There is NO One-Size-Fits-All religion.

reply to post by wildtimes

Personally, I think of whatever verse it is: By their fruits shall ye know them...[Book? ch?/v?]
which, to me, means simply that Christ (or whoever was quoting him or whoever they quoted) said that private behavior and efforts to do good unto to others and to not boast about it or do it for a 'reward' alone rather than sincerely...
is wasted and false and vain.

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ 23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’

I had some comments about another passage that is somewhat related, but I thought I'd put this up quickly since you asked for the reference.

reply to post by wildtimes

Ya lost me, friend.
My understanding of his 'faith' is that once one is 'born again' and 'saved' they don't want to sin anymore. But I may be mistaken.

He pays lip service to that concept after me harping on him incessantly for not mentioning it in his past posts.
But in the final analysis (inside this theory), it becomes irrelevant except for this problem that once-saved-always-saved eventually runs into, which is the question of 'Can someone be considered "lost" if they are demonstrating a depraved lifestyle?'
One solution is the idea that such people were never "saved" in the first place. What NuT seems to be doing is taking that possible solution up and adding a personal twist, to where a person could wish to do good and may not want to do bad, but for whatever reason, does bad anyway. Such a person, according to his salvation theory, would still be "saved" despite demonstrably never actually changing his behavior a single bit since being "saved".

reply to post by pthena

but I thought I'd put this up quickly since you asked for the reference.

Yep! That's the one....
erm...
Mark...
no
Matthew 7:16. Got it. *murmurs to self as she wanders about the house "Matt 716, Matt 716, Matt 716, fruits, fruits and trees*....
Thanks...

reply to post by jmdewey60

to where a person could wish to do good and may not want to do bad, but for whatever reason, does bad anyway. Such a person, according to his salvation theory, would still be "saved" despite demonstrably never actually changing his behavior a single bit since being "saved".

Hmmm...
I thought he was more of a mindset that if one believes, he will turn from sin...but it still human and not infallible....

what you describe above is the "Sunday-morning-only" Christian mindset...(seems to me)...that as long as you take communion and go to confession or say "sorry", then all is fine.

I knew a woman once (a very spiteful and nasty person), who, for Lent....gave up "badmouthing people"....
I used to work with her (BOY was she in the wrong job...talk about judgmental and poorly-educated!). I could hardly believe my ears when she said that one spring, after yet another insult and judgment and name-calling session:
"Oh, I'm not supposed to say that, it's Lent."

Thereafter, every time I heard her do the same thing, I thought to myself "Is it Lent yet?" Seriously???
Ugg....she was one of the nastiest people I have ever met in my life. But that's 'a-'whole-nother' story (as we say in the Midwest....)

Here is the Orthodox belief on salvation from one of their websites:

Final Judgment

Christ will judge all people exclusively on the basis of how they have served him by serving each other, the least of the brethren. This will show how each person loved God and each other. The love for God and the love for man, becoming one and the same love. It is accomplished in Christ and is Christ. To love with this love is to love with the love of Christ and to fulfill his "new commandment" to "love one another even as I have loved you." (John 13:34-35, 15:12) In this is the whole of spiritual life. In this, and this alone, man will be finally judged. It is the crown of all virtue and prayer, the ultimate and most perfect fruit of God's Spirit in man.

The final coming of Christ will be the judgment of all men. His very presence will be the judgment. For those who love the Lord, his presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death

OrthodoxWiki - Salvation

Originally posted by wildtimes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday

 

So, hopefully you will read the link and start discussing the topic?
It really isn't very long or technical.

No, Wild is a friend, not going to come in here to her thread and attack it from top to bottom. I respect her, she can ask me anything she wishes to know though, but not going to do that to her thread.

I know that NuT is not fond of organized 'religion'... which actually is the whole point of the OP -- there is no one religion that will suit everyone.
Mornin', NuT

(though I do wish you'd at least read the ex-texts in the OP and give your thoughts calmly)

Okay Wild, we can join hands on man-made religiosity and Legalism.

Deal?

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think what he means when he says "religion" in a negative way, is how "religious" people try to be good, as if that was a requirement for salvation.

Nope. My problem is with people who see trying to "be good" as the path to their justification, and not the natural product of it.

James 2 and Ephesians 2:8-10

Or another way, people running around trying to be better than the next guy and looking down their noses at others who don't keep all their rules, most of them aren't even in the Bible.

reply to post by wildtimes

Huh?
Ya lost me, friend.
My understanding of his 'faith' is that once one is 'born again' and 'saved' they don't want to sin anymore. But I may be mistaken.

Exactly.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Ya lost me, friend.
My understanding of his 'faith' is that once one is 'born again' and 'saved' they don't want to sin anymore. But I may be mistaken.

He pays lip service to that concept after me harping on him incessantly for not mentioning it in his past posts.
But in the final analysis (inside this theory), it becomes irrelevant except for this problem that once-saved-always-saved eventually runs into, which is the question of 'Can someone be considered "lost" if they are demonstrating a depraved lifestyle?'
One solution is the idea that such people were never "saved" in the first place. What NuT seems to be doing is taking that possible solution up and adding a personal twist, to where a person could wish to do good and may not want to do bad, but for whatever reason, does bad anyway. Such a person, according to his salvation theory, would still be "saved" despite demonstrably never actually changing his behavior a single bit since being "saved".

Okay, you read that off the back of a Cracker Jacks box.

I've never believed that or taught that. You keep claiming such, ad nauseum, but still no poo sticking to the walls here.

reply to post by wildtimes

Hmmm...
I thought he was more of a mindset that if one believes, he will turn from sin...but it still human and not infallible....

what you describe above is the "Sunday-morning-only" Christian mindset...(seems to me)...that as long as you take communion and go to confession or say "sorry", then all is fine.

Yes, thank you. At least you're listening here. Precisely.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

James 2 and Ephesians 2:8-10

Grrr...

Why do you claim him as God yet refuse to use his words?

35A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

reply to post by Akragon


That goes right along with Romans 10:9-11

Calm down, take a few deep breaths.

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


and again...

:bnghd:

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

and again...

:bnghd:

Speak up, what question do you have? Don't beat around the bush, ask it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


read the post before the last...

*sigh*

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

read the post before the last...

*sigh*

This one?

Yes, thank you. At least you're listening here. Precisely.

I still don't understand what your upset about. Were you not asking about people's words used to condemn or justify them??

I don't really know what you're asking me or why you quoted "James 2 and Ephesians 2:8-10". Can you just articulate what you're asking?

Calm down man.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


lol... im not upset... those are just emotes... they're fun... and funny

I don't get "upset" honestly...

Here is your question... not sure how you missed it though...

Why do you claim him as God yet refuse to use his words?

reply to post by wildtimes

To tie a few things together, including the saying from the Gospel of Matthew version of Jesus, about knowing them by their fruits, and to get back on topic.

In the natural sciences and industrial arts it never occurs to anyone to try to refute opinions by showing up their author's neurotic constitution. Opinions here are invariably tested by logic and by experiment, no matter what may be their author's neurological type. It should be no otherwise with religious opinions. Their value can only be ascertained by spiritual judgments directly passed upon them, judgments based on our own immediate feeling primarily; and secondarily on what we can ascertain of their experiential relations to our moral needs and to the rest of what we hold as true. Immediate luminousness, in short, philosophical reasonableness, and moral helpfulness are the only available criteria.

James, William (2009-10-04). Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (Kindle Locations 311-316). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

The spirit that my god put in me, which has nourished my spirit to the extent that they are one, agrees completely with the assessment that Robert Wright makes concerning the religious reforms of Josiah the Messiah; the greatest religious reforms in the history of Israel, by the way.

Here again, the question of how many of the gods opposed by the Yahweh-alone faction were foreign and how many were domestic doesn’t really matter. Either way, the fuel Josiah drew on was nationalism. Either way, once monolatry was ascendant, its nationalist energy could be wielded against foreigners or against non-conforming Israelites. And, either way, the culminating phase of the Yahweh-alone movement does nothing to dispel the notion that Israel’s drive toward monotheism was a drive toward intolerance. Slaughtering everyone in an Israelite town, slaughtering everyone in a foreign city— both are casually countenanced by the Deuteronomistic Code on grounds that the victims suffered from theological confusion. (106) Josiah’s approach to religious tolerance was simple: foreign ideas about the divine are bad, and so are the people who embrace them. And this lethal intolerance is a natural expression of the Yahweh-alone movement’s political logic.

Wright, Robert (2009-05-20). The Evolution of God (Kindle Locations 2764-2770). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

(106)Strictly speaking, the Deuteronomistic Code isn’t intolerant of foreign religions per se. The slaughter of whole cities full of foreigners is justified not on grounds that their worship of their own gods is bad in itself, but on grounds that this worship could infect Israelite religion.

The spirit in me says: the false prophets to be judged by their fruits are not only future prophets, but primarily the prophets to be found in the pages of the Bible itself. What are the fruits of Deuteronomy? What are the fruits of Josiah's reforms?

2 Kings 23:25 Like him was there no king before him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. 26 Notwithstanding, Yahweh didn’t turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, with which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocation with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 Yahweh said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, even Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’”

Ultimately, this Yahweh character himself comes to judgment. My god judges him unfit. From the depths of my soul he stands condemned by his own fruits. And that, my friends, is how true morality trumps the lethal mix of handed down third and fourth level religiosity!

reply to post by pthena

Ultimately, this Yahweh character himself comes to judgment. My god judges him unfit. From the depths of my soul he stands condemned by his own fruits. And that, my friends, is how true morality trumps the lethal mix of handed down third and fourth level religiosity!

That! ^^^
Thanks, pthena.
Hope you're enjoying the reads.....
apparently you are.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

lol... im not upset... those are just emotes... they're fun... and funny

I don't get "upset" honestly...

Here is your question... not sure how you missed it though...

Why do you claim him as God yet refuse to use his words?

I understood that, but see no correlation with the verse you posted and underlined and how that relates to Christians except by our words crowns will be won or lost, there is no condemnation hanging in the balances though. The church wasn't revealed at that time to the world, and He was talking to Jews. Jews will appear before the GWT judgment if they are not saved. Christians appear before the JSOC.

Let me find the laws of Hermeneutics or biblical interpretation. Hermeneuo in the Greek means "to interpret".