Why We Are Losing

[Dave Lucas]

Indeed. I believe it began with Marx.

Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo or Gummo?

Certainly wasn't Karl, the least funny of the Marx Brothers.

The term was first used in the 18th century in print. But the idea of squelching righteousness and truth in lieu of social acceptance is as old as autocrats.

 

[Dave Lucas]

They could have had bruises. The Bible isn't very detailed about what Jesus did. Maybe He knocked them out with a punch to the jaw and drug them out. We don't know.

His whip was for the animals.

Look at verse 15 and the context.

He did not hurt the people physically.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I do not mean to be mean spirited with you, but you have a lot of comments but never any Scripture to validate your opinion.
I am one who needs and expects to see Scripture when comments like yours are made or I tend to ignore them since they are only opinions.

So, please do me the favor of posting Scripture to validate your comments because I really want you to feel welcome here and stay for awhile.

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables

The word drove is ekballo, meaning to to cast out with 'notion' of violence. Not with violence, but the threat. Or else the word would have been biazo. If everyone is going to correctly understand they need to read the greek it was written in. And in context of all the things he did in the gospels.

Did he ever once advocate that he will fight or harm people? No.

Context, context, context.

Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Luke 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.

To want to war against the flesh of this world is the OLD way. Old wine because man thinks he knows better than God.

That is WHY The King had to die. Stubborn men bent on being on the throne. He never wanted men to have powers like this. He knew it would end badly. And it did.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo or Gummo?

Certainly wasn't Karl, the least funny of the Marx Brothers.

The term was first used in the 18th century in print. But the idea of squelching righteousness and truth in lieu of social acceptance is as old as autocrats.

One would wish Groucho, Chico, Harpo, or Zeppo (Gummo too, even though most don't even think about him). True story, when I was little, I looked up to Groucho because I thought he and my dad were the same man. But in high school, I began playing piano with the same finger techniques as Chico to show off to girls.

I thought it did come from Cultural Marxism as a means to disrupt American culture of Capitalism, at least in terms of it seeping over into American culture.

 

[Dave Lucas]

One would wish Groucho, Chico, Harpo, or Zeppo (Gummo too, even though most don't even think about him). True story, when I was little, I looked up to Groucho because I thought he and my dad were the same man. But in high school, I began playing piano with the same finger techniques as Chico to show off to girls.

I thought it did come from Cultural Marxism as a means to disrupt American culture of Capitalism, at least in terms of it seeping over into American culture.

Two things you should know of Chico.

One, his piano skill is self-taught and he was often chided by classical trained pianists that his finger movements were wrong. He didn't care.

Two, Chico spent most of his gambling and "fraternising" with women. So much so that when there were pictures of the brothers and cast, Chico was always out. Their mother asked Groucho where is Chico? He would cover for him and say he's the one holding the camera.

 

[Major]

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables

The word drove is ekballo, meaning to to cast out with 'notion' of violence. Not with violence, but the threat. Or else the word would have been biazo. If everyone is going to correctly understand they need to read the greek it was written in. And in context of all the things he did in the gospels.

Did he ever once advocate that he will fight or harm people? No.

Context, context, context.

Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Luke 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.

To want to war against the flesh of this world is the OLD way. Old wine because man thinks he knows better than God.

That is WHY The King had to die. Stubborn men bent on being on the throne. He never wanted men to have powers like this. He knew it would end badly. And it did.

Ephesians 6:12 is irrevalent to our discussion of you believing Jesus to be a pacifist so I will not respond to that.
Luke 5:39 also is not applicable to the "context" of pacifism concerning Jesus, so we will let that pass as well.

Now for John 2:15. To think that because the Greek word for "Drove" does not lend to violence but a threat actually rejects the exact words which are found in the Scriptures.

"And when He had made a whip of small cords he drove them all out of the temple and the sheep, and the oxen, AND POURED OUT THE CHANGERS MONEY AND OVERTHREW THE TABLES".

Do you really think that Jesus simply used threatening words and harsh language to pour out money and turn over tables. Do you think that These men who were SELLING merchandise just stood there and watched a man take away their income and did nothing???

Many people stumble into this typical violation of logic quite sincerely, and quite blindly and it appears that is where you are coming from.

For example, what if we approached the Gospels with the assumption that we already knew that Jesus was a pacifist before even picking up the Bible to see what He said? We would naturally give a biased interpretation of His words in such passages as the Sermon on the Mount.

Once we had done this, we could then argue that Jesus was a pacifist on the basis of His words. Proving in our conclusion what we had already assumed in our premise, we would end up arguing in a circle. Isn't that exactly what you are doing???
If the form of the argument is invalid, it is invalid no matter which position is using it.

Since we can only infer what Jesus might have said about such things as national wars, we must accept the answer which has the most evidence. We cannot make a “leap of faith” as you seem to be doing and arbitrarily assume that our position is the biblical one simply because we wish it to be so. That comes back to the oldest error in understanding the Scriptures: Making them say what WE want them to say.

What we have to do is understand WHAT WE DO HAVE TO WORK WITH AND UNDERTAND, NOT WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE.

Therefore, the Biblical thrust is that at no point in Jesus’ ministry did He ever tell Israel or Rome that governments should disarm. He never condemned the just use of force as taught in the Scriptures, nor did He ever condemn the police for using force to punish criminals. Despite the clarity of the Old Testament in its divine approval of the use of force, Jesus never once preached against a nation having an army or the state maintaining a police force.

Logically, this can lead us to only one possible inference. Jesus’ silence meant that He approved of and accepted the Old Testament precedent of the valid use of force. Whenever we study the Scriptures, a biblical and historical precedent stands until directly removed by divine revelation.

So then.....If you choose to believe that Jesus was a pacifist that is completely your choice. I on the other hand have the same ability to choose and I do not accept the idea that Jesus was a pacifist.

 

[Major]

I don't think using emotionally charged language is particularly effective, people can usually see right through hyerbole.
Actually it's neither sin nor sickness but a normal variation in human sexuality, it hasn't been considered a sickness since the 1970s. The APA has made enormous advances since then.

AND your comment proves the point I was making..........WHY ARE WE LOSING!

Because of the kind of thinking you just made.

Why do you think the words "Killing babies" is emotionally charged language???

Because YOU are a product of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!!!

Abortion, (Yes I know that is not the focus of this thread) is the act of killing an unborn baby whether YOU or anyone else wants to hear that or not. THAT is what it is and the only reason the word Abortion is used is to make it sound less than what it really is.

Then as for homosexuality.....you are actually correct. It is neither a sin nor a sickness. IT IS AN ABOMINATION!

That is what God calls it and I agree with Him.

Lev. 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: IT IS AN ABOMINATION"

 

[Major]

Major I like some of your answers but why do we as Christians have such a double standard?! On one hand we are opposed to killing infants but on the other hand we cheer when God does it (in God father form) in the OT. We are either for or against killing children. We can't play both sides of the fence and expect people to not laugh in our face. This plays into the main point that I made at the top of this thread. God bless

It does not work that way Mike. God is the Creator and He has a plan which He is working. Since every single baby is His creation, when He takes one from this life they go directly to be with Him.

You and I are not creators but are in fact creations made from the Creator. We live to have fellowship with God and we become saved so that we can serve Him. Because of that He made some very fundamental rules one of which was "Thou shalt not murder".

When we, man or woman kill an unborn baby we have taken the place of God and killed one of His creations. We have then destroyed what God set up as the acceptable way of living in Adam and Eve. The FAMILY!

 

[Major]

Haha, don't try to make me scramble the Scriptutes to find Marx in there.

Jude 3:1 (lol)

 

[chili]

Jude 3:1 (lol)

O Major....Jude 3:1 says it does not exist Perhaps it might be Jude 1:3 ?

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

Because YOU are a product of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!!!

Firstly, I disagree - abortion is the word used by both sides of the debate and "killing babies" wouldn't be used by everyone because there is an argument in place, and I'm not saying you have to agree with it (and I am not sure I do either) that at certain points it is not yet a baby. Secondly, your disagreement is fully noted, it's not necessary to use screaming capital letters and multiple exclamation marks.

Thirdly, this has nothing to do with political correctness but respectful language.

Then as for homosexuality.....you are actually correct. It is neither a sin nor a sickness. IT IS AN ABOMINATION!
That is what God calls it and I agree with Him.

"Homosexuality" wasn't even a word until the 1800s so I think you're wrong there.
There are many people who believe the scripture you posted and others like it refer not to homosexuality but to male prostitution, are you aware of that? Not saying you have to agree, but are you at least aware?
And I think the bulk of mental health and science experts would disagree with you - it's found in approximately ten percent of the population. It isn't a word describing behavior at all but attractions. You can be homosexual and never have a sexual experience. So it does appear to me that you're a little too eager to condemn and judge here. Why not first consider that your understanding of the Bible here could be wrong, and learn about the difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex?

 

[Major]

Firstly, I disagree - abortion is the word used by both sides of the debate and "killing babies" wouldn't be used by everyone because there is an argument in place, and I'm not saying you have to agree with it (and I am not sure I do either) that at certain points it is not yet a baby. Secondly, your disagreement is fully noted, it's not necessary to use screaming capital letters and multiple exclamation marks.

Thirdly, this has nothing to do with political correctness but respectful language.


"Homosexuality" wasn't even a word until the 1800s so I think you're wrong there.
There are many people who believe the scripture you posted and others like it refer not to homosexuality but to male prostitution, are you aware of that? Not saying you have to agree, but are you at least aware?
And I think the bulk of mental health and science experts would disagree with you - it's found in approximately ten percent of the population. It isn't a word describing behavior at all but attractions. You can be homosexual and never have a sexual experience. So it does appear to me that you're a little too eager to condemn and judge here. Why not first consider that your understanding of the Bible here could be wrong, and learn about the difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex?

Honestly......I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me. I am not out here to have the world be my friend. I do not care who stands with me or against me. The fact is......I did not judge anyone! I quoted the Bible and said I agree with it. IF that is judgment in your eyes....so be it.

I would say that maybe YOUR lack of Bible understanding is the issue, not my understanding of what it actually says.

Do you not..(.no you don't from your words said.)............know that the section in Leviticus that I quoted was dealing with a warning to God's people against the Canaanite sins of that land? The Canaanites freely engaged in human sacrifices, profanation, homosexuality, and beastiality. Child sacrifice, (unborn babies) to the God Molech was done all the time.

The condemnation from God was NOT against Male prostitution although it certainly included them.

The only One I am concerned with my dear brother is the Lord Jesus Christ. I post and quote what HE says and as long as He is happy I am too. So the idea of using the ......world is against me simply does not matter.

I encourage you to PM any of the good people on this site and ask them that question of me! I always stand by what God says not by what man thinks.

 

[Major]

O Major....Jude 3:1 says it does not exist Perhaps it might be Jude 1:3 ?

You caught it!!!
No.....that is way I put in (lol). I knew that and was just trying to lighten the moment with Larry!

 

[chili]

You caught it!!!
No.....that is way I put in (lol). I knew that and was just trying to lighten the moment with Larry!

Hehehehehe there is only 1 chapter in Jude............You cracked a joke! AAAhahahahahah

 

[Major]

Hehehehehe there is only 1 chapter in Jude............You cracked a joke! AAAhahahahahah

YEP!

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

The fact is......I did not judge anyone! I quoted the Bible and said I agree with it. IF that is judgment in your eyes....so be it.

That's often how it is with people who judge. They point at God, or the Bible and say blame them, not me. The fact is I don't think you are getting my message which is that the words of the Bible are in dispute by many people in this area. If you choose to believe that it means homosexuality, then fine. But not everyone does, and you should respect that. Personally I'd be very glad for any excuse I'd get to not have to believe someone was worthy of stoning or death.

I would say that maybe YOUR lack of Bible understanding is the issue, not my understanding of what it actually says.

And that's just a little bit of an ignorant thing to say, isn't it?

Do you not..(.no you don't from your words said.)............know that the section in Leviticus that I quoted was dealing with a warning to God's people against the Canaanite sins of that land? The Canaanites freely engaged in human sacrifices, profanation, homosexuality, and beastiality. Child sacrifice, (unborn babies) to the God Molech was done all the time.

You just did the very thing I talked about. Used the word "homosexuality" which wasn't a word until some 1800 years after the Bible was written. Pretty good trick.

The condemnation from God was NOT against Male prostitution although it certainly included them.

And you know this how?

I always stand by what God says not by what man thinks.

Yes, and those attitudes can also make people fly airplanes into buildings. I'm sure they thought they had God on their side too. Maybe a touch of humility is what's needed.

 

[Major]

That's often how it is with people who judge. They point at God, or the Bible and say blame them, not me. The fact is I don't think you are getting my message which is that the words of the Bible are in dispute by many people in this area. If you choose to believe that it means homosexuality, then fine. But not everyone does, and you should respect that. Personally I'd be very glad for any excuse I'd get to not have to believe someone was worthy of stoning or death.


And that's just a little bit of an ignorant thing to say, isn't it?


You just did the very thing I talked about. Used the word "homosexuality" which wasn't a word until some 1800 years after the Bible was written. Pretty good trick.

And you know this how?


Yes, and those attitudes can also make people fly airplanes into buildings. I'm sure they thought they had God on their side too. Maybe a touch of humility is what's needed.

O...I got your message very clearly. Your message from the very beginning was ....
"the words of the Bible are in dispute by many people in this area."

My message to you was and is.....I DO NOT CARE!!!

I do 100% accept that the Bible said what it said. If you are naive enough to stand on the thought that homosexuality did not exist because the word did not come into being until the 1800's, fine with me. That is the implication that you have made.

As for saying something ignorant, my thought is that Your political correctness and arrogance is certainly showing. Do you think that you are free to say whatever you want and there be no answer back to you?

You are argueing over WHEN a word was invented. Really man. Is that all you have????
Do you not think the people in the day of Moses know what the world "Mankind" meant? Come on my friend. You can do better than that.

Now, to try and say that Christians,( ME) who stand on the Bible as the Word of God and disagree with you, and then make the attempt to link us (ME) with the Muslim terrorist who killed 3000 innocent men, women and children is an absolute abomination unworthy of anyone to say much less a Christian. It leads me to ask you.......Are you in fact a Christian believer???

We were having a simple conversation and now your tone and accusations have for some reason become very personal.
Would you can to apologize and explain or wait for the mods to close down yet another really good thread because of your comments?

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

My message to you was and is.....I DO NOT CARE!!!

You are argueing over WHEN a word was invented. Really man. Is that all you have????

Now, to try and say that Christians,( ME) who stand on the Bible as the Word of God and disagree with you, and then make the attempt to link us (ME) with the Muslim terrorist who killed 3000 innocent men, women and children is an absolute abomination unworthy of anyone to say much less a Christian. It leads me to ask you.......Are you in fact a Christian believer???

We were having a simple conversation and now your tone and accusations have for some reason become very personal.
Would you can to apologize and explain or wait for the mods to close down yet another really good thread because of your comments?

You really don't like to be disagreed with, do you? That's what this all comes down to.

The argument isn't over when the word was invented, it's over whether that's the meaning intended. And that is HUGE. Very important to this discussion, crucial. Pivotal.

I didn't equate you with a Muslim terrorist at all, I made the point that people can be driven to do and think rather extreme things when they convince themselves they've got God on their side.

Nothing I said was personal, nor an attack - I simply presented an alternate way of looking at what you seem to insist can only be looked at one way. I see no reason to apologize for this. I will not discuss the matter further. Good day sir. And good luck in life.

 

[Major]

You really don't like to be disagreed with, do you? That's what this all comes down to.

The argument isn't over when the word was invented, it's over whether that's the meaning intended. And that is HUGE. Very important to this discussion, crucial. Pivotal.

I didn't equate you with a Muslim terrorist at all, I made the point that people can be driven to do and think rather extreme things when they convince themselves they've got God on their side.

Nothing I said was personal, nor an attack - I simply presented an alternate way of looking at what you seem to insist can only be looked at one way. I see no reason to apologize for this. I will not discuss the matter further. Good day sir. And good luck in life.

Wrong. I do not care if you disagree or agree. I have no preference with either.

What it actually comes down to is that YOU do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is just that simple and you in fact said exactly that.

I know what you said about terrorist and you meant what you said as YOU placed all Christians in the same boat as Muslim terrorist. You can back track all you want but that is exactly what you said and meant.

To with draw is it seems to me the right thing to do and if you hadn't I certainly was going to. Life is too hard too short to be be caught up in this kind of non-sense.

Blessings to you as well.

 

[MMurphy]

AND your comment proves the point I was making..........WHY ARE WE LOSING!

Because of the kind of thinking you just made.

Why do you think the words "Killing babies" is emotionally charged language???

Because YOU are a product of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!!!

Abortion, (Yes I know that is not the focus of this thread) is the act of killing an unborn baby whether YOU or anyone else wants to hear that or not. THAT is what it is and the only reason the word Abortion is used is to make it sound less than what it really is.

Then as for homosexuality.....you are actually correct. It is neither a sin nor a sickness. IT IS AN ABOMINATION!

That is what God calls it and I agree with Him.

Lev. 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: IT IS AN ABOMINATION"

Major, let's take a step back for a moment, because I think your hearing Peace, but your not listening to him. So, I want to pose a hypothetical to you, and I ask that you truly consider it and don't just write it off as 'that would never happen'. Consider if Peace is correct and if the abomination was indeed male prostitution and NOT homosexual tendency, would you actually say, okay I was wrong, and I'm sorry.

Its clear to me that Peace has a soft spot for those who struggle with this. Possibly he saw someone get bullied to the point of suicide, or who was disowned because of it or what have you. If that is the case will you be so bold to tell him his heart is in the wrong place despite the expiriences God has put in his life that gave him insight? And is it God who is wrong for giving him that insight?

From your posts I read a pretentious attitude. You have placed him under a blanket label or apostasy Christians who have given into the pressures of political correctness which I find an easy way to simply discount everything someone says. And when you say you only care about pleasing God even if the world is against you, it is an honorable thing but it is a thin line between that and outright arrogance. As in, I don't care what anyone says I'm going to think what I think.

In any case recognize your own fallibility and it sets you free from having to be right all the time. We can have a discussion about the merits of Peace's claim with out resorting to name calling.