Religious Zealotry

[Hoping]

Phil 3:12 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:12) Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Paul knew the truth of his position in Christ; you (apparently) do not.

What he had yet to attain was written of in the prior verse..."If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil 3:11)

The "perfection" he was writing about was his new vessel, written of in Phil 3:21..."Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."
Paul writes of a different sort of "perfection" in Phil 3:15..."Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

There is no "sinful" imperfection "in Christ".

 

[Clete]

Because Christians are not told to kill homosexuals any more than Christians are told to kill idolators.

Christians aren't told to kill anyone themselves (discounting things like self-defense and war). That's what the government is for and only then upon conviction of a capital crime in a court of law.

Do you feel the same about murders?

 

[Clete]

Homosexuality, bestiality, sex with children, adulterous sex, and the like are wrong and do damage to people and societies. That is why God condemns immoral sex.

He does more than condemn it, He says that those guilty of such crimes deserve the death penalty, in both the Old and the New Testament.

Was God wrong?

 

[Right Divider]

What he had yet to attain was written of in the prior verse..."If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil 3:11)

Your reading comprehension is poor.
Note the "either were already perfect" part.

There is no "sinful" imperfection "in Christ".

You're not Christ.

 

[PureX]

I'm not. Those words aren't bad words, is all.

Of course they aren't. Neither is the word "liberal". Or the word "forgiveness". Yet the religious zealot seems to imagine that these words refer to conditions that are anathema to their idea of God. You don't seem to agree with them even though you keep referring to yourself as a zealot. Yet people generally attribute those ideas with religious zealots for a reason. And if "zealot" is just a word, why not let people use it as they see fit?

 

[PureX]

That is not true.

Of course it is. None of us reach the level of spiritual perfection that is Christ. The best we can do is try, and repent when we fail. It's why forgiveness is tantamount to Christianity. And why refusing to forgive others for their sins only condemns us of our own.

Just goes to prove justification can be found in the bible...if you twist love into hate.

And greed into righteous reward. And ego into self-righteousness. And justice into vengeance. And ...
People seek (and often find) the God that justifies who they already are rather than exemplifies who they need to become. And sadly, too many religious expressions and religious groups are all to willing to provide them with whatever gods they're looking for.

It proves that going to a building doesn't make a a person a Christian.
Their actions proved their claims (of being followers of Christ) false.

A lot of self-proclaimed Christians don't know or care what Christ is. All they know or care about is the idea of Christ that ratifies their base personality and instincts. And they quote-mine the Bible in the same way, for the same reason.

"We" can't force/bring about anything.
Deliver the message and let them decide their own fates...unless you are a poser.

That is how God wants it, because that is how it is. Trying to force the world to comply with our ideas of God is trying to play God, ourselves. And that always ends in death and disaster. Yet in the end, that is always the 'zealot's' goal: to rule over the world and everyone in it as if he were God, himself. And he will stoop to any immorality to obtain that absolute control. Lies, torture, murder, the means always justifies the ends for him, because he thinks he is God's right hand.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are incorrect on that point.

On which point?

God does what is necessary.

Of course He does. But that doesn't change the fact that He does not currently speak to people directly.

I won't allow myself to abandon God for any other supposed authority's command to kill or anything else contrary to God.

How about what the Bible says? Is that contrary to God?

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. . . . For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. - Leviticus 18:22-23,29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus18:22-23,29&version=NKJV
(reminder that "cut off" is a Hebrew idiom that means "to put to death")

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:13&version=NKJV

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:24-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:24-32&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's why forgiveness is tantamount to Christianity. And why refusing to forgive others for their sins only condemns us of our own.

Should people be forgiven if they have not repented?

Trying to force the world to comply with our ideas of God is trying to play God, ourselves.

No, it's not.

And that always ends in death and disaster.

Requiring that people obey the law ends in death and disaster?

What planet do you live on, again?

 

[Idolater]

Of course they aren't. Neither is the word "liberal". Or the word "forgiveness". Yet the religious zealot seems to imagine that these words refer to conditions that are anathema to their idea of God. You don't seem to agree with them even though you keep referring to yourself as a zealot. Yet people generally attribute those ideas with religious zealots for a reason. And if "zealot" is just a word, why not let people use it as they see fit?

If I can't use 'zealot' and 'absolutist' when describing myself, then I have to find brand new words that mean the same thing, and why should I have to do that when there are already words that mean the same thing?

I'm a religious zealot and I'm an ideological absolutist. And, I'm not a rights violator directly or indirectly. I really believe in my religion and I really believe in my ideology, and I really believe in defending your rights. Even when it means that you can have a different religion and a different ideology from me.

 

[PureX]

Should people be forgiven if they have not repented?

Yes. Because we are not perfect, and we are not God. We also need to be forgiven even when we're too stupid or stubborn to repent.

Requiring that people obey the law ends in death and disaster?

The law as understood by religious zealots? Absolutely. Mayhem, death, and disaster, every time.

 

[PureX]

If I can't use 'zealot' and 'absolutist' when describing myself, then I have to find brand new words that mean the same thing, and why should I have to do that when there are already words that mean the same thing?

How about "ardent", "devout", "fully convicted", "fully committed", etc.,. These terms keep your religiosity personal, internal, between you and God. They are also words that would tend to be used by others to describe someone. In this case, you. And isn't that really how you would want to spread the spirit? ... By exemplifying it to others?

I'm a religious zealot and I'm an ideological absolutist. And, I'm not a rights violator directly or indirectly. I really believe in my religion and I really believe in my ideology, and I really believe in defending your rights. Even when it means that you can have a different religion and a different ideology from me.

Yeah, I don't think you're a zealot or an absolutist. I just think you're fully committed to your faith.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes. Because we are not perfect, and we are not God. We also need to be forgiven even when we're too stupid or stubborn to repent.

That's not what Jesus said:

Do you know what He said?

He said this:

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.” - Luke 17:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke17:3-4&version=NKJV

He was very explicit that you only forgive someone if they repent.

Doing so teaches them that they do not have to repent before God for Him to forgive them.

The law as understood by religious zealots?

How about according to Christian zealots, who hold to God's word?

Absolutely. Mayhem, death, and disaster, every time.

Supra.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How about "ardent", "devout", "fully convicted", "fully committed", etc.,. These terms keep your religiosity personal, internal, between you and God. They are also words that would tend to be used by others to describe someone. In this case, you. And isn't that really how you would want to spread the spirit? ... By exemplifying it to others?

Yeah, I don't think you're a zealot or an absolutist. I just think you're fully committed to your faith.

A Christian cannot be salt and light in the world if he keeps his beliefs to himself.

 

[PureX]

"Lord, how many times should we forgive? ... Seven times seventy times."

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Lord, how many times should we forgive? ... Seven times seventy times."

Why do you think that contradicts what I just quoted Jesus as having said?

Forgive, as many times as your brother comes to you and repents!

 

[ok doser]

Why do you think that contradicts what I just quoted Jesus as having said?

Forgive, as many times as your brother comes to you and repents!

Purex is a wonderment, for sure.

 

[PureX]

Why do you think that contradicts what I just quoted Jesus as having said?

Forgive, as many times as your brother comes to you and repents!

You are not God. No one needs to come to you and repent.

 

[marke]

He does more than condemn it, He says that those guilty of such crimes deserve the death penalty, in both the Old and the New Testament.

Was God wrong?

God is not wrong.

 

[Skeeter]

Pedophilia means "sexual feelings directed toward children."

Directing sexual feelings towards children includes teaching them about sex because one feels that they need to learn about sex.

Teaching children about sex is child abuse.

The goal of educating children about sexuality does not come from a sexual feeling. Isn't it obvious that children need some information about sexuality prior to having their own sexual feelings.

There can be a discussion and reasonable disagreement over what is age-appropriate. Your blanket treatment on this issue is faulty. This is an example where your religion has impaired your ability to evaluate information.

Not punishing children appropriately (ie, making it illegal to spank one's child) harms them.

The research shows that other forms of discipline are as effective without modelling violence. A significant minority of youth that were routinely spanked display syndrome of depression, anger, and aggression in adolescence. A subgroup that is virtually nonexistence without such punishment.

If we were to punish those who commit capital crimes by executing them, there would rarely be an instance where children as young as five commit capital crimes where they deserve death.

But sure, rant and rail against me for quoting the Bible that says that ANYONE who commits murder should be put to death, like the leftist you are.

Your belief that nonviolent transgressions be met with the death penalty is immoral. Some Christians can claim they have the moral high ground. You are not one of them.

It's not ok to be gay.

It's normal for women to appeal to men, and for men to appeal to women.

It's NOT normal for men to be appealing to men, and women to be appealing to women.

Appeal to popularity.

Someone who wishes to change Heather has Two Mommies to Heather has NO Mommies is immoral.

It takes a conscious effort to be a pervert, at least to begin with, or, it's a result of abuse, usually when one is young.

Homos reproduce sexually by molesting others, usually children.

Research has not shown this to be true. Most homosexuals do not claim any such abuse. Most pedophiles are ostensibly heterosexual.

Pride parades are just a bunch of perverts who somehow managed to break down the door to the closet they belong in.

I saw a Pride parade once. A pretty tame affair actually. The Lipstick Lesbian float was interesting. The P-flag marchers were a large group holding inspiring and humorous signs.

 

[Right Divider]

Appeal to popularity.

Nope... you are so confused and yet you like to try to sound so "smart".