General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

Omni benevolence is offered to the followers of Christ, it is the application of Omni benevolence to all of humanity that is wrong. Papal authority is not different than what David koresh has done.
So in the first instance forgiveness can be found because of a simple error, while the other who worship outside of the bible, will be upto God to judge.

Thus proving my point - accepting extra-biblical teachings does not stop you from being a Christian.

Nor does it insure that you are a Christian either. Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.

The meaning of the word "allowed" in your statement "you are allowed to understand god however you want" was changed.

Then "Allow" me to return it to the conversation. As Two men in Jesus' parable were 'ALLOWED' To build a house any where they wanted, but ultimatly only the wise man was praised in the end for building his house correctly.

That would not be consistent with the parable of the wise and foolish builder. Again I am not making this stuff up as i go. Christ himself has been recorded in giving this parable that allows for two types of houses being built. One to code and one the way we want. Again God allowed both houses to be built therefore God allows us to seek Him any way we want.

Validation does not come in the building of the house but through the storms that follow.

However, the fact does not change that both of them are building a house - meaning, even if Mormons interpret Christianity differently, they'd still be Christians.

Not Christian, both men are religious. In the end being a Christian is the difference between having a home, and being homeless. Just because a man once owned or built a home does not mean 'life' will not leave him 'homeless' in the end.

The same way a teacher communicates which answers are expected and how the students would be tested and judged - so my statement that ""Allowing" the rest is as meaningless as saying "you are allowed to give wrong answers in the exam if you want - you just won't get any marks"." - describes your philosophy pretty accurately.

If you say so. Where I live wrong answers are the ones that get marked.

That's not what you said in your last post. In reference to Christianity you said 'Been there done that.' then proceeded to make your point.

I don't have to be a Christian to evaluate Christianity.

It is the 'Done that" part of your cliche that says you were Christian.

Not true. as you have yet to establish the term 'main stream christianity.'

Fr0d0 did that.

I am not speaking to frodo. I am speaking to you. You need to define your own terms so i can beat you with them later. If you use frodo's terms you have an excuse as to the reason why you should not be beaten with your adopted philosphy.

So, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?

Catholics identify themselves as Catholics first. God will determine whether or not they are Christians. Are their doctrines sole sourced in the bible? no.

And i provided links to official websites where the book of doctrine and covenants took precedent. thus invalidating your wiki claim, and if you keep reading I will post a quote from the founder of that religion that further refutes your claim.

And why would those taking precedence stop them from being Christians?

Because they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith first and not Christ. To be 'Christian' one must follow the teachings of Christ first.

Except my understanding is based on the evidence you provided - not your so-say. When I say "your arguments support my claim" I mean the evidence provided within your arguments.

Specifically, you've given evidence through biblical quote that your god is not omni-benevolent - I accept that evidence. Meaning, that particular claim is extra-biblical. But it is also a claim that most Christians believe - therefore, extra-biblical claims are accepted within Christianity.

You misidentified the claim. To be 'Extra-biblical' means to add to what the bible says. Not to correct an assertion based on a 'extra biblical claim.' Example to claim the omni benevolence of God one must source material not found in scripture or they must superimpose meaning onto the text/take it out of context. (eisogesis) This is an extra biblical claim. to correct the claim is not extra biblical because the content of the bible was used to compile the correction. This complation is known as an exegesis. Which is not extra biblical even though it is not found in the bible word for word.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical

Then correct that identification.

Mainstream Christianity are those who seek to follow the teaching of Christianity as outlined in scripture, forsaking all extrabiblical teachings, especially concerning the message of attonement and salvation.

Yes

Finally a straight answer - so, what's the basis for this condition?

The bible. The bible is the sole source for biblically based Christianity. If one seeks to worship and be redemeded by the God of the bible then it is to the bible one must turn for instruction for redemption.

Again no. I defined Doctrine. Incase you forgot Doctrine is : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-Merriam Webster.
There is not one valid principle in the bible that the Mormons hold to if it is not also found in one of their other religious books.

Which makes any share principles just that share principles. Again the bible's only use is that of a recruitment tool for the Mormon church. other wise it is dismissed as being corrupt by the jews.

Whether or not they are shared is irrelevant - if the biblical principles are held, then bible is a doctrine for them.

Not true.
Here is the defination you keep reading past that you must first reconsile for your statement to have any traction: Doctrine:
" principle or position or the body of principles in a system of belief"

Joseph Smith 'doctrine' includes the whole sale dismissle of the bible as anything other than a recruitment tool. According to him "all of it's teachings are corupt." That is why he has invented his own book of doctrine and covenants.

untrue. Joseph Smith Started Mormonism because he thought the bible was far too corrupt to follow.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

Sounds like a true-blue Christian to me - say that you believe in the bible as it was originally written. Admit that it was corrupted by humans over time. Then go on to pick and choose the parts that suit you.

Where did I say that? I have said many times that we are responsiable for all the bible however it is written. If God does not agree with what is written it is on Him to forgive for following a corrupt book, change what is written with a discovery like the dea sea scrolls or perserve the word where it is critical.

[quote='Drich' pid='755358' dateline='1411249910'] You didn't read 'ALL' of Romans 3 did you? If you did you would have not had a need "interpret" who the word 'all' refers to. Verses 9-20 tell us who 'all' is exactly.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? ......
So you see old sport, 'all' Means ALL. That is why when 21-31 refers to all we know ALL does not mean some. Because as verse 20 says None can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows our sin.
This includes the laws that govern not only the moral code buy religious acts. We know this because the original Greek word that is translated into the word 'law' in English is νόμος or transliterated nomos. It means:
I.anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
of any law whatsoever
A. a law or rule producing a state approved of God
B. by the observance of which is approved of God

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3551&t=KJV

I see, so the "all" here refers to all the sinners and not the whole world.

Because, you see, in 15, 16 and 17, your bible makes specific claims which are demonstrably untrue regarding the whole world.

Oh, I do love it when you guys want to teach from the bible

For proper exegesis to take place we must first identify the subject of the passage being discussed. Verse 9 does this when it identifies both the Jew and the gentile/non-jews. That everyone sport. because in Paul's line of sight there was only Jews and gentiles.

Now we must look for any special qualifiers that would proclude verse nine from applying to verses 15-17.

We find a possiablity in verse 10, as Paul refers to 'scripture.' in that he says "Scriptures say" meaning he is quoting the Old testament here as his writting were not considered to be scripture yet.

Next we look for the context in which Paul quoted. He quotes from psalm 14, Psalm 53, Both here refer to 'Unbelievers.'
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV
Psalms 5:9
refers to evil people/"Those in whom God hates."
Those who are not God's people. Which means everyone who does not carry the attonement offered by Christ. So again when Paul says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in verse 9 he means the whole world.

How ever if you want to look at who is specifically being targeted in 15, 16, and 17 we can see that in 15 Paul is quoting the passage from Proverbs 1:16
15 My son, don’t follow them. Don’t even take the first step along that path. 16 They run to do something evil, and they cannot wait to kill someone.
17 You cannot trap birds with a net if they see you spreading it out. 18 But evil people cannot see the trap they set for themselves.

Clearly 'evil people' (considering verses 1-18) are those in this world.
Verse

Again in Isaha 59:7 we have the same language used to describe the evil people of Israel. We know this was directed towards the jews because Isaha was not an evangelist. He was a prophet sent to correct and call the jews to repentance.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

So clearly as Paul had intended in verse 9 of Romans 3 when he said 'All" He was refering to God's people as well as those who are not. (He even says as much in verse 9)

Will have to finish the rest in installments.