wolfbiblemoon

Jesus says that when you hold a banquet you shouldn't invite people you hope will return the favour but instead the poor and needy because then you'll be repaid in the afterlife. You'd still be doing it in hope of a reward though wouldn't you, rather than helping the needy for the sake of helping them.

It still seems to me that people who sin and then repent will be treated better than those who never ever sin, this sort of arrangement seems to favour doing whatever you want for most of your life and then just repenting before the end.

A rich man who goes to hell for his general selfishness and particular bad treatment of a poor man who died at his gate begs Abraham to send the poor man from heaven to the rich man's family to warn them so they can avoid going to hell. Abraham says that if they've not responded to the prophets so far then someone returning from the dead wouldn't convince them either.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

zteccc.livejournal.com

Chapter 14
Verses 7-11 If we start with a humble attitude, we stand to be elevated by those around us. If we have a prideful attitude, we can only go down.

Verses 12-14 When we have a party and invite guests, we have an ulterior motive. Perhaps we want to impress our guests (our boss perhaps, to get a promotion). Perhaps we want to show off in front of our family (an in-law who we compete with). If we invite only those who need help, then it can't be about impressing someone any more. It isn't about promoting ourselves, but about helping them.
As to being paid later, we are rewarded for good works of faith, not for material gain. If we help only for a reward from God, then we really aren't helping, we're back to the ulterior motive.

Verses 25-33 Being a Christian isn't easy. It requires a total commitment.

Verses 34-35 If one chooses to be a Christian, one needs to act as a Christian.

Chapter 15
Verses 8-10 When even one person in a large group is reached for God, there is cause to celebrate. Christians make the attempt to reach that one, even if they are rejected by a majority.

Verses 11-32 To understand the prodigal son, start by acknowledging that everybody sins. People sin, it is part of our nature and we need to acknowledge it. We therefore all have to repent for something and God forgives all of us if we accept the forgiveness.

The prodigal son could have refused forgiveness and lived as a slave just as some people live as slaves of sin today. Instead the prodigal son humbly returned home and asked forgiveness and it was granted.

The son who had remained home still sinned. He acted jealously to his brother and selfishly demanded an explanation from the father (what business was it of his if the father wanted to spend some of his wealth in some fashion). Further, he chose to be prideful of his service to his father rather than humbly recognizing that the father had great rewards for him and that it was the father's money to spend as he desired. The father still forgave him as well and said "... everything I have is yours."

It is dangerous to assume one could live a life of sin and then attempt to repent at the end. First of all, nobody knows when their end wll be. Perhaps they will be hit by a bus tomorrow before they "repent". Second, would that "repentance" truly be repentance? If they never humbly acknowledge their sin, then they never repent. If a person chooses a path of sin willfully with the scheme to "repent" at the end, then this isn't humility and the repentance wouldn't be real. Finally, one misses out on any blessings available for those who are faithful throughout one's life as well as in Heaven.

Chapter 16
Verses 1-13 Jesus tells of the dishonest practices of nonbelievers and warns that following those practices are harmful. We should use the wealth of this world for good purposes rather than greed or deception. It isn't a sin to have or use wealth, but we need to use it in accordance with faith.

Verses 19-31
The account of the rich man and the poor man (Lazarus) is about Jesus. The rich man ignored the teachings of the prophets and ignored God and went to hell. He begged for someone to help his family, but his family wasn't inclined to follow God. Even if presented with someone resurrected, they wouldn't listen. As we'll read in John, a man named Lazarus was resurrected by Jesus. The Pharisees wanted to put him to death (again) too rather than listen to Jesus or Lazarus' words.

We are all presented with someone who was resurrected. Certainly we've read about Jesus and we know His promises, but so many simply won't listen to His words even though he came back from the dead. They don't even listen with an open mind any more than they accept the words of the prophets.

-- Jeff

(deleted comment)

From:

zteccc.livejournal.com

Uncommon Mom,

First off, thank you for your comment. I thought it was very well expressed and it made me think a bit.

My intent here, is largely the same intent that Wolf has expressed. She posts her reaction to the scripture that she reads. I do the same.

I do respond to her comments in my posts, for example in this one, all three of her comments prompted responses in my post. Added to that are my takes on scriptures that I find interesting or important, especially if they are things that others gloss over.

Sometimes I fall into "Lecture Mode" (my wife's term). I think, speak and write like a textbook. I realize that it is difficult. I'm working on it, but it isn't easy. Wolf commented on it and I changed my posting style somewhat (look back to the early Matthew posts and OT for older examples).

I find it challenging to respond to a one line comment that I disagree with in a short space, especially because I don't know what the commenter knows. Look at my response to the prodigal son story. I reduced it significantly from my original writing and it is still long because I thought it needed the explanation.

I could simply say something like "it doesn't say that, it says some other thing", but with the added substantiation (background, history, translational notes, etc.), I go from stating an opinion to supported faith.

I would love to have a conversation about Christianity. I'd love to engage in debate about Christianity and atheism based on their merits. Unfortunately, the nature of Wolf's daily postings makes that extremely difficult. Every day there is so much of value to read, analyze and post. I suggested to her that she might want to slow down to just 1 chapter a day in the New Testament because I feared this very thing would happen, but it is her site and her time line that we follow.

I'm still attempting to reduce the length of my posts although they will rarely be considered "short" because I am always responding to statements made by others, as I respond to anyone who posts a reply to one of my comments.

Even in my response here, I've written more than you probably want to read. Let me just say I'm working on it and I appreciate your opinion.

-- Jeff

(deleted comment)

From:

zteccc.livejournal.com

Sorry for the delay in responding. Life has gotten very busy.

You suggest that my posts are about me. I think everyone's posts are about them. A person wouldn't post if they didn't think they had anything of value to post. So, yes, my posts are somewhat about me, just as your posts are somewhat about you and Wolf's are somewhat about her. Are they all about me? No.

Outside of my first name, there is little in my posts that indicate anything about me. Not where I live, who I am, what denomination I adhere to, etc. I only started posting my first name because another poster couldn't determine my gender from my posts. So the posts clearly aren't about me very much. They are about my beliefs, same as everyone.

If, as you suggested, I created a journal, that journal would definitely be about me. It would even be more about me if I then tried to link to my journal from this one, dragging people from here to read mine. I think that would be rude to Wolf. The discussion is here, not on any journal that I may create, so here is where I'll post.

Am I confusing fact with belief? Not really. Most people post their beliefs and support them with fact. I certainly include them in the same paragraphs, but just as clearly, you were able to determine which portions were factual and which portions were from my beliefs. Contextually, there is no confusion. Of course some of my text is not so much my beliefs as my understanding of the scripture. For example, my post regarding Verses 25-33 is a simplification of those verses. I took 9 verses, and distilled them to one simple sentence. That isn't a historical fact, nor my opinion, but a simplification to make the scripture easier and more accessible.

As to my "assumption" that anyone wants or needs my information, I'll refer to the same information that you did. Wolf has admitted that she doesn't have any experience or background with the scripture. As such, her interpretations are based on this lack of experience and background. That's fine as far as it goes, but to understand a response to the posts, one often needs that background. I'm attempting to do so since her preface obviously shows that she understands that this lack could color her views (very insightful of her by the way).
You are correct that an opinion isn't wrong based on the information given, but with additional information, an opinion might be shown to be uninformed and therefore incorrect. I'm helping to provide that information in the same way that any of us would provide information to anyone that we perceived as needing assistance to understand something.

If you need an example, consider the opinion of President George W. Bush regarding Iraq's ability to produce nuclear material prior to going to war. It was clearly his opinion, based on the information he had been given, but it was also clearly incorrect.

You are complaining more about my style of posting than the content of my posts. I'm sure, from your posts, that you don't agree with me, but you don't challenge my content or conclusions, rather you challenge my style. I find that interesting because that is a tactic often used by those who cannot mount a substantive challenge in a debate. If you don't like one of my posts or have examples of me using questionable logic or translations, challenge the content of it. I'll be happy to respond.

As I said in my first response, I'm working on my style. Wolf asked me to earlier and I made some changes. I'm still working on it.

Finally, at the end of the day, this is Wolf's journal. She can decide if she wants me to stop posting and if she requests me to do so, I'll stop. No questions, no arguments. Until she does so, I'll continue and reserve the right to post opinion mixed with fact, just as all of us do.

From: (Anonymous)

I think the point isn't all about the reward but in believing so much in Jesus' promise of an afterlife reward that it influences the decisions made here. Its putting "your money where your mouth is" by investing in people now and getting a return on that investment after you die-- - -That takes pretty radically strong belief.

From:

sec-sam.livejournal.com

Search for Non Posse Non Peccare. When you find the translation read the biblical explanation and then reconsider you comparison of those that sin and do not sin.

For Jesus said: There is only ONE way to the Father and that is through Jesus.(paraphrased)