CE 7

[chrisfan]

NymphoFantasia said:

The Bible says there needs to be only 2 present to be considered a church, that would be you and God.

Actually, if you are referring to Matthew 18:20, it says that where 2 or 3 people are gathered in my name, I am with them. So, based on that equation, God is an additional person present -- not one of the 2 or 3.

[Nepenthe]

You know, I know no one wants to hear this but I feel it needs to be said.

Many on the boards have unfairly judged me I think and I want to clear something up.

I can just imagine with my last post what is going through "some" minds. There were some pictures that were put up on our websites. I know I know this is so immoral right? I have gotten jabs by roc, shin, and many others.

I want to know why those pictures are considered so immoral? Weren't Adam and Eve created naked? (no one is completey naked in those pics btw) But why did God cover Adam and Eve up? Because they began to do "perverted" things maybe? This is how I see what shin and a few others did, they made something perverted that really God never intended to be perverted.

Ok I am done, I felt that just had to be said so I don't get any judgemental smartass comments.

[Nepenthe]

Chrisfan said:

Actually, if you are referring to Matthew 18:20, it says that where 2 or 3 people are gathered in my name, I am with them. So, based on that equation, God is an additional person present -- not one of the 2 or 3.

What Bible are you reading? In my King James it says:

Whenever 2 or 3 are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. It says nothing about "people"

Have you ever heard of the holy spirit chris?

[pissin2]

Pissin 3:16 says you're going to hell.

[chrisfan]

NymphoFantasia said:

What Bible are you reading? In my King James it says:

Whenever 2 or 3 are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. It says nothing about "people"

Have you ever heard of the holy spirit chris?

NF, I'm fully aware that different versions of the bible word the passage in different ways. And yes dear, I've heard of the holy spirit. I believe that one of the best ways to understand the meaning of a passage is to read different interpretaions of it. Some for that passage use the word person, others do not. But whether you use the word "person" in it or not, I disagree with your interpretation of it. It simply makes no sense to me that God would be telling people "when you're gathered with other people and when you're gathered alone, I'm there" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE. And I"m not the only one who differs from you in this interpretation. Rick Warren uses this passage in Purpose Driven Life to argue why a person can't truly be a Chrstian and choose not to be a part of a church.

[Nepenthe]

Chrisfan said:

NF, I'm fully aware that different versions of the bible word the passage in different ways. And yes dear, I've heard of the holy spirit. I believe that one of the best ways to understand the meaning of a passage is to read different interpretaions of it. Some for that passage use the word person, others do not. But whether you use the word "person" in it or not, I disagree with your interpretation of it. It simply makes no sense to me that God would be telling people "when you're gathered with other people and when you're gathered alone, I'm there" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE. And I"m not the only one who differs from you in this interpretation. Rick Warren uses this passage in Purpose Driven Life to argue why a person can't truly be a Chrstian and choose not to be a part of a church.

Well then, we will truely have to agree to disagree.

There is no way you are going to convince me that a person has to be part of a steepled man made church to be a Christian. Period.

I use the King James and ONLY the King James.

[Nepenthe]

You Definately are excluding MANY people Chris in other parts of the world that believe in CHRIST and have no way to get to church.

[pissin2]

Nymph, I think you better confess your sins to the lord before it's too late.

[Nepenthe]

Oh and I could give a fuck what Rick Warren says.

[Thorngrub]

Chrisfan said:

I would refer you, and John Kerry, back to the Mort Kondracke column I posted. If you believe that churches are teaching intolerance, then I would encourage you to visit one -- not to join, or to take on religion in the way a church encourages. Simply to understand what goes on in a church. IF you believe that intolerance is what is taught and encouraged in thsoe steepled buildings, then you don't understand what is happening to allow for their tax exempt status.

You are quite brilliant at avoiding the questions posited directly at you, Chrisfan.

For I never once indicated that what goes on inside Churches is the preaching of intolerance.

Rather, I was hinting that YOU harbor such a trait. Intolerance of other's spiritual convictions / religious doctrines, that is. That is only natural since it seems to be the imperative of a good portion of Christians to CONVERT others to their cause. This I find troublesome.

But back to the question I asked you directly: I maintained that you misunderstood where Kerry was coming from when he stated that he "left his faith in Church". I then accused you of twisting his meaning to suggest that he leaves his religious convictions behind church doors, when in fact, he was trying to say that he simply doesn't believe in forcing his convictions down other's throats. Kerry was referring to "matters of faith", and not his own "faith in God", when he said he prefers to leave that in church where it belongs.

I will not back down from demanding that you either concede to understanding this distinction and admitting to us all you got Kerry's intended meaning flat wrong, or you go ahead and try to illustrate to me and the rest of the board why it is that you were right all along.

You may, of course, opt to ignore this, but that will only go to show that what I pointed out was right, or that you can't face it, you can't admit you're ever wrong.

I can admit when I'm wrong -- which is precisely why I want you to show me how I'm wrong.

[chrisfan]

NF, I would argue that I am not the one doing the "excluding". I'm going by what the bible tells me about being a Christian. In short, and I'm happy to go in depth on this, as it's become an area of fascination for me, Christ teaches us over and over and over again that it is God's design for us to be interdependent on each other. We're all designed to be a part of the body of Christ, but none of us, not even Christ himself, is the entire body. GOing by the analogy used by Christ, how does the tip of a finger move without the bone and muscle in the finger, without the muscles and nerves in the arm, etc etc etc? I don't believe it can happen. In order for us to carry out God's plan, I believe that we are called to be dependent upon each other. And I believe that the church, as outlined in Acts among other books, serves as the organization of that interdependence.

Now I have to ask you, and I'll be fair and stick to the only interpretation you go by, the King James version (why only one version BTW?), when you look at Matthew 18:20, AND the verse right before it, how do you get out of it that it's not talking exclusively of PERSONS here on earth? Here's the passage: "19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

In Matthew 18:19, Jesus specifies that He's talking of two on earth. He speaks of his Father separate of those people on earth. So how do you draw the distinction?

[ModernDeathTrend]

I agree with Nympho on this. Time and time again, you have moronic preachers who twist and turn Bible versuses to suit their own distorted views. This explains all the morons who believe they will just fly away when the end times come,not even fucking biblical. Or the jackasses who start babbling in a manner that not even a baby can understand. Oh and my personal favorites, the morons who come to collge campuses claiming that every college student is going to hell. The catholics who can drink, cheat, and all of a sudden come clean on sunday. Remember even the mob were catholics. Then you have to social gatherers, the ones who only come to church to learn the latest gossip about other people.

If this is what church is, then fuck it and fuck that guy you mentioned.

[chrisfan]

thoRny said:

You are quite brilliant at avoiding the questions posited directly at you, Chrisfan.

For I never once indicated that what goes on inside Churches is the preaching of intolerance.

Rather, I was hinting that YOU harbor such a trait. Intolerance of other's spiritual convictions / religious doctrines, that is. That is only natural since it seems to be the imperative of a good portion of Christians to CONVERT others to their cause. This I find troublesome.

But back to the question I asked you directly: I maintained that you misunderstood where Kerry was coming from when he stated that he "left his faith in Church". I then accused you of twisting his meaning to suggest that he leaves his religious convictions behind church doors, when in fact, he was trying to say that he simply doesn't believe in forcing his convictions down other's throats. Kerry was referring to "matters of faith", and not his own "faith in God", when he said he prefers to leave that in church where it belongs.

I will not back down from demanding that you either concede to understanding this distinction and admitting to us all you got Kerry's intended meaning flat wrong, or you go ahead and try to illustrate to me and the rest of the board why it is that you were right all along.

You may, of course, opt to ignore this, but that will only go to show that what I pointed out was right, or that you can't face it, you can't admit you're ever wrong.

I can admit when I'm wrong -- which is precisely why I want you to show me how I'm wrong.

I do not believe that it is twisting at all Thorn. I simply believe that you and I (and perhaps John Kerry) have very different interpretations of how faith is practiced. You appear to believe that it can be practiced internally, never "forcing" it on other people. I do not. BECAUSE I do not, I simply do not believe that it is possible to practice your faith all the time, and not force it on other people. And I tend to think that I"ve had enough to say on the whole forcing your beliefs on others topic, that I should not have to elaborate further.

[chrisfan]

The said:

I agree with Nympho on this. Time and time again, you have moronic preachers who twist and turn Bible versuses to suit their own distorted views.

When you look at the passage in question, in context, I'd have to ask you the same question I asked NF -- NF is the one who is maintaining that the passage means 1 person and the presence of the Holy Spirit constitutes a church gathering. But as I'm reading it, Christ is clearly speaking of 2 or 3 in terms of people on earth, since he mentions on earth in the preceding passage. So, who is twisting here? Rick Warren and me, or NF and you?

[Nepenthe]

Chrisfan said:

NF, I would argue that I am not the one doing the "excluding". I'm going by what the bible tells me about being a Christian. In short, and I'm happy to go in depth on this, as it's become an area of fascination for me, Christ teaches us over and over and over again that it is God's design for us to be interdependent on each other. We're all designed to be a part of the body of Christ, but none of us, not even Christ himself, is the entire body. GOing by the analogy used by Christ, how does the tip of a finger move without the bone and muscle in the finger, without the muscles and nerves in the arm, etc etc etc? I don't believe it can happen. In order for us to carry out God's plan, I believe that we are called to be dependent upon each other. And I believe that the church, as outlined in Acts among other books, serves as the organization of that interdependence.

Now I have to ask you, and I'll be fair and stick to the only interpretation you go by, the King James version (why only one version BTW?), when you look at Matthew 18:20, AND the verse right before it, how do you get out of it that it's not talking exclusively of PERSONS here on earth? Here's the passage: "19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

In Matthew 18:19, Jesus specifies that He's talking of two on earth. He speaks of his Father separate of those people on earth. So how do you draw the distinction?

Again I would refer back to the holy spirit. This is exactly why Jesus left the holy spirit here ON EARTH chris.

There are people in parts of the world that have missionaries that have told them about Christ and the Bible. But there may not be a man made "church" for them to attend or they might not have any friends or relatives that believe so that they can gather with. This is by no means going to exclude them as being a true Christian. This is absolutely just not right. The relationship between you and God is just that between You and God. It is a very personal relationship to some.

Look, I am not knocking going to church, I was raised a Baptist. I have a lot against organized religion though and the things that are taught. At the same time, its not the people's fault that attend, it is the leaders. Not all churches are bad, by no means am I saying this.

I do have a mentor, I have had this mentor for about 8 years and he does have a church, it is about 5 hours from me though.

The reason I use the King James is because that is the way I study. I study by taking the old English, which is what it was written in, back to the original text using what is called a strong's concordance. You can't do this with another translation of the Bible.

Remeber the thief on the cross? He had never been baptized nor attended a church in his life.