It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hypocritical Christian

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearstream
Whenever I hear this issue, it's disappointing, not because I'm embarrassed for my fellow "hypocritical Christians", but because it shows the prevalence of this misconception of what it means to be a Christian. Christians are simply humans trying to be something they're not (more like Christ). And since they're human, they will always fail. So by definition, Christians are hypocrites, just as anyone who is trying to become something different is a hypocrite.


Don't be embarrassed the theme of the thread is absurd. The problem is we are ALL hypocrites at some point in our life about this thing or that. Humans are hypocritical, Christians are humans, therefore Christians are hypocritical.

Everyone has committed hypocrisy.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

It's slightly ambiguous in Philippians how he is tying everything together in that particular argument.
I think his main point was that people should not become satisfied with their current achievement in self improvement but to at least maintain the type of thinking which got them to where they were before they began to make claims about themselves.
So he has going towards this concept of "it's not over until it is over" so he may have been slanting things a bit towards supporting that idea rather than what others apparently took from his earlier conversations that they decided meant they could be "perfect" now.

edit on 14-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

It's slightly ambiguous in Philippians how he is tying everything together in that particular argument.
I think his main point was that people should not become satisfied with their current achievement in self improvement but to at least maintain the type of thinking which got them to where they were before they began to make claims about themselves.
So he has going towards this concept of "it's not over until it is over" so he may have been slanting things a bit towards supporting that idea rather than what others apparently took from his earlier conversations that they decided meant they could be "perfect" now.


Ambiguous? Seems pretty easy to understand to me, the Lord will give us new bodies at the resurrection. Perfect glorified bodies like His glorified body. Nothing "ambiguous" with the verse. You asked for the verse, so there it is.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I does not say that explicitly, and so my use of the word, ambiguous.
If you take it that way, then that is your interpretation, or in other words, opinion.
If you read the whole chapter, you see that some people had taken his earlier teaching and applied it in a way that he had not intended. What was it he had said that others used to their own undoing? His talking about being sanctified to glorification, which probably had to do with the impending threat of persecution where in it he foresaw many people dying for the name of Jesus. Apparently some people prepared themselves for such a thing but not finding themselves being crucified or otherwise murdered, lost their faith and so proved that they were not in fact "perfect" and still susceptible to being lost.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I does not say that explicitly, and so my use of the word, ambiguous.
If you take it that way, then that is your interpretation, or in other words, opinion.
If you read the whole chapter, you see that some people had taken his earlier teaching and applied it in a way that he had not intended. What was it he had said that others used to their own undoing? His talking about being sanctified to glorification, which probably had to do with the impending threat of persecution where in it he foresaw many people dying for the name of Jesus. Apparently some people prepared themselves for such a thing but not finding themselves being crucified or otherwise murdered, lost their faith and so proved that they were not in fact "perfect" and still susceptible to being lost.



That's not the only verse, just the first one that came to mind. lol



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Back to what we were covering, it was what you were calling false accusations, slander, and lies by me about you.
Actually I am mainly concerned with your philosophy that fills the spot in your thinking where religion would normally go. You can think whatever you want and I don't care. What I do care is you have this avatar that makes you seem like you are supporting Christianity and you present yourself as if you want people to believe you are a Christian, but you teach a philosophy which to my mind is not Christian and I don't want people taken in by your philosophy, thinking it is genuine Christianity.
Back to the specific point I was getting at, here is your refutation of my so-called slander:

1. I have never said we are "going to heaven to be fixed up".
So when or where do we get fixed up, since you believe unregenerate sinners are saved?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Back to what we were covering, it was what you were calling false accusations, slander, and lies by me about you.


Still no apology, but that's fine.


Actually I am mainly concerned with your philosophy that fills the spot in your thinking where religion would normally go.


You can have all the "religion" you want, my trust is in the redemption wrought by the blood of Christ.



What I do care is you have this avatar that makes you seem like you are supporting Christianity and you present yourself as if you want people to believe you are a Christian, but you teach a philosophy which to my mind is not Christian and I don't want people taken in by your philosophy, thinking it is genuine Christianity.


You have no functioning understanding of historical orthodox Christianity. Heck, you called yourself an "Arian" several threads back and that heresy was settled by the church over 1,600 years ago.
Back to the specific point I was getting at, here is your refutation of my so-called slander:


1. I have never said we are "going to heaven to be fixed up".
So when or where do we get fixed up, since you believe unregenerate sinners are saved?



Where have I ever said "unregenerate" sinners are saved??? Not to be too technical, but I actually said the complete opposite. Ever get that fuzzy memory to decide on what I actually said about Biblical repentance? It's so weird that you knew exactly what I said about it then forgot what I said about it all within 4 posts.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I was trying to get back to what were talking about and giving you the opportunity to right the wrong interpretation of your message. Sorry you did not want to take that opportunity to explain your real position.
Well saying orthodox or traditional of fundamental Christianity is not a good explanation because if I am so fuzzy on what any of that means, I doubt anyone else will be any more clear.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Get back to what?? You're still under the assumption I claimed unregenerate sinners will be saved. When I said the exact opposite....


Where have I ever said "unregenerate" sinners are saved??? Not to be too technical, but I actually said the complete opposite.


Care to comment?



edit on 15-9-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
Get back to what?? You're still under the assumption I claimed unregenerate sinners will be saved. When I said the exact opposite....

Where have I ever said "unregenerate" sinners are saved??? Not to be too technical, but I actually said the complete opposite.

Care to comment?
Get back from your diversion which is what you do to avoid questions.
You are good at claiming to have not said one thing or another but you don't like to make any clear declarations of your position, choosing to make snipes at what other people say who do make declarative statements.
Talk about slanderous activities, at least I take a stand and will defend it instead of just making odd little posts to make digs at other people.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
Get back to what?? You're still under the assumption I claimed unregenerate sinners will be saved. When I said the exact opposite....

Where have I ever said "unregenerate" sinners are saved??? Not to be too technical, but I actually said the complete opposite.

Care to comment?
Get back from your diversion which is what you do to avoid questions.


I could be wrong, but I'm responding to your lies and slander in general, and the claim that I said or believe that "unregenerate sinners" will go to heaven in particular.


You are good at claiming to have not said one thing or another but you don't like to make any clear declarations of your position,


You on the other hand have no qualms about making "clear declarations" of my positions. Yet when I tell you that I never said that you also have a habit of refusing to provide evidence I said this or that or apologize.



Talk about slanderous activities, at least I take a stand and will defend it instead of just making odd little posts to make digs at other people.


Zzzzzzzzz



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Where have I ever said "unregenerate" sinners are saved???



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .you also have a habit of refusing to provide evidence I said this or that or apologize.
I'm not too interested in your perceived injured pride or whatever. You seem overly childish in this regard and I would suggest you find some other way to pass your time than posting on discussion forums, being too thin skinned and susceptible to sadness or anger or whatever from criticism. Of course while all along you delight in doing the same sort of thing to others.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .you also have a habit of refusing to provide evidence I said this or that or apologize.
I'm not too interested in your perceived injured pride or whatever. You seem overly childish in this regard and I would suggest you find some other way to pass your time than posting on discussion forums, being too thin skinned and susceptible to sadness or anger or whatever from criticism. Of course while all along you delight in doing the same sort of thing to others.


It has nothing to do with thin or thick skin, but about precision, accuracy, and truthfulness. When you've been shown that you are bearing false witness against someone (slander/lies) I'd hope you'd be receptive to righting the wrongs you've claimed. Accuracy also makes discussion possible. How can two people discuss something when a person in the discussion continually misunderstands and purposely deceives? It's be like herding cats.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You've still failed to offer proof that I ever said these things, or that I believe them:


You believe Repentance is only feeling bad."


Source?


So when or where do we get fixed up, since you believe unregenerate sinners are saved?


Source?




Sorry you did not want to take that opportunity to explain your real position.


You haven't demonstrated I've ever said any of that. You claimed I had said it and that I do believe that nonsense. Your burden is to show I said that crap, not my burden to defend myself when there is nothing but your word that I said it previously.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

When you've been shown that you are bearing false witness against someone. . .
Do you not see how ridiculous this claim is you are making?
There is no way I can say something about you on this forum behind your back.
All you have to do to clear the air is to make an affirmation of your true position.
So stop all your endless diversion and say what you mean or do everyone a favor by just not even showing your name and avatar and hideous links on this forum.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



All you have to do to clear the air is to make an affirmation of your true position.


The issue if flying completely over your head, the issue isn't what I actually believe and say, the issue is what you claim I have said or do believe. Several posts ago, in multiple places, you've tried to tell everyone exactly what I have previously said and believe. You didn't care about truthfulness or accuracy the other times, why now?

You purported to already know these beliefs of mine, you claimed I had previously made certain comments, yet now when I call you a liar for claiming I said this or that you refuse to provide my statements you claim I made. You're a liar JM, I'm not going to bail you out of your lies. You said I have previously argued certain positions, go ahead, show where I claimed those things.



edit on 16-9-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join