Does the golden rule save without the cross?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Like Christ said?

That is not neutral by any means!

Mr B, i did not say that it was. You need to go read the post again, perhaps.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The question could be, "Did Christ say practicing the golden rule saves us?"

that would also be fine, yes.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not ridiculous because you make statements that leave one with these questions.

one who reads what they want to read, yes. But as soon as you read the post without a preconceived agenda, we are going to be back to 'ridiculous,' Mr B.

And this is why it is so difficult to pretend to have a convo with you, with all due respect. I continue here only because i am encouraged by 67 million people who seek God, most of whom can read.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So, Shazeep, first you said the question on its own should have been left on its own without the first post.



Then when I ask you to answer just the question, and clarify to all that you did, you say the question is biased and slanted. You never said that at first. You said the question was fine, but the first post was your issue.

So, if the question is biased, howso?

so we're doing a comedy routine now, ok.

Originally Posted by mfblume

From what you have stated, people do not need to believe in the cross of Jesus, but simply do to others as they would have people do to them. That's what I mean when I say "without the cross."

So what's the problem?

The problem is possibly that you have already made up your mind, and cannot even hear what i actually stated, since you cannot quote me ever saying what you represent that i said.

so we have a situation here where i directly quote you, and you deny the quote, and you misquote me or truncate my quotes to force your pov, and then you ask me what the problem is.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Gandhi died lost.

Mother Teresa died lost.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson died lost.

Father Guido Sarducci died lost.

the problem is that you do not know these, and you are just comforting yourself and others with some words that you cannot prove, and disregarding much Scripture that condemns you.

Because you did not come to your belief like Paul did; someone led you there, and you now defend a groupthink because you are personally invested in it, like they are. This is a house built on sand, and the sand is shifting, right now.

No Cross, no regeneration to newness of life.i can't disagree there; but i can sure point out Scripturally that there are many who believe they have "said it correctly" and so they are good to go, yet they obviously have not changed their minds. Your religion teaches that they are saved, but Christ tells us directly that many people in the established churches are going to be aghast and amazed that Christ does not know them after all the religious stuff they did for Him. Of course that passage was meant for someone else, surely, so i wouldn't worry about it too much.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

yes, this is a danger, and therefore a valid argument imo. But agape is not human good, or being nice when it suits you, and you have to consider when tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom ahead of you. Of course that is likely meant for someone else, so i wouldn't worry about it too much

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

so we're doing a comedy routine now, ok.

Nothing funny intended.

The problem is possibly that you have already made up your mind, and cannot even hear what i actually stated, since you cannot quote me ever saying what you represent that i said.

Hold on. You told me the golden rule is the same thing God did with the cross, and said that is why people who don't know about the cross but commit the golden rule can be saved. Do you believe that or not? Enough with your intentions analysis. You're not God, and you don't know my intentions.

so we have a situation here where i directly quote you, and you deny the quote,

Where? Lay it out.

If you think I did that, then stop saying I did and lay it out. I never denied I said anything you actually quoted. No,w you are known to take something I said, and ignore the explanation and context I said it with.

For example, recently you quoted me about what I said in extending the golden rule. I said those words, but you did not understand my meaning in that sentence. is that what you are referring to? It's not that I did not say it, it's that I did not mean what you thought I meant,. You always think the worse in violation of 1 Cor 13.

and you misquote me or truncate my quotes to force your pov, and then you ask me what the problem is.

I am doing none of these things, and make these points for you to respond to and clarify if you can. But you have your mind made up about my intentions, like you're God who alone knows intentions, so don't talk about misquoting. I give you the chance to clarify. Just do it.

Just explain yourself and stop thinking the worst case scenario as to what a mistake was made. I never saw someone think the worst so much.

[mfblume]

that would also be fine, yes.

And by saying that, do you believe one need not even know about the cross and be saved, since they practiced the golden rule?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Believing that without the cross we can be saved? I'm stunned. No matter how you phrase or rephrase such a question... without the cross, the blood of Christ applied in our lives, there can be no regeneration of our flesh.

amen! The last quote i got from your camp regarding applying the blood of the cross to our lives was-and i quote-
"Read some Paul, and voila."

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Somehow, fulfilling the law is salvation to our friend.

you employ every manner of deceit in our conversation, yet call me "friend."

In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

of course you are gonna want to run to your conception of 'faith' here, and dither over that, but do try and read the point here, and we can discuss that somewhere else. You are going to be very hard-pressed to separate salvation and fulfilling the law imo. Christ = the fulfillment of the law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, this is a danger, and therefore a valid argument imo. But agape is not human good, or being nice when it suits you, and you have to consider when tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom ahead of you. Of course that is likely meant for someone else, so i wouldn't worry about it too much

Father Sarducci is not an argument. You have no sense of humour.

[shazeep]

Have you forgotten your first love?

Remember when you pledged to yourself that if a better understanding of Scripture were to come along, you would consider it?

Considering requires an open mind; is it possible that your mind has somehow maybe become closed, without you even realizing it, and your heart has changed from that first day, when you had no preconceptions?

Did you come to these concepts on your own--like Paul--or did someone or some group lead you to them?