Charity

Thanks oldiesman, I'll look into it.

I don’t miss out on the love of God when I read verses like these. 2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. It's a "game of life" that is based on fear. And, am I now supposed to be like those described in the verses below just because I dared to ask questions that led to my deconversion? 2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; It's a ridiculous form of gaslighting.

In Mark 7:27, Jesus said to the Greek woman who kept asking him to heal her daughter of a devil spirit, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet (right, proper, becoming) to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." But, in Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus made no similar statement when a certain centurion (or in the case of Luke 7:1-10, the elders of the Jews sent on behalf of the centurion) came to Jesus beseeching him to heal the centurion’s servant. In each record, Jesus agreed immediately to go and heal him. As a centurion in charge of a hundred Roman soldiers, he, like the Greek woman, would not have been a Jew. So why did Jesus respond differently when it came to the centurion? Was it because in Luke’s record, the elders of the Jews told Jesus the centurion was worthy of this request because “he loves our nation, and he has built us a synagogue” (vs 5)? What is there to learn from this information when it comes to Jesus’ willingness to heal or not? Another question is who were these elders of the Jews? Were they the same as the “elders” or “elders of the people” by whom Jesus said he must suffer many things (Luke 9:22) or the ones who took counsel against him to put him to death (Luke 22:66)? These ones certainly don't sound like they would have gone to Jesus asking him to heal someone.

To explore the Bible passage quoted in my previous post, I've looked up the Greek words for "dogs" and "meet." Strong's Lexicon defines each one on the Bible Hub website as follows: "Dogs" is kunarion = little dog, puppy. It is the diminutive form of kuōn which is also translated as "dog" but has a different meaning from kunarion. (See below) Strong’s Lexicon on Bible Hub explains the usage of the diminutive form only as “indicating affection or endearment, and is used metaphorically in a context that contrasts the status of Jews and Gentiles in the biblical narrative. However, another usage is consistently shown in these other places. A diminutive form is a word or suffix that indicates something is small or little. Diminutives can also convey a sense of endearment or intimacy, or sometimes to belittle someone or something. (AI Overview) A diminutive is a word obtained by modifying a root word to convey a slighter degree of its root meaning, either to convey the smallness of the object or quality named, or to convey a sense of intimacy or endearment, and sometimes to derogatorily belittle something or someone. (Wikipedia) Diminutive = indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible (Merriam-Webster) Traditionally, the term 'diminutive' has been used to refer to words which denote smallness and possibly also expressing an attitude. The expressed attitude can be either positive or negative, i.e. either affectionate or derogatory, depending on the specific interplay of linguistic and situational factors in a given context. (ThoughtCo) ~~~~~ "kuōn" = dog, universally despised in the East; literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. It is used in this derogatory manner in Matt 7:6; Luke 16:21; Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 22:15 Jesus did not use "kuōn" for dogs in Mark; he used kunarion. But which usage is the correct one for kunarion - the affectionate or derogatory one? ~~~~~ "meet" is kalos = good, beautiful, noble, excellent, honorable. According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, its usage In verse 27 where Jesus said, ...for it is not meet to take the children's bread..." is "right, proper, becoming." IOW, Jesus was saying it was not right, proper or becoming to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs. Because of this, the usage of "dogs" appears to be the derogatory one. How else might this passage be understood? Is there a more correct way?

I appreciate how you approach discussions here – always have. And thank you for your honest input. I'll pay closer attention to my tone and a few other things as well. There have been 322 views so far on this thread, over 25,000 on the Deconversion thread and 1,500 on the Sin and the Need for Perfect Love thread. Yet, only a handful of different people have replied. Not unusual, I know, but it sure would be interesting to hear from more of them - if only one short reply back as to their thoughts about the topic.

I don’t think this is what you intended to mean by “outed yourself” Nathan, but there was no purposeful hidden reason behind why I started the About the Way of Jesus thread. I didn’t intentionally want to deceive or entrap posters to comment on the thread so I could go ballistic on their viewpoints. What you have noted about there being apparent mixed messages in my text, however, is a valid point. After seven months of starting threads about my deconversion, I am still learning how to have a clear, consistent, respectful and unbiased way of expressing my POVs when discussing the bible while at the same time, I am still learning more about what those views are. I want to eventually get there, and that is what I meant in my post above. If anyone posts to this thread in the future, I will endeavour to reply in such a way.

Your new title though does bring up the annoying aspect of solicitation such as

I have no problem with his although I am rethinking what I wanted to achieve from creating the About the Way of Jesus thread in the first place. I'll post on it again once I've thought it through some more.

I appreciate your comment oldiesman. As a reminder though, I did wrap my head around God through faith for a very long time. There were times when it was not hard to do at all - the bible would call it having a strong faith. What happened was that I decided to give my questions concerning the contradictory biblical teachings about prayer and the rationale for a rapture which will leave millions of others to go through a great tribulation the attention they deserved. My posts throughout the Deconversion thread on the Atheism sub-forum speak of this time along with other questions which kept coming up along the way. So now, I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the concept of faith which has resulted in a difference between our belief systems. The word conflict though can add a negative combative quality to this difference, and I will admit that my words and feelings have shown this quality at times. I want to work on this which was part of my purpose for starting the About the Way of Jesus thread.

Thank you for your reply modcat5. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you right away on this. I've been busy with some things that have come up and which will continue to need my attention for a bit.

On the About the Way forum, there were posters who defended twi, and their contributions made for some of the more lengthier threads as both sides shared/argued their POV's. I do understand the concern about starting this thread because I am an atheist. My decision to post here was because I wanted to hear what people who follow the scriptures thought about my questions concerning some of them and for them to bring up scriptures of their own for discussion. I do not want to argue whether the scriptures are authentic (word of men vs inspired by God) or whether Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. were historical or fictional characters - just on what the passages say. I also want to learn more about thinking critically rather than merely from emotions. Finally, I figure this sub-forum Doctrinal would probably be viewed by more people who have faith in the Bible than the Atheist sub-forum would.

In the Old Testament, God supposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as the Israelites. The bible then goes on to tell of the many wars between Israel and other nations. Sometimes, God was on Israel’s side and the other nations were defeated; other times, God was not on Israel’s side because of their disobedience, and the other nations won. My question is why was the nation of Israel even necessary? Scholars say the reason was two-fold: it was for the children of Israel, through their laws, priests, prophets, etc., to teach other nations about the one true god, Yahweh, and also to declare that through them, God’s promised Messiah would come to redeem mankind. Sounds good, but in reality, what resulted were millenniums of division, suffering, death, genocide, etc. This division was carried down to the time of Jesus (while the suffering, death and genocide because of war continued after Jesus and periodically right up to the present time). Mark 7:25-29 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed. Jesus is calling a non-Jewish woman a dog – someone, who according to God’s plan, was not deserving of his help because “the children must be filled first.” Only out of desperation for her suffering child does she submit to this degrading term and respond in such a way that pleases Jesus enough to give her the crumbs she needed. No mention is made of her “faith.” However, Matthew 15 (which was written a decade or more after Mark) attempts to redeem this record in Mark by adding the following: in verse 22, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David,” and in verse 28, a reply from Jesus “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” As a result, the focus of the record is mostly on her faith in Jesus as the son of David and not so much on Jesus’ calling her a dog because she was an outsider. How does this story show Jesus as the way of peace and love?

No oldiesman, that's simply not true, but you can't come to this realization if you won't question why "it had to be this way." I heard someone say recently, "Nobody thinks they need a savior unless they also think they need saving. So this good news wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the bad news, and the bad news is that you are bad; you are inherently flawed; there is something wrong with you at the core of your existence, and it needs to be repaired – it needs to be fixed – you are inherently broken. You have to convince someone why they need the message before you can actually convince them to accept it. The main message of the gospel is not that you can be saved. The main message of that gospel is that you are so bad that you need to be saved. These people aren’t coming to you to deliver good news; they’re coming to you to deliver bad news so that they can give you the good news." Therein lies the problem - an ancient book makes up the problem so it can give you the made-up solution. It does not have to be this way.

Thank you for your post. As a recent atheist, it can often still hurt a lot to see the manipulative side of the crucifixion story. One could say "so what it others still blindly believe and find comfort in it - just be thankful you are no longer one of them and move on with your life." I haven't figured out yet why I'm not following that someone's opinion.

6 Times Jesus Wasn't all Peace and Love In the video above by Kristi Burke, six passages from the bible are talked about in order to show the other side of the belief that Jesus was all about peace and love. One passage is Matthew 10:34-39. It says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. 39He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it. Here are some of her quotes in italics: "Jesus knew his message was radical. He knew that his message would not be accepted by the masses. He was essentially creating his own apocalyptic cult that was branching off of Judaism, and he knew that it would not be well received by those around him – Jew and Gentile alike. So, of course, he knew that they would be persecuted for their beliefs, for following him, for doing something very different and radical." According to the Old Testament, God began the great "us vs them" scenario when he called the children of Israel to be his chosen people. Jesus seems to have continued this theme in his ministry. "To Jesus and his followers, this really seemed to be more of a battle, a spiritual and earthly battle. They were waiting for the kingdom to come here on earth, and they had to accomplish all that would be accomplished including war and persecution and bloodshed before all of that could be done." Again, similar to the history of constant wars against other nations in the OT, Jesus purpose for coming was not to bring peace, but a sword. "You would think that the message of the creator of the universe come to earth [sic] to bring it would find a way to bring people together, but instead, it almost seems that Jesus’ coming was an attempt to make that all boil to the surface so that those who wanted to be his disciples and follow him can walk away, can shut everyone off and walk away, leave their family behind." This was encouraged by twi and even expected if you were participating in their different programs like the WOW, Fellow Laborer, Corps, etc. programs. How many other religious groups/cults have said something similar to this? "At the end of it, he is saying, 'He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake will find it.' That’s a dangerous message. He is encouraging people to become martyrs. That is cult-leader behavior – somebody telling you, you might die for me, and I want you to die for me. I want you to be persecuted for me. You’re going to be blessed in the afterlife – don’t worry, I’ll take care of you afterwards, but in this life, you need to be willing to leave your dad and leave your mom, to become enemies with everyone you love and know and follow me even unto death." "Cult-leader behavior" as seen in the Jonestown's story from penworks' post above about the International Cult Awareness Day. Was this not the same mindset as Matthew 10:34-39?

The forum About the Way began in order to discuss the Way International and its leadership. It was, and still is, a chance for those who were (and maybe still are) committed to it to look at its "other side" and the damage it caused in people's lives. In this forum, Matters of Faith (Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible), I'd like the same to happen only with Jesus who said he was the way. What was the "other side" of his ministry, and did it include some possible cult-like teachings and practices? If so, how damaging are they to the lives of people today?

You're probably right. Best I can do is search the internet for what others have written about the historicity of Paul like Richard Carrier for example.

I don't think it's karma though when an uncaught serial killer sincerely obeys Rom 10:9-10 at the end of his life, gets saved and then has the promise of eternal life while his unsaved victims will either spend eternity in hell or die a second death in the lake of fire. mj412 wrote in the "Justice" thread linked above, "I mean if you think the scriptures prove all evil men will die I do not read , I read all men who deny Jesus as LORD. will burn ." Since I believe the bible is man's word and not God's, I'm interested in why Paul would come up with a concept like Rom 10:9-10 (which was written before any of the gospels) and attribute it to the god yahweh. What benefit was there to him in doing so?

vpw taught that Jesus was not God. Do you still believe this or have you returned to the belief in the trinity?

I often bring up the above two false attributes of God, but rarely do I mention the all-righteous-and-just trait of god. This concept was one of the main reasons I began to doubt in the existence of yahweh - specifically the examples of his wrath being rained down regularly on people in the OT and which will again show up in the end times via his son. I’m thinking of starting a new topic in the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible or the Atheist sub-forum to discuss, what to me is, this disturbing idea that there must be a penalty for sin because God is righteous and just. Many Christians find comfort in believing that evil people will get their due one day, but this actually happening is something that must be taken on faith. I read with interest this short thread (especially the posts by "think fish" and "mj412") - Justice By Abigail, August 9, 2005 in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible

Blood sacrifices can be traced as far back as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient nomadic rituals. The writers of the OT simply assigned it to their god. It's very barbaric. A real, all-loving and all-powerful god, however, would have come up with something more humane when relating with the mankind he created.

It was your "You're JUST catching on to that?" post to oldiesman that got me to read his again 2 more times to be sure what it actually said.

I am now realizing I misread oldiesman's post who seems to have misread my previous post from July 15. I mentioned non-believers in that one but not that I was one. Below is oldiesman's reply to the above post. I read it as "I get a sense that you do not believe in a God that exists." So just to be clear, I have believed in God from a child growing up in the RC church right up to the earlier part of this year. I began this thread because of the doubts I was having about God and the bible. I now am an atheist but still interested in discussing the biblical teachings about God and Jesus because of the influence they had on my life in the past and how they influence the beliefs and actions of people today.

Looking back on the whole thing, I agree. I just provided the whole timeline in reference to the timeline modcat5 provided. I have no animosity towards his email or his decision to delete the posts.