The Logos

[TomMcC]

Countless times we read the phrase "in Christ" in our Bibles, when a person is born again they enter the family of God and become children of God...We are now "in Christ".
That would be the unifying factor.

I would say that being "in Christ" is THE requirement for unity, for without it unity is impossible. But unity is but a road to a higher purpose. Is not the truth absolutely required to realize that unity, is not the truth of utmost importance to God? The question I'm about to ask you Dave is not meant cause you grief, but is asked to illustrate the point. Are you in unity with the Pope? I'm not.

[Dezrat]

Are you guys saying doctrine is unimportant? And what is this purpose we are united in?

Doctrinal issues to the point that they corrupt the Gospel are of coarse important.
What unites us(orthodox as Ramclap said) is the belief in proclaiming salvation by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. I think we can have a lot of differences and yet be united in that.
Sometimes I think about the Thief on the Cross, and how he might be thinking now in Heaven: "Man, how did I end up here with so little Doctrine under my belt...?"
ETA: I hope you guys realize that sometimes I can't help but exercise my Spiritual Gift of sarcasm. Yes, it's Biblical. Talks about it in Hezekiah 17:11...

[TomMcC]

Doctrinal issues to the point that they corrupt the Gospel are of coarse important.
What unites us(orthodox as Ramclap said) is the belief in proclaiming salvation by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. I think we can have a lot of differences and yet be united in that.

I would most certainly agree.

[Just Dave]

I would say that being "in Christ" is THE requirement for unity, for without it unity is impossible. But unity is but a road to a higher purpose. Is not the truth absolutely required to realize that unity, is not the truth of utmost importance to God? The question I'm about to ask you Dave is not meant cause you grief, but is asked to illustrate the point. Are you in unity with the Pope? I'm not.

The pope is the head of a religious organization, I'm not catholic so no I am not in unity with the pope.
I'm not united with (insert non-christian religion here).

Jesus said one must be born again of the Spirit, that is where Christian unity/bond comes from. When a person is born again they become part of the family of God.
This of course will be played out in the lives of the believers

[Just Dave]

Doctrinal issues to the point that they corrupt the Gospel are of coarse important.
What unites us(orthodox as Ramclap said) is the belief in proclaiming salvation by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. I think we can have a lot of differences and yet be united in that.
Sometimes I think about the Thief on the Cross, and how he might be thinking now in Heaven: "Man, how did I end up here with so little Doctrine under my belt...?"

So are you saying that unity is defined/established by the outward actions of man

[CaliforniaLiberal]

So far you're asserting that "Christians are inconsistent". Well yes they can be and have been. But are some Christians in history very much more consistent than others? I sure think so. I would also point out that the Bible is perfectly consistent, and very much so is God.

Are you not rejecting Christ because "Christians are inconsistent". Are you not confusing that which is perfect with that which is imperfect? Is that a wise move considering the consequences?

You misunderstand me. I am not saying 'Christians are inconsistent.' Although of course, they are. It's merely a reflection of the ancient writings upon which they base their religion.

I am saying that the Bible is inconsistent. The different parts don't match up.

No doubt you will have a good argument how "Love thy Neighbor as thy Self" is perfectly consistent with "Slaughter every one of those SOBs, men, women, children, pigs and cows. Slaughter the puppies and kittens and salt the framers fields." (Freely interpreted)

And then, various Christians interpret the Bible as they please with wide variety of results. Inevitably their interpretations support their interests. For example Southern Slavers before the Civil War quoted the Bible extensively in support of Slavery. Today, those who hate Homosexuals can quote verse after verse to support their view, but they always overlook the scriptures about mixed fabrics, how it's forbidden to touch a menstruating woman or to mix meat and dairy in the kitchen. Christians interpret to suit themselves and then claim Perfect Divinity for their interpretations.

And then they claim Perfect Consistency.

[TomMcC]

The pope is the head of a religious organization, I'm not catholic so no I am not in unity with the pope.
I'm not united with (insert non-christian religion here).

Jesus said one must be born again of the Spirit, that is where Christian unity/bond comes from. When a person is born again they become part of the family of God.
This of course will be played out in the lives of the believers

That is my point Dave. Huge amounts of "Christiandom" and the world consider the Papacy to be the foremost expression Christ's kingdom. Huge amounts of "Christiandom", imo, are playing fast and loose with the Bible and it's doctrines, and it's led to what we have today. When the Apostles were still living the church enjoyed considerable genuine unity, but when they died things weren't totally destroyed, but things became much more difficult.

[Just Dave]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying 'Christians are inconsistent.' Although of course, they are. It's merely a reflection of the ancient writings upon which they base their religion.

I am saying that the Bible is inconsistent. The different parts don't match up.

No doubt you will have a good argument how "Love thy Neighbor as thy Self" is perfectly consistent with "Slaughter every one of those SOBs, men, women, children, pigs and cows. Slaughter the puppies and kittens and salt the framers fields." (Freely interpreted)

And then, various Christians interpret the Bible as they please with wide variety of results. Inevitably their interpretations support their interests. For example Southern Slavers before the Civil War quoted the Bible extensively in support of Slavery. Today, those who hate Homosexuals can quote verse after verse to support their view, but they always overlook the scriptures about mixed fabrics, how it's forbidden to touch a menstruating woman or to mix meat and dairy in the kitchen. Christians interpret to suit themselves and then claim Perfect Divinity for their interpretations.

And then they claim Perfect Consistency.

Context, context, context. You have a lot of studying ahead of you.
BTW we don't hate anybody. There's a lot of other misconceptions in your comment but I'll just leave it.

[Dezrat]

So are you saying that unity is defined/established by the outward actions of man

No, I'm saying what unites us is our belief in the man-ward actions of God. But if we truly believe them, I think we should have a desire to proclaim them. But no, If someone chooses to keep their salvation their best kept secret, it doesn't deprive them of unity in Christ. Not saying that.
There could though be made a case, if just to excuse my choice of words, for "that if you confess with your mouth(proclaim?) the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." But I'm not even saying that that's what I meant.

[Just Dave]

No, I'm saying what unites us is our belief in the man-ward actions of God. But if we truly believe them, I think we should have a desire to proclaim them. But no, If someone chooses to keep their salvation their best kept secret, it doesn't deprive them of unity in Christ. Not saying that.
There could though be made a case, if just to excuse my choice of words, for "that if you confess with your mouth(proclaim?) the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." But I'm not even saying that that's what I meant.

Oh ok, no worries.

[TomMcC]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying 'Christians are inconsistent.' Although of course, they are. It's merely a reflection of the ancient writings upon which they base their religion.

I am saying that the Bible is inconsistent. The different parts don't match up.

No doubt you will have a good argument how "Love thy Neighbor as thy Self" is perfectly consistent with "Slaughter every one of those SOBs, men, women, children, pigs and cows. Slaughter the puppies and kittens and salt the framers fields." (Freely interpreted)

And then, various Christians interpret the Bible as they please with wide variety of results. Inevitably their interpretations support their interests. For example Southern Slavers before the Civil War quoted the Bible extensively in support of Slavery. Today, those who hate Homosexuals can quote verse after verse to support their view, but they always overlook the scriptures about mixed fabrics, how it's forbidden to touch a menstruating woman or to mix meat and dairy in the kitchen. Christians interpret to suit themselves and then claim Perfect Divinity for their interpretations.

And then they claim Perfect Consistency.

So it seems ,if I understand you correctly, you have a problem with God's view of morality and it's application. I'll try to answer. First of all, the bible teaches that whatever God wills is moral. There is nothing above God concerning ethics. There is no body of abstract ethics above Him. Nothing more ultimate than Him. God has stated from Genesis to Revelation that the wages of sin are death. So lets apply this to the particular case of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were an extremely wicked people, even sacrificing their children to Molech. Children by nature manifest evil even from a very early age, so they are not exempt from the penalty of death. At sundry times God through direct revelation, in this case to Moses, directed His people to blot out a grossly wicked set of nations. Simply put, they had it coming, but then we all have it coming. God was consistent with what He has always said, the soul that sins shall die. God was exercising His just judgement, one aspect of His attributes. He showed His love to the Israelites by making them His people and preserving them. An even more intense example of God meeting out punishment for sin was the flood in Noah's day. The entire world was judged except Noah and his immediate family. Noah was loved in a special way and the world was justly exterminated for all it's gross evil.

Secondly you chastised Christians for interpreting the bible for self-interest. Has the world somehow been exempt from this?The world interpreting things in a way that suits their interests. Is this some leftist idea you're proffering? Maybe Saul Alinsky. Point out to Christians their biblical standards and then hammer them when they don't live up to them? Southern slavers failed to understand and apply God's law against man stealing, a death penalty crime, and they paid a dear price in blood.

Thirdly you take issue with the "ceremonial" aspects of the OT law. I sometime call these holiness codes. These types of laws, although based on a "moral" principle were temporary. They were to teach the Israelites about their separation from the heathen nations. There was nothing intrinsically wrong about eating pork, but they were given this law so that they would be reminded of sin and to obey God. The ultimate fulfillment of these types of laws was in the appearing of Christ. These laws were no longer needed as a reminder to sanctify ourselves unto God, Christ revealed fully, now served that purpose.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I'm left feeling a little like Saul struck blind on the road to Damascus.

I believe that I shall sojourn a while in the wilderness and see if I can't find some wisdom to carry on.

It's like a crowded mad house where no one ever responds to what I say, they only press me with their delusions, hallucinations and schizophrenic fantasies. As if they cannot see or hear me but only target me with desperation as a possibly receptive ear.

I probably will be drawn back as I always am, despite my best intentions, by my irrepressible fantasy that you all actually might be interested in what I have to say.

Auf Wiedersehen

[TomMcC]

I'm left feeling a little like Saul struck blind on the road to Damascus.

I believe that I shall sojourn a while in the wilderness and see if I can't find some wisdom to carry on.

It's like a crowded mad house where no one ever responds to what I say, they only press me with their delusions, hallucinations and schizophrenic fantasies. As if they cannot see or hear me but only target me with desperation as a possibly receptive ear.

I probably will be drawn back as I always am, despite my best intentions, by my irrepressible fantasy that you all actually might be interested in what I have to say.

Auf Wiedersehen

I guess Auf was exempted from being delusional, it was everyone else with the problem.

And eventually Saul was converted to Paul and realized how blind and undone he was before.

[RAMCLAP]

I guess Auf was exempted from being delusional, it was everyone else with the problem.

And eventually Saul was converted to Paul and realized how blind and undone he was before.

[Dezrat]

I'm left feeling a little like Saul struck blind on the road to Damascus.

That's the best thing most of us could ever hope to hear from you, if it were so.
An acknowledgement that you've heard the voice of Jesus and seen His Glorious Light through us. For which we would Praise God and with rejoicing welcome you to the Kingdom!