Results 21 - 23 of 23
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Xerxes Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128255 | ||
Dear EdB, You wrote: "I agree but I also think your missing something. There seems to be an agenda here on the part of some of the other participants and I'm curious to see how they intend to play it out." Stultis hasn't posted to this thread since last night around midnight. It has been mostly you and me. That leads me to believe you are suggesting that I have an agenda. We can cease the discussion now if that's all you think of me. I haven't done anything to provoke you. Point of fact, I have made an earnest and sincere attempt to clearly understand your position in order to consider it. If this is not agreeable to you, say so, and I will not offend you with further posts. Xerxes |
||||||
22 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128284 | ||
Sure EdB. I'll do the best I can to explain what I think the scriptures are saying. I'll do it on your question post so we can narrow this all down to a single line if that's okay with you? I would like to address this, though: "I must have got confused, but when someone comes into a thread saying I was unkind to another, inquisitioning me, taking my statements to places they were never intended and pressing me to explain myself. I mistake that as having an agenda." Brother, I don't want to sound in any way unkind to you, but recognize that you were on the verge of telling Stultis that he wasn't a Christian. Do you not agree that this was on the verge of going too far? Do you not also agree that it needed to be tempered a little by an outside influence? If I wanted to be a part of the conversation, do you not agree that I needed to be fully conscious of your position so I could ably discuss the topic with you? And if Stultis was not the only one to see that your statement seemed to say what he took it for, and as I also perceived at first, do you not agree that it is best that an explanation be provided in order to clarify what was otherwise becoming a nasty situation? I don't believe you disagree with me. It was all just poor communication, and we should put it behind us. If I did you wrong, forgive me please. Don't hold a grudge. I'll try to express what I think on the other thread. You needn't respond to this one unless you want to dredge up what I'm hoping we can put behind us. Xerxes |
||||||
23 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128320 | ||
EdB, Hey, I'm sure it was unintentional on both sides. If you can apologize, so can I. I have a propensity for being harsh now and again without meaning to. I have four boys 6-10, so ... In any case, it would seem to me that we are in agreement to an extent. Use your chocolate example. You can tell someone you love chocolate, but if you never eat it, they may have reason to doubt it after a while, just as we can claim to be Christians, but if they don't see the love that Jesus said would identify us as his disciples, sooner or later they will doubt us and view us as liars or hypocrites. If, on the other hand, you tell no one that you love chocolate, but everyone you know sees you eating chocolate constantly, they will eventually believe that you love chocolate whether you tell them or not. This is the same as Christianity again, because if we love each other in deed, we need not tell anyone how much we love. They will see it and know it to be so without us having to say a word. Now, taking it to the next level, I'm not so sure I see it as a philosophy. If we are actively loving in deed, meaning that we are actively practicing the virtue of being kind, temperate, charitable, patient, joyful, exhortant, forgiving, humble, hating evil, loving righteousness, etc., then we will be unable to do those things that are contrary to God. For example, how can we kill someone we are trying to love? We wouldn't want someone to do that to us, so to actively love our neighbor as ourselves, we won't kill them. Nor will we steal from them, lay with their spouse, etc. I believe you covered these in one of your posts already. But on an even more obscure level, consider not rendering evil for evil, but good for evil. To actively practive love is to be forgiving, so we offer the other cheek instead of striking back. If someone sues us for our cloak, we exercise the active attitude of love in giving to them as they have need. If someone asks you to go with them a mile, go with them two, because they wouldn't have asked the one if they didn't need help ... so to go with them beyond what they requested is a loving attitude in practical application. This, I believe, is what Stultis was getting at. As stated in Romans 13, love (the active practice of doing those things that are indicative of a loving attitude) is the fulfillment of the law, does no harm to another, and all the commandments are summed up by it. So to answer his question in truth, what commands do we have that have nothing to do with love? I would have to say, "none." Every command I see, whether going to church or giving tithes, humbling yourself or being forgiving ... they are all products of an active loving attitude. To quote John, "If a man loves his brother he walks in the light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him." I would even go so far as to say that if you are actively practicing love, I really can't see any reason why we should ever stumble, fall, or sin. Your thoughts? Xerxes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |