MajGenl.Meade wrote:Jesus didn't come to earth to provide feeding programs or heal the sick - he came to save the sinner to eternal life. He compassionately did those other things, but they were primarily enacted "proofs' that he is who he claims to be.
But Jesus never claimed to be the son of God in the manner that the church has since claimed on his behalf, and what he taught primarily was that the kingdom of God is at hand, meaning in the here and now we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend to the sick and that nobody with wealth who turns his back on his brother without has any chance of getting into Heaven.
So I'd say it's pretty clear that the teachings of Christ demand food, clothing, medicine AND safe haven be provided before a copy of the Bible.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Who comes up with this before mantra, and keeps on chanting it? Not me.
Is there something here about chucking Bibles at people and withholding food? Apparently there are many omniscient people posting in this thread who have amazing knowledge that people who donated money for Bibles have not helped the poor with food, etc.
I don't think refugees etc. should be given Bibles to the exclusion of water, food, shelter and so on. The Bible itself warns against that - James 2:16 "If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?"
But it is sheer ignorance to criticize an effort to provide Bibles to people - refugees or not - with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to whether or not the people donating funds have or have not donated for physical temporal needs also. People in refugee camps are receiving help in the form of food and shelter - may they not also receive toys for children? Should no one visit and sing songs of encouragement? Are people who do those things to be held up to ridicule?
As to Jesus, then he did a pretty poor job didn't he - because he didn't first feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners etc. did he? He preached the gospel - the good news. And yes he also too furthermore did make the claim.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
No, one dude who claimed to know Jesus made that claim years later - however where only the gospel of John makes the claim and it sure seems to me if it were true they all would have mentioned it, I'm going to stick with my position that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God in the way that the church now declares him to be.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Maybe god can do that party trick of his and turn the bibles into loaves and fishes. (Oh, and wine.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Do people obtusely refuse to recognize (not agree with but recognize) that "sustaining human life" in its most important meaning refers not to life on this world but to life eternal, to a Christian?
No. Because to recognise it (note "s") it would be necessary to give it some scintilla of credence, which I certainly do not
Ah, so you must think that I am lying when I say that to a Christian/b] the most important "sustaining" of life is the eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection grant to those who believe?
Nope, sorry, you are right and I was wrong.
I do believe that to you; "the most important "sustaining" of life is the eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection grant to those who believe," I also believe that your belief is sincere and deeply held.
BUT; I also realise that some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that homeopathic medicines can cure them, or that black people are inferior to white, or that 9/11 was orchestrated by Chaney's Dick.
For me to give their views any credence, just be cause they are sincere and deeply held, would be as abhorrent to me as giving your views credence. (Sorry.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Thanks for the correction - thought it must be a mistake. And of course I quite understand this:
For me to give their views any credence, just be cause they are sincere and deeply held, would be as abhorrent to me as giving your views credence. (Sorry.)
I feel similarly about what I understand of your views on the subject of God/no-God, although I have more respect for yours than for the three pathetic examples cited. Perhaps it's because there's a difference between thinking and stupidity
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Misunderstanding again? I was comparing your position (thoughtful) to the three wacko examples (stupidity).
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Do people obtusely refuse to recognize (not agree with but recognize) that "sustaining human life" in its most important meaning refers not to life on this world but to life eternal, to a Christian?
Ah, so you must think that I am lying when I say that to a Christian/b] the most important "sustaining" of life is the eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection grant to those who believe?
Nope, sorry, you are right and I was wrong.
I do believe that to you; "the most important "sustaining" of life is the eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection grant to those who believe," I also believe that your belief is sincere and deeply held.
BUT; I also realise that some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that homeopathic medicines can cure them, or that black people are inferior to white, or that 9/11 was orchestrated by Chaney's Dick.
For me to give their views any credence, just be cause they are sincere and deeply held, would be as abhorrent to me as giving your views credence. (Sorry.)
Gob has it pretty well correct. That's your belief and your version of Christianity. That doesn't mean your view is THE version of Christianity that is correct and right. Oh sure, we know you believe it is, and you'll tell us next it is because that's what Christianity is.
But saying it doesn't make it so. Kind of like LJ and the confederate flag.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Let's not lose sight over the original concept: people who donated money to provide Bibles to refugees are heartless swine who should be giving their money to feeding refugees.
Amongst definitions that should be common to all Christians, isn't "Obedience to Christ" one of those?
What did Christ command? (1) make disciples of all nations and (2) teach them to obey my commands
It's definitely not just (1) and it's definitely not just (2). It's both. Do Christians dispute that?
What kind of person believes that bread is more important than salvation? Not-a-Christian, that's who.
What kind of person believes that the message of salvation means NOT providing bread? Not-a-Christian, that's who.
What is more important to a Christian - a full stomach or salvation? That is, what was Jesus' priority - what was his purpose? What is the Bread of Life? Who is the Living Water?
God said it, it's true; I believe it: salvation is more important to any human than breakfast. That does not preclude a nice visit to Bob Evans. It does not preclude doing what God's word commands: feed the hungry, look after widows and orphans, visit the prisoner.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Shame in you for being so sarcastic when we are discussing starving people. Of course we aren't talking about a nice visit to Bob Evans but the necessity of food and water for the continuation of life.
Last edited by Guinevere on Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Oh please... how about addressing my actual response to what you posted?
And I was referring to a Christian, to me... I think salvation is more important than breakfast but I still go eat.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Guin: well, that's sort of a compliment! My point is that it isn't "my" version of Christianity. It's Christ's version, and I believe him. I'd love for anyone who says otherwise to show me where that's wrong - salvation is the most important thing in Christianity for us humans, according to Christ.
And I'd also appreciate anyone other than LJ (who's already done so) having the grace to admit that people who donate money for Bibles are not deluded scum* who do nothing for the poor etc. I don't know where sanctimonious naysayers get the chutzpah to "know" that these people have not also helped in temporal ways. And how does anyone here know that they didn't donate to help with food and water before donating toward the Bibles?
*oh yes, that's what the OP wants to conclude. The logic of all this "food first" thumb-sucking is that there is NEVER a time when a Bible can be donated because the donor can ALWAYS be criticized for not sending food. This criticism (as again LJ noted) is not levelled at donors of secular non-critical aid.
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
: 
