Does the golden rule save without the cross?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok well i'm not sure how you get to "Love is for the confused" etc from there,

See, now this is an example of your lies. We do not believe "love is for the confused." Now you have to repent over that as well.

and you guys seem intent upon reassuring yourselves that everyone else is lost rather than any self examination, which i get is not the most comfortable thing in the world, so i'll just leave you to contemplate how 'mike drop' and overweening pride go together. Maybe when you lose 10 or 20 more million you'll be willing to have a conversation.

Why you think head counts are a concern in contrast to people hearing truth, we'll never know.

However, it's disingenuous of you, adding to the list of racked up lies, saying we seek to assure ourselves everyone else is lost. We seek to show the world why people are lost, as the bible explains, how the bible explains they can be saved. We were lost, too, but the message we heard from the bible is what we seek to share with others. You have a weird way of twisting that into seeking to assure ourselves we are saved apart from everyone else. But I guess that's what snakes do, anyway.

Think of it this way. You have a way to determine if you are saved or not. Using your method on the forum, you believe everyone else is lost who disagrees with you, or else you would not believe it is what's right for you to be saved.

So you lied about pride, you lied about love being for the confused, and you lied about us thinking people have to agree with our personal view rather than the truth of us believing people have to believe the bible.

You asked for the list of lifes. You gave three of them right here.

Easier to continue lying than to actually deal with your alleged accusations and our responses to them, though I see.

And THAT is the real pride here. Not willing to admit you lied.

We feel no pride in thinking we're saved and those who disbelieve the bible are lost. We feel sad and hurt, and wish for them to be saved.

Anyway, I noticed you wanted to know what it means to accept the cross, and I explained it....shortly after you asked. SO, WHERE IS YOUR RESPONSE to that direct post, with detailed reasons for it?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

See, now this is an example of your lies. We do not believe "love is for the confused."

ok, not sure who "we" is, but that is a quote, from you. Are you saying that you have forgotten you said it, and i need to go dig it up, or would you amend this now, Sheldon, or what? Am i taking you too seriously or something? Because i have the impression now that maybe you are trying to make jokes, so i apologize if i am misreading your intentions here.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, not sure who "we" is, but that is a quote, from you. Are you saying that you have forgotten you said it, and i need to go dig it up, or would you amend this now, Sheldon, or what? Am i taking you too seriously or something? Because i have the impression now that maybe you are trying to make jokes, so i apologize if i am misreading your intentions here.

I am making no jokes. I know what I believe and I responds to you and anyone else accordingly. And I do not believe love is for the confused. So, yes, dig it up, because whatever I said I never meant what you obviously think I did.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am making no jokes. I know what I believe and I responds to you and anyone else accordingly. And I do not believe love is for the confused. So, yes, dig it up, because whatever I said I never meant what you obviously think I did.

you said this in connection with my suggestion that Paul be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. And on the same subject, "read some Paul and voila" is your initial heart-response to how to manifest the message of the Cross in our lives. No doubt you will change both of these, but i would ask you to examine why your gut response was not first "Read some Christ and voila?"

It seems like a lot of effort is expended attempting to distance Christ from the Cross, and every time we get close to this discussion...something happens to disrupt it. And i see that we are prolly not going to have that discussion now, either, but i would ask at what point did it seem prudent to follow Paul, and argue with Christ?

Or, since that is likely an unkind way to put it--although after 'love is for confused people' you'll have to pardon me if i have lost all measure there--what is it about Paul that appeals to you, that you always--or we'll say 'predominantly'--quote Paul?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you said this in connection with my suggestion that Paul be reconciled with Christ, and not the other way around. And on the same subject, "read some Paul and voila" is your initial heart-response to how to manifest the message of the Cross in our lives. No doubt you will change both of these, but i would ask you to examine why your gut response was not first "Read some Christ and voila?"

It seems like a lot of effort is expended attempting to distance Christ from the Cross, and every time we get close to this discussion...something happens to disrupt it. And i see that we are prolly not going to have that discussion now, either, but i would ask at what point did it seem prudent to follow Paul, and argue with Christ?

Or, since that is likely an unkind way to put it--although after 'love is for confused people' you'll have to pardon me if i have lost all measure there--what is it about Paul that appeals to you, that you always--or we'll say 'predominantly'--quote Paul?

I already explained my use of Paul. But here it is again.

I particularly said Christ and Paul do not disagree. That's first to know. Secondly, Jesus admitted he spoke vaguely in contrast to what he could have said. And he noted he had MANY things to say to them but they could not bear them. So, he told them they'd have to wait for the Spirit of truth to come and guide them into all truth. That happened in Acts 2. And after the Spirit came, and starting leading their understanding into all truth, they began to EXPOUND in an EXPONENTIAL manner on everything Christ taught. Their words were FAR MORE plain than Christ's, and Christ said everyone int eh world would believe on Him through those apostles' words in John 17:20.

Have you heard of the rule of thumb that the plainest reading is the one to prefer and stand on when a question exists about any certain issue? Well, Paul's words were far more plain to follow than many of Christ's. Jesus spoke vaguely and almost to the point of confusion for many hearers. lol. Read John 6 and see how His use of flesh and blood sounds like cannibalism. Peter barely grasped it then, but the majority missed it totally and walked away from Him.

While Jesus said He spoke vaguely, Paul said he spoke with plainness of speech.

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

2 Corinthians 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: