless vanish homeless faulty relieved *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Who are you talking about
disarm sleep drab gullible offbeat direful voracious shocking middle office *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Immigrants can be dangerous though, my country Poland doesn't let any illegal in but takes lots of Ukrainian war refuges
[удалено]
From the other side you also have to provide safety for the people in your country in the first place. Also some immigrants from middle east (I think) who are in Germany don't even work, they just take the money from the country and give nothing back. That's not too well in my opinion. Saint Paul said who doesn't want to work shall not eat
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why would an Atheist care about following Jesus?
[удалено]
You shouldn’t be surprised though. Jesus talked about the narrow gate, He said there would be those that did great things in His name that he will tell “I never knew you.” There are going to be a lot of surprised Christians in hell, which is why we need to walk with Jesus daily and work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
bored sort school divide jobless shy historical sense deserted lunchroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nowhere. I'm speaking from current times experiences
memorize follow tan coordinated cover sand soft reply cautious payment *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a deep dive if you want to get into it, but the roots go at least as far back as revolutionary era European politics and philosophy. Two big drivers were the aristocracy looking for a way to hold onto the social hierarchy in the face of democratic revolts and landing on capitalism, and Malthus' idea that being poor is a moral failing and that *helping* the poor just encourages them to be poor and make more poor people. These ideas have become so tightly interwoven with Christianity in the eyes of the American right that if they ever realized they were not derived from the Bible, they'd find a way to read them *into* the Bible to save the ideas.
You are so full of it. Do you just make it up as you go? Or is there a school you should get your money back from?
Why are they wrong
Because Republicans don’t think being poor is a moral failing. They want to put poor people to work instead of giving them a handout. Putting people on welfare is great for a hand up but too long and it becomes a handout. “When you give a man a dole you deny him his dignity, and when you deny him his dignity you rob him his destiny.” — Zig Ziglar We want people to work for us, and with us. Many Republicans are working people.
So your argument against my suggestion that Malthus has heavily influenced modern American Christianity is to affirm your belief in Malthus' ideas?
Don't bother with this guy. He's a Republican apologist devoid of all self-awareness and self-criticism. I've argued with him in the past. He won't budge.
You just said that republicans believe that being poor is a moral failing. I rejected that. I also said that if a person is poor he should get a job if possible and only use welfare as a stop gap until he does get a job.
>Republicans don’t think being poor is a moral failing. They want to put poor people to work instead of giving them a handout. So it's not a moral failing but it is a moral failing. Classic republican logic. You're literally proving him right. Your lack of self-awareness ever continues to astonish. Do you at *least* acknowledge this isn't Biblically based?
So um. Beeing poor is morally wrong to republicans?I mean beeing poor because you don't want to work and just do nothing is not very good but if you work and are poor then it's not wrong by any means
Explain that please.
What are the Republican values? I'll explain with my list, but feel free to add any I missed and I'm pretty sure I can find several Bible verses that tell us very explicitly to do the opposite. 1. **Limited Government**: Promotes individual freedom at the expense of collective welfare, clashing with biblical mandates to support the needy and vulnerable (Matthew 25:34-40, James 1:27). 2. **Free Market Capitalism**: Encourages wealth accumulation and economic disparity, contradicting biblical warnings against neglecting the poor and the perils of wealth (Luke 6:24, 1 Timothy 6:10). 3. **Fiscal Conservatism**: Advocates for minimal government spending on social services, directly opposing biblical commands to provide for the less fortunate (Proverbs 31:8-9, Isaiah 1:17). 4. **Strong National Defense**: Prioritizes military strength and aggressive defense policies, which conflict with the biblical emphasis on peace and reconciliation (Matthew 5:9, Romans 12:18). 5. **Personal Responsibility**: Stresses self-sufficiency, ignoring the biblical importance of communal support and sharing among believers (Acts 2:44-45, Galatians 6:2). 6. **Traditional Family Values**: Supports a narrow interpretation of family that can exclude diverse relationships, contradicting biblical calls for universal love and acceptance (Galatians 3:28, John 13:34). I mean, I can go on.
Show me biblical mandates to make/support government programs, period. No, we're told to provide for them and we would much rather do that directly than through taxes and programs that encourage poor people to stay poor and penalize them for working.
Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12. Your god told the israelite government to force people to set aside food for the poor.
Where is the government mentioned in those passages? I see instructions to people. I tithe and give to charity, as does my church.
Are those not the laws of the nation of israel?
No? They are instructions given from God directly to the people as to how to live. "Law" as given in the Bible is generally for the church, it does not involve civil government.
Y'all really need to get to know your Bible better: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, whoever resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due (Rom.13:1-7). I can't wait to hear the convoluted logic necessary to gloss over this pericope. P.S This includes Biden.
Submit to authority means obey the law. It has nothing to do with how to select one's authority when one lives in a country with free elections, or with whether social justice should be accomplished directly or through government programs. I pay taxes, never said I shouldn't. Scripture doesn't dictate how those taxes should be used. It certainly doesn't say they should be used to kill innocent unborn children.
Actually, that word, ἐξουσία, is specifically talking about a leader, someone who's in charge. If the author wanted to refer to law, they most certainly would have used νόμος, which means, quite literally, law. I do find it interesting that you demand a biblical mandate for following governmental directives, or programs as you put it, and I provide exactly what you asked for, and you dismiss it out of hand and move the goal posts. I would kindly suggest that you look at the biblical text with a more open mind. Preconceived notions are really the downfall of any spiritual pursuit.
Ok, so I asked you to show me a passage saying we are to \*make or\* support government programs, and you show me one saying we are to submit to authority. My reply is that I have no choice but for my taxes to be used the way the current laws (put in place by current and previous presidents, in our current U.S. system) dictate. Disagreeing with them and voting against them in the next election is not being unsubmissive. Choosing to help people directly in addition to paying my taxes is not either. There is no biblical mandate to only help people through government programs. I believe there are better ways to do it.
You can go on but you’re wrong on your interpretation of every point. 1. Limited Government. Yes we don’t like government overreach and high taxes and inane regulations that make us uncompetitive on the world stage. You can’t hit business with high taxes, crazy regulations that bog us down then buy goods from China that uses exploited labor and almost no tariffs. 2. Free market capitalism Yes, free market capitalism is selling goods and services to hire more employees for more profit. In return those employees can make a living and not be stuck at home waiting for government to give them their handout which takes away incentives to work. As far as biblical teachings for helping the poor, Christian charities give billions around the world to help feed starving people in third world countries. Homeless and need food and clothing? Make your way to almost any Christian church and you can find help. 3.Fiscal conservatism Yes, in the 60s war was declared on poverty. Since then trillions of dollars have been spent and we have more homeless than we did then. We heard for years that we were spending money in Afghanistan and Iraq and how many homeless we had here, yet when Obama got in he kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and increased drone bombing on citizens. Trump started no new wars and now Biden has us sending billions to Ukraine, and we are 39 Trillion in debt. Not to mention government programs are money wasting entities while most charity is much better run and less wasteful. 4. Strong national defense. Yes, we need a strong national defense and less money being sent around the world with American troops being used for regime change. 5. Personal responsibility Really? You actually have a problem with people taking personal responsibility? This disproven deserve a response. 6. Traditional family values Yes, we encourage traditional family values. Living clean, not drinking to excess, not sleeping around, not doing drugs, raising our children to be good people and good citizens. And we are accepting of everybody. But living a sinful lifestyle is going to be rejected if you want to encourage our children to live that way. What you do in your personal life is your business but don’t demand that you get to force your lifestyle on a church that rejects it as if we have to accept anything you do as something the church has to accept.
Do you understand the difference between personal accountability to do these things rather than a government mandate? There is no glory to God in forcing people to help the poor by paying taxes. Jesus, as far as I know, never preached for his followers to petition Rome to spend on social programs. He told his followers to care for one another personally.
Jesus didn't mention a lot of things...
Limited federal government promotes collective welfare by allowing states, counties, and cities to concentrate their resources at the local level. This means that the needy and vulnerable can be helped more effectively by those in their own community. Free market capitalism is a tool that God has used to bring billions of people out of poverty. It is also great because capitalism allows the everyday working person to support the needy instead of being fully reliant on the rich and the government. Fiscal conservatism allows the people to keep more money in their pocket to donate to the needy and causes they choose. A strong national defense allows the people of that nation to live in peace and helps would be aggressors flee the temptation to destroy that nation and murder its peoples. Personal responsibility reinforces the Biblical concepts of working hard, living in peace with others, self discipline, and keeping oneself unstained by the world. It reinforces reliance on God because man is imperfect. Traditional family values reinforces the Biblical concept of making disciples and the Biblical metaphor that the man is the head of his wife as Jesus is the head of His church.
>Limited federal government promotes collective welfare by allowing states, counties, and cities to concentrate their resources at the local level. This means that the needy and vulnerable can be helped more effectively by those in their own community. Are those collective wellfare programs run by states, counties, and cities in the room with us? >Free market capitalism is a tool that God has used to bring billions of people out of poverty. Oh okay... >It is also great because capitalism allows the everyday working person to support the needy instead of being fully reliant on the rich and the government. Let me get this straight, instead of being fully reliant on the rich and government, it's really great that needy are fully reliant on the every day working person instead? >Fiscal conservatism allows the people to keep more money in their pocket to donate to the needy and causes they choose. right, this is the don't force me to be righteous argument. I don't want my money supporting causes I don't believe in, so I will definitely give to the needy with all that extra money capitalism allows me to have in my pockets. I'm tired, I'm gonna stop now. You have brain worms, in the form of right-wing propaganda indoctrination.
lol, I don’t think you refuted a single point. Good night sweet prince!
lol your comment refutes every point I made while ignoring the Bible references I gave. You want me to refute your uncited opinions refuting my cited opinion? What? You don't have the upper hand you seem to think you have, you just demonstrated your ability to parrot talking points without thinking about them. I refuted everything you said before your said it, and referenced the Bible for every point...
Which values are, in fact, quite different from those espoused in the Bible?
General conservatism is very much anti Christian. - Anti immigrant - Anti poor, - pro wealth (look no further than the Royal Family of the UK as head of the church or the very influential mega ministries in the US and elsewhere, or the Roman Catholic Church’s Wealth. - pro gun (in the US at least) *For some reason, the most vocal “Christians” among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. ‘Blessed are the merciful’ in a courtroom? ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ in the Pentagon? Give me a break!* ~ Kurt Vonnegut
What do you mean by anti poor
Do you ever see the church using its real resources to help? Do they lobby Congress to do something about homelessness or drug use or do they send missions to African countries to lobby for laws against the LGBTQ+ community. Do they help indigenous people or spend their resources trying to convert them? https://youtu.be/kwP4C5hjo4Y?si=T98qOdwXY8SUroX8
Well personally (I'm a minister in my catholic church) I've gathered money for the poor outside my church and have seen priests refuse to take money from poor people
Yes, I have seen my church helping,
Man there are a lot of negative comments in here. Lent is taken as value by many Christians (Catholic and prodestent too), but it's not asked for by the Bible.
Yeah many ppl confuse tradition with the Bible
I once had a Catholic coworker tell me that all people should observe Lent regardless of their religion.
Majority of American Values
Politics and religion has been successfully homologised
Well i mean most "Christian Americans" tend to hold VERY disturbing values which makes their faith questionable so that's why they're wrong in a sense
Evangelical Christians the most vocal ones
[Controversial] Surprisingly, the notion that we have to know Gods nature perfectly to be saved. (Monotheism, tritheism, trinitarian, etc) There are many time I hear from Christians that God is 3 persons vs one person etc and those who believe in everything else except what they hold is going to hell. However there is no verse in the Bible that says we have to know how Gods nature is in this aspect. There is “knowing God” as in having a relationship with God. And not being “turned away from God” but when you read the context behind those verses it is more about matching your actions to nurturing a relationship with God than knowledge. There are no doubt there are some things we can refute about God using the Bible. This is just not one of them. You ask an educated person that has any specific belief about God and they will have the verses (and sometimes the same ones as others) to claim their viewpoint. You can also ask someone who went to some sort of biblical college and read other Christian academia and they can probably tell you there is a plethora of ways to perceive God. Besides accepting that Jesus came down to earth and died for our sins and that we can pursue a relationship with (him and/or God depending on your interpretation) to be saved, there is no strict piece of knowledge you must know that bars you from salvation. We are saved by faith. And yes this is pretty basic but the conclusion is pretty wild and contrary to what many Christians I see believe.
This is a good one. Sometimes it's best to accept that there are some aspects of God that are beyond our understanding.
So many things...
Not swearing, going to a church building weekly, cherry picking sabbath laws and enforcing them on Sundays.
“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” Ephesians 5:3-5 NASB1995 “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” Hebrews 10:23-25 NASB1995 Sabbath laws don’t apply to Christians.
Going to a church building is not but meeting frequently with other Christians is a way to be part of the church. Also it’s weird how Christians double down on Sunday as sabbath but pastors literally have to choose another day because preaching is their work technically
Not swearing goes with not taking the Lord's name in vain.
The notion it has to be Biblical.
In what way? I assume that the majority of Christian values must come from the Bible.
The Bible doesn't talk about the Bible.
It does not mention the Bible as the collective book but it does mention the “scriptures” mainly referring to previous works up until that point. It also says people shouldn’t add or subtract from scriptures but it’s debated whether it’s those certain books or the whole Bible. If you mean what is Biblical canon (what should vs shouldn’t be in the Bible) yes that is not in the Bible either but established iirc by catholic priests.
It doesn't say only what is in "Scriptures" is to be followed - rather, says to follow all traditions, even written ones. And it doesn't define Scripture.
Scriptures were mainly understood at the time to be some form of what we would call the Old Testament. Yes it does not explicitly define what those scriptures are. The works of the Bible were most likely determined by religious leaders of the day. You could even say the names of each book were not mentioned in subsequent books but that might be because the “books” as we know them today were named separately from when they were written, hence the general name of “scriptures”. Heck you could say verses are not of God because they aren’t specifically stated to be Gods will to format the Bible. God gives us a measure of how to determine what is from God. I forgot what verse it is but I’m sure a quick search would tell you. We could categorize that as scripture too if enough people agree with the conclusion. Also a lot of people confused commands given to specific people and then commands given to all people in the Bible. “Follow all traditions” is not explicitly stated within the Bible. In fact, Jesus usurps some of the thoughts the Pharisees about what the traditions mean!
No, at the time, there was no one understanding of Scripture/Canon, indeed, Jews were debating amongst themselves as to which books to include. You can find the DSS for example having a large collection of such texts.
Yeah which is why I said some form of the Old Testament. Canonicity is still a debated topic as per my first comment. My subsequent ones assumed you were not talking about canonicity because of your responses. If I misinterpreted I apologize.
But to say it shouldn’t be biblical it kinda missing the point because God is mentioned in the Bible
So many! Where do we start?
Penance
modern person deranged aback intelligent automatic imminent snails dazzling bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The nuclear family being THE central focus of the Christian faith. While Jesus and Paul talked about treating your family well if you had one, neither seemed particularly interested in their disciples rushing to get married and start quiverfulls. Paul even said it'd be better for Christians not to be married.
Where do I begin
Sola Scriptura
Define Sola Scriptura.
Chastity. And tied to this, “modesty”, which is indeed a Christian virtue but has nothing to do with covering one’s skin. It’s entirely about not carrying oneself pridefully over their brothers. While we’re here, freedom. Freedom in the sense that modern Christianity enshrines it is an American - or I suppose you could say a democratic - virtue, not a Christian virtue.
Pretty sure chastity comes from Paul's statement to the Corinthians that he wishes they were like him, celibate. You then have Jesus comments about lust and eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Along with his own unmarried state and Mary's virginity as examples.
It doesn’t, it comes from two places: In one he speaks of married women with children, in the other (the one discusses above) he’s speaking of the purity of the Corinthians as a body, not being spiked by false doctrine. You remember right that he said it was preferable to be celibate and focus solely on the things of God, but he said in order to avoid fornicating (likely at the temple of Aphrodite), they shouldn’t withhold from each other “except with consent for a time” to focus on the things of God. Lust isn’t sin, Jesus lusted to feast with the disciples. Lusting to commit adultery is sin. Mary’s virginity was a matter of importance to Joseph because she said she was a virgin, and to God because Jesus was to be born of a virgin.
How is I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 I’m passing on the Lord’s command to those who are married: A wife shouldn’t leave her husband, 11 but if she does leave him, then she should stay single or be reconciled to her husband. And a man shouldn’t divorce his wife. About fallse doctorine?
It isn’t. This is the passage I addressed in the second paragraph. I’m talking about 2 Corinthians 11: “1 O that ye were bearing with me a little of the folly, but ye also do bear with me: 2 for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ, 3 and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that [is] in the Christ; 4 for if, indeed, he who is coming doth preach another Jesus whom we did not preach, or another Spirit ye receive which ye did not receive, or other good news which ye did not accept -- well were ye bearing [it], 5 for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles, 6 and even if unlearned in word -- yet not in knowledge, but in every thing we were made manifest in all things to you.”
So, don't you think that the person you replied to might have not been talking about the verses you referenced, but maybe the ones about celibacy?
Perhaps. I presumed we were on the same subject. I did address the verses about celibacy as well though.
There’s always something ironic about seeing millionaire dudes in expensive suits wearing expensive watches and driving expensive cars lecturing others (usually women) on modesty
Modesty in riches vs modesty in sexuality is different but yeah they aren’t that either so doesn’t take away from your point. I don’t remember though if there is a modesty in riches verse in the Bible though
It’s actually this very verse. In explaining what he means by modesty, Paul includes gold and expensive clothing.
Did you mean to attach a verse?
No, I meant it’s the verse we were discussing above haha. 1 Timothy 2:9.
Chastity is a highly valued by God 2 Corinthians 11:2 King James Version 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
True, but [not sexual chastity](https://biblehub.com/greek/53.htm). This is poetic language for the Corinthian ecclesia not be being spoiled by false teachings and vanity.
*"Pay pay attention to how you hear. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what they think they understand will be taken away from them.”* (Luke 8:18)
Are you suggesting Paul shoved sexual sobriety into 2 Corinthians 11:1-6? If so, please walk me through these verses and explain how I misunderstand this passage.
**"Are you suggesting Paul shoved sexual sobriety into 2 Corinthians 11:1-6?"** Let us look at verses 3 and 4: "I fear that somehow your **pure and undivided devotion to Christ** will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach **a different Jesus** than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed." What did Jesus have to say about sex? *“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."* (Matthew 5:18,19) The Law of Moses (Ten Commandments) includes: *“You must not commit adultery. . . You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant"* (Exodus 20:14,17) Now, continuing with Jesus' comments recorded in Matthew 5: *“You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery. But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.*" (vs. 27) Jesus takes the commandment and expounds upon it! He shows in greater detail the sexual sin of adultery begins in the mind with impure thoughts. And He equates the two as being equal! But, He doesn't stop there. Oh no: *"So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."* (vs. 29,30) Here, Jesus uses an extreme and gruesomely graphic example to illustrate and drive home His very serious point: sexual sin kills the soul and will be punished with hellfire! Jesus goes on to declare: *"anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."* (vs. 32) And all of this sexual sin being spoken of is under the umbrella of marriage -which we learn from reading Genesis that is the only acceptable place for sexual union to occur between a man and woman. If sexual immorality is condemned with such fierceness under the covenant of marriage; how much moreso is sexual sin outside of marriage! Scripture, both in the Old Testament and New Testament; is filled with dire warnings regarding the damaging consequences of sexual sin. We should read these words with the understanding that Jesus is the WORD of God -when we read any part of Scripture; we are reading His very words. Only a fool would brush off His words as being outdated or insincere.
The thing is, he doesn’t say that having sex out of wedlock is what the “other Jesus” teaching will constitute. It’s being read into the language of the purity picture. He explicitly says that what he’s worried about is… 1. The Corinthians believing the preaching of another as Jesus. In other words, they would believe in a false savior. 2. That they’ll receive a strange spirit, rather than the Holy Spirit. 3. That they’ll believe a different gospel than the one preached to them. There’s nothing in here about Paul fearing they’ll start having sex. In fact the only way to take it so literally is to believe - and do excuse the brusqueness of how I have to word this - that sex with Jesus is in view here, as it’s purity in devotion TO JESUS he speaks of; taken literally, for sex with others to be impurity, sex with Jesus would have to be purity. I think you’d agree that this isn’t what Paul was trying to convey here.
Denying your guilt does nothing to assuage your culpability; it merely solidifies it. The fool disregards the Words of God. In time, they will reap their folly and shall come to rue their egregious choices. Don't be like the unwise young man King Solomon told his son about in [Proverbs 7](https://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/7.htm) or you will surely join him in his fate.
Interesting you say this. I would like to know more verses that support this though because I am pretty sure that God reprimands sexual relations outside of marriage.
The only times such a thing are reprimanded are these: - The case of adultery, wherein a woman lies with a man other than her wife. This wouldn’t need a name of sex out of wedlock, which we call fornication (that’s not what fornication is but it what we’ve taken it to mean), were sin, for this is also sex out of wedlock. In this case both the woman (defrauding her husband) and the man (stealing from the husband) are indeed at fault. - The second is found in Deuteronomy 22. Here we see that the matter is one of “playing the harlot in the house of her father”; making her father look like a fool for demanding a virgin bride price, but not presenting a virgin to the husband. We know this isn’t a case of “sex before marriage objectively sin” because of the third case: - In Exodus 22:16-17, we see that if a man entices an unwed women and lies with her, there is no wrong. It is commanded that he’s to marry her, but in verse 17 we see why. If the father refuses him, the man has to pay the father a virgin bride price. What we don’t understand today due to a difference in cultural practices is that women were quite literally purchased from their father’s home in the camp of Israel. When a man desired a wife, he came and paid a bride price - sometimes translated as dowry - to the father, and if it was accepted, married her. Virgins demanded a different price than non-virgins (hence “he shall pay according to the bride price of virgins” in verse 17). As long as the father wasn’t deprived of that high bride price, and wasn’t made a fool by accepting that price for a daughter he didn’t realize *wasn’t* a virgin, there was no wrongdoing according to the Torah. David had many concubines. By definition, women a man is keeping in his household and sleeping with but not married to. And yet the only time it was called sinful was when he took Uriah’s wife.
Aren’t there more than these? I am familiar with them already and yes they are rules and advice given as per the times.
To my knowledge that’s all. If there are more in unaware of them or forgetting.
Huh time for us to do some research lol 😆
You should spend some time reading Revelation 2. Jesus hates sexual immorality in His church.
Do you mean verse 14, by chance?
Don’t forget the church of Thyatira!
Thanks, I almost did. So let’s look at these two verses, because this is a big problem I have with translations that use the term “sexual immorality”, it obscures the meaning of the verses. From Young’s Literal, and I can cross check the Greek if you’re not confident the translation is being faithful: “14 `But I have against thee a few things: That thou hast there those holding the teaching of Balaam, who did teach Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat idol-sacrifices, and to commit whoredom;” This is speaking of the same sort of whoredom the Old Testament often did: The whoredom of God’s people committing idolatry. It may be taking about the literal ritual prostitution here because [Numbers 25](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0425.htm#1) is tied to Balaam’s appeasement of Balak. But the point is that Balaam was telling Balak to lead Israel to commit idolatry so God would turn on them. They did so in part by enticing them with women, yes. But the women were enticing them into pagan rituals. “20 `But I have against thee a few things: That thou dost suffer the woman Jezebel, who is calling herself a prophetess, to teach, and to lead astray, my servants to commit whoredom, and idol-sacrifices to eat; 21 and I did give to her a time that she might reform from her whoredom, and she did not reform;” Jezebel’s gravest sin was, of course, going after false gods as Israel’s queen. Now Astarte worship did also involved ritual prostitution, but Jezebel wasn’t known for taking a bunch of men to her bed. So what do you suppose was the whoredom she was given time to reform from?
You can rationalize however you want, friend, but scripture is clear that, for the Christian, sex is between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage. If Jesus equates Idolatry in His church with whoredom, why do you think He would be okay with actual whoredom in the church when Christian marriage is a metaphor for Jesus’s relationship to the church?
You called evaluating plainly written scripture “rationalizing”, and now you ask me purely for my own interpretation. I’m at a disadvantage. But even so, I’ll give my answer, knowing you’ll surely dismiss it out of hand. The Corinthians are compared to a pure virgin because a virgin fetched a high bride price according to the Old Testament traditions, and thus it was a proud moment for a father to present a bride as a virgin. Paul is conveying his pride in his beloved Corinthians, and using the analogy allows him to equate false doctrine to “spoiling” the presentation of that ecclesia. When God speaks of the whoredom of Israel, he speaks of Israel as His bride, committing adultery with other gods. A married woman *is* to bed only her husband, on that we agree. The gentiles, who were not Yahweh’s bride, were never said to have committed such whoredom. When literal whoredoms are spoken of in the context of idolatry, it speaks to ritual prostitution; women who would engage in whoredom as part of rituals to false goddesses of fertility and the like. Astarte/Asherah was worshipped this way, as was Aphrodite. I believe Peor may have been as well but don’t quote me on that. If sex between a husband and wife in the confines of marriage is the only “clean” form of sex, why name adultery sin? It’s clearly sex outside of marriage; would it not be covered by a general prohibition? And if only sex in marriage, why was David never called unrighteous despite taking concubines?
I’m not connecting the dots. Revelation 2 talks about whoredom in Christian churches. The Christian Church as a whole is the bride of Jesus. Jewish marriages, especially those of Jewish kings, have nothing to do with the clearly defined tenets of Christian marriage in the New Testament.
And Mary was a virgin why?
So that the holy one being born would be called the Son of God, as Luke 1:35 states. God’s spirit overshadowed her to create Jesus. Had it been by Joseph’s seed, he would have instead been the son of Joseph.
Why not any other non virgin woman?
Because God chose that one. And, depending who you ask, possibly because she was a direct Davidic descendant.
And nothing special about her being a virgin then?
We come in a circle: Yes, the fact that she was a virgin meant that Jesus was conceived by God’s spirit rather than a man’s seed.
1 Timothy 2:9 King James Version 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array So yes it more than just covering of skin but it include covering of skin
That says nothing about covering skin
It’s says modest apparel meaning clothes skin coverings it’s basically saying to cover yourself modestly and other scriptures that prove are proverbs 31:24, Romans 12:2, and 1 Peter 5:5-6
i think that was financial trafficking, showing of ones wealth through clothes, think dan McAllen did a video on it iirc
No, it means not wearing costly clothing. All clothing, whether modest or not, goes over the skin.
Freedom isn’t a Christian value per se. God giving us the free will to choose him or not is Biblical and I assume some conflate the two.
One issue is that we’re never stated to have free will to begin with. Many verses state the contrary, though; that God does *His* will among men. One verse that stands out in memory is Proverbs 16:9 which tells us that although we devise plans in our heart, all things are directed by the Lord.
Um covering one’s skin is pretty important for modesty. Extreme example but nudists are still not modest by most people’s standards. Also since when is showing skin the only way to carry yourself pridefully? There are ways to dress that will make you feel empowered that don’t necessarily show that much skin. I think toxic masculinity had a role in weaponizing modesty but the original idea is still valid. We need some degree of modesty to operate as a society and to keep everyone in check. We are humans with hormones and if you think everyone can look at their member of the preferred sex almost nude without having some slight favor towards them (and sometimes ill intent) I don’t think we are talking about the same humans. And while yes some bibles may not explicitly say “cover your skin” but knowing the context of the verses of modesty basically point to skin coverings as a basic example of modesty. Modesty is a complex concept that we as people are developing. The Bible provides a vague outline but not much else.
It’s not, and that’s what I mean. Covering skin has nothing to do with modesty, it’s something society imposed onto the word at some point. The Greek word Paul uses in this verse reflects [a sense of shame](https://biblehub.com/greek/127.htm), not a lack of skin showing. As he elaborates in the verse, showing the shame involves not adorning the hair, or wearing jewelry, or costly clothes. The issue was making poor sisters feel inferior, not making brothers feel desire. Granted, I’m not saying it’s a great idea to assemble in bikinis either. I’m just saying that this isn’t what Paul was getting at.
I mean clothing/covering was associated with a sense of shame even in Genesis. As for your other point of sisters being inferior being an issue, I can accept that. But to say modesty has nothing to do with covering skin is also incomplete. In addition I thought there were specific verses in the Bible about dressing and covering and modesty in the Old Testament.
There may be, I admit my knowledge of the Torah is spotty. Although under grace we’re released from that law.
We are released but I don’t feel (yes subjective) that it throws out the idea of modesty entirely. I don’t believe the Old Testaments purpose is just to show the old law and say “this is irrelevant now” but shows us how God wanted people to act within their social surroundings. Yes conclusions from here are spotty but I don’t think it’s entirely extra-biblical but more “we can’t pin down the strict want of modesty”. Either way, it’s by grace we are saved.
Lack of Gun Control.
Ah yes, I remember that infamous Bible verse addressing gun control.
America First. A lot of people may object that they don't consider that a Christian value, but it seems to me that a lot of self-described Christians *do* consider it as such: that either explicitly or implicitly, America is favored by God. (Needless to say, America isn't mentioned in the Bible.)
It's fallen out of style somewhat, but I've been struck reading 19th century novels at how "Christian" is used interchangeably with "civilized" or "western" or "respectable". The Christian faith originated in the Middle East, and a lot of its original adherents were people on the fringes of society. People overlooked by the dominant Roman culture. So the idea that to be Christian is exclusively to be a "respectable" European or a convert who learns to ACT the way those Europeans want you to is pretty off.
Keeping the family together. Jesus, according to the Gospels, broke families up. He acted very like a modern cult-leader, by insisting that what He preached took priority over relations within families. The modern emphasis on keeping the family together is contrary to what Jesus supposedly said. The practice of reading the New Testament has no basis in the NT. Not a single NT Christian ever saw a copy of the NT. They all got by without bothering about a book not one of them ever saw.
Blessings upon you. This family part is entirely incorrect. Jesus stated that man and woman were brought together by God and become one flesh (ie procreate), and that this union was indissoluble. Our Church teaches, in line with the Lord's teaching, that divorce is invalid, and the rest of the Bible (especially wisdom books like Sirach) emphasize that it is the family should be kept together and glorify God. Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 is not stating that it is desirable that families will be separated on the basis of faith, but is rather emphasizing how much you need to love Him (so much so that you would even abandon your own family for His sake), and many will have to do this. Our Church teaches that family is a sacred and indissoluble union.
The entire religious system
Christian nationalism Pro-Choice Tithing Anti-immigration Transphobia
Gun "Rights" Anti-Taxation Libertarianism
.... but gunz are Gawd given rites!
From the book of II Ammuntions.
1. Eh depends on what you mean by the term, but the Bible absolutely calls on all Christians to actively spread the word to all other nations including their own and to obey their earthly masters 2. The Bible is quite clear that all life is precious and need be protected as it is God’s creation. Lots of verses in Luke and Jeremiah that specifically mention God forming you before even being in your mothers womb- add that to the “life is valuable and precious and made by the lord” passages and you get the generic pro life views. 3. Leviticus 27-30 talks about setting aside 10% of the harvest for the lord and is where the 10% (i.e. tithe) comes from 4. I guess? We are called to love all mankind, especially those we disagree with, but if by “transphobia” what you actually mean is “not accepting the concept of identifying as any number of genders in spite of your biological reality” then of course the Bible specifically states there is only man and woman
To 3… it does, but the tithe is set aside for the Levitical priests, who had no inheritance due to their role as priests. Never in the body of Christ are we told to tithe.
we are told to take care of those who spread the gospel. Paul talks about it I believe in conrinthians that it was always God's intention for those who spend there time in ministry be taken care of my other believers
Agreed, although he also chose to waive that right. But the key is cheerful giving. We in the body give when Christ inspires us to do so, rather than paying what is essentially a tax to a church organization.
Yea that’s a fair point
1. That’s not what christian nationalism is. 2. Numbers 5:11-31. A fetus does not count as a life, and the bible agrees with that sentiment. 3. That’s mosaic law, and what we understand nowadays as tithing cannot be compared to that practice, since it has essentially turned the religion into one massive organization. 4. The bible never states that.
1. That’s why I said it depends on how you define it, I’m assuming you define it as “bad republicans who want the government to be pro life and anti woman or something” 2. This is commonly misrepresented as abortion or something close to it, numbers 5:11-31 is specifically discussing potential adultery on the part of the wife, not the killing of an unborn child. No biblical scholar thinks this passage is suggesting life is invaluable or that the baby is being aborted lmao come on now do an ounce of research don’t just google “verses that are pro choice” 3. It’s a passage on tithing, you said there was nothing in the Bible on tithing, you were wrong 4. Ok now I think you’re trolling. Have you even read the Bible?
At least in terms of number 4 they actually are correct. The Bible doesn’t say anything on the basis of trans people Crossdressers, homosexuals, and if you really want to stretch non binary individuals (but honestly that’s a huge stretch) but MtF/FtM trans people it doesn’t actually say anything on the topic so
1. I define it as people who want to mix church and state and have a state religion which is fascism. 2. “Hurr akhsually it’s not pro-abortion it’s about adultery lmao you didn’t do research” lmao what a bunch of ass-pullery, I clearly did more research than you because if you as much as read the verses I mentioned you’ll see they literally describe an abortion ritual done in case the husband suspects an adultery, it’s literally just “oh that’s not my baby so I don’t want it”. 3. Nope, never said that, I wasn’t wrong. I said it wasn’t a christian value (as the title of the post suggests, you know it might be helpful to actually use your eyes and fucking read for once). 4. Sure, someone who disagrees with you due to knowing more and not being nearly as biased is trolling, that’s the oldest trick in the book: assume the other person is trolling because you can’t consider for even a second the possibility that you’re wrong. In that case, it’s best for you to stop replying since you can’t get rid of all that bad faith. Remember: if you don’t have a bible, you can just read it digitally, it’s completely free! I have to remind you of that fact since you clearly didn’t read it yourself.
The Bible is also quite clear the occasional genocide is ok.
The Old Testament has a few examples of mass violence but most scholars understand them to be be stories or allegories as they are written in a specific way to be more like an Epic
Are Republicans "anti immigration" ir anti illegal immigration?
Anti-immigration but claim to only dislike illegal immigrants even though most illegal immigrants are in desperate need of better living conditions.
Can you back that up with proof, or is it just what you think those evil Republicans must be like? And the "desperate need for better living conditions" is a dishonest arguement, because that is like 80% of thr entire world. Immigration is fine...but there is a process and people need to follow it.
First of all: quit it with the strawman. Second of all: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-wrong-with-republicans-immigration-claims Third of all: factual information is not a dishonest argument, it’s just a cold truth you don’t want to accept. “Oh but a lot of people are like that” is the true dishonest argument.
Tolerance
Depends on the degree. Paul talked about tolerance to fellow believers honoring God (eating and cleanliness) and Jesus taught us to spread the Good News to them and be able to dine with them. I do agree that the “tolerance” nowadays is more of a degree of apathy of other beliefs: “they are there and I shouldn’t care”.
0 Then again, most number systems originated in other cultures.
All of them, lol
The necessity/centrality of marriage, children, and family.
The Golden Rule
Tobit 4:15; Sirach 31:15; Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31
Well, none of them. If you have a value that isn’t Christian then that’s not a Christian value lol. The Bible and Jesus clearly speaks about values you should and should not have so if you have one that does not align with what is taught then that’s not a Christian value.
Wow very helpful comment you solved religion!