General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

I have the bible
Which is why I clearly have made the distinction between Biblically based Christianity and all other forms of it.

But not between Christianity and non-Christianity.

Again you can call yourself christian 'small c' all you want. It means nothing.

On the contrary - it is the only classification that means anything.

Again right or wrong is not determined in the building process, as both men were allowed to build where ever and whatever they wanted. To build correctly is to build on the foundation Jesus Christ Identifies as the Rock. This Rock is only described in the bible.

Choosing a foundation is part of the process- which means right or wrong is determined by the building process.

Indeed
I've posted it a couple times in this thread already. Here it is again:
1 cor 3
And you are a house that belongs to God. 10 Like an expert builder I built the foundation of that house. I used the gift that God gave me to do this. Other people are building on that foundation. But everyone should be careful how they build. 11 The foundation that has already been built is Jesus Christ, and no one can build any other foundation. 12 People can build on that foundation using gold, silver, jewels, wood, grass, or straw. 13 But the work that each person does will be clearly seen, because the Day will make it plain. That Day will appear with fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work. 14 If the building they put on the foundation still stands, they will get their reward. 15 But if their building is burned up, they will suffer loss. They will be saved, but it will be like someone escaping from a fire.

16 You should know that you yourselves are God’s temple.[a] God’s Spirit lives in you. 17 If you destroy God’s temple, God will destroy you, because God’s temple is holy. You yourselves are God’s temple.

Sounds like evidence disproving their homelessness - they claim to have built upon the foundation of your Christ - just their process for the rest is different. Instead of referring to the bible, they refer to something else. And since you have not established that their house has fallen, you have no basis to consider them non-Christians.

Here we mark answers wrong. we do not mark them correct.

And wrong answers are not given any points. So, would Fr0d0 get any points given his 'flawed' understanding of your god?

Been there done that refer to an old mountain dew commercial. To have been there done that is to have expereinced a place and a given activity. To say you have been there done that about christianity means you were a Christian.

I didn't say "been there, done that" about Christianity - I said it about "making an honest effort to determine the truth". You don't have to be a Christian to determine the truth about Christianity.

Which is fine so long as we are speaking of 'c'hristianity.

We are always only speaking of 'C'hristianity.

Then cut and paste frodo's answer. I do not read anything addressed to someone else.

"The mainstream Christian churches do talk together and so reach consensus on what constitutes mainstream Christianity. The core component is adherence to the Nicene creed (a particular iteration).

It is by this kind of deliberation that Christians will consider if others can be called partners in Christ. There's a line of non acceptance, and a huge variety of denominational differences incorporated into the mainstream."

Because the bible is apart of their worship. How much will be judged on a person by person basis by God. Mormons only use the bible as a recruitment tool. Their leading 'prophet' idntified the bible as being corrupt and not good source for doctrine.

Not according to them - they say that bible is a part of their worship. Just not the corrupted parts.

Then provide a link.

https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

Then if true this means they are not bible based Christians are they? I am only speaking to bible based Christians and have done from the start. These are Joseph smith based christians, and build their christianity on a foundation joseph smith has laid.

And why have you been speaking only of "biblical Christians"? I didn't ask about "biblical Christians". My questions were regarding Christians. FYI, the foundation they claim is Jesus Christ - its just the question of where they get the foundation. You say you get it only from the bible, they say they get from the bible and Joseph Smith.

Then provide a link to the dictionary you sourced this defination.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extra-Biblical

again not a valid arguement as your defination for the term 'extra biblical' is based on something you just made up.

Liar.

It's very simple. a Christian (Large C denoting Someone Identified and recognised by God.) Is the one in 1 cor 3 who has built his house on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Who is Tested by Christ's water, and by Paul's fire. (The water completely washes away the indivisual/not saved and the fire consumes all the works leaving the person in Heaven as if he were homeless/saved) the small 'c'christian is one who builds his house/faith on someone elses interpretation of who Jesus is, and is washed away. The Large 'C'Hristian is one who may enter Heaven with nothing to enter Heaven to great reward.

Given that there hasn't been any confirmed identification or recognition by your hypothetical god, your usage of Christian becomes meaningless. Given that 1 cor 3 only establishes that "foundation" is to be laid by your Christ and doesn't establish which iteration or interpretation is correct (other than a test the results of which we are not privy to), you have no basis to claim that any of the interpretations given by others is incorrect. And finally, the definition you gave was about Mainstream Christianity - not who your hypothetical god would like.

Done

So you realize that you are not a mainstream Christian.

Ah, no. Mainstream and popular culture have nothing to do with each other. Because what is popular in the culture may not have anything to do with what is mainstream.

The depths of your ignorance never cease to amaze me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

"Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media."

In this instance, specifically biblical Christians may not be the largest group who identifythemselves as christian, but they are indeed the vast majority who have been identified as Christian by God.

If they are not the largest group then they are not the majority. And if they are not majority then they are not mainstream. And there is no evidence your god exists, much less he has done any statistical identification.

... No other source claims to be a direct teaching of Christ. therefore sole source. The gospels were written by eye witness to Christ/Apstoles or by scribes who wrote for the apstole. First person second person experience

Even the book of mormon does not claim to be a direct teaching of Christ. The revelation taught in mormonism was derived from special gold plates that only joseph smith could feel and see, and was translated by an angel one letter at a time when he looked into a hat.

Orgin of invisiable gold plates aside, the transcriber of the plate was not one of the orginal twelve diciples as they did not have access to the amount of gold needed to compile the book of mormon, the book of doctrine and covenants, and the 'pearl of great price.' All of which contain 'the third testament.' so that means the orginator was the first person, then you have joseph smith who was calling out these books one letter at a time, then you have the 'angel' who was giving the translation, finally you have the publisher who is writting it all down. we are at least 5 people removed. two of which are not identifiable. The orginal author and the guy who transcribed them onto "gold plates."

A lot of sources "claim" to be the direct teachings of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is all your bible does as well - claims to be the direct teaching of Christ.

uh, no. Read his quote again. 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt.' then he lists how it has been corrupted. The book of doctrine and covenants is a third testament which means he intended it to replace the 'new testament' as people in his day thought the new testament superceeded the old.

What quote? That 'The bible as we have it is completely corrupt'. But that is not what Smith said. That is your interpretation. His actual quote was about how it has been corrupted, not that it was completely corrupt. And since the corruption only applies to current bible and not the original, your argument falls flat.

not at all. Jospeh Smith said that becuse the corruption ran so deep in Judaism and Christianty He send a special breed of white jew across asia across the land bridge between what is now russia and alaska, down the west coast into his home town, and burried these invisiable plates to keep them safe from the 'red man', and shortly there after the 'savages' wiped out the whole colony.

How does this differ from the dead sea scrolls? well primarly we have the actual scrolls. Many have examined them and studied them. We know them to be several hundred years older than anything else we had up to that point. Not only that aside from a few gramatical errors the bible stands as it did before the discovery.

With joey's imaginary one can not claim the perservation of God's word because the source material does not exist.

Given the absence of any actual evidence that those scrolls were from god, as far as claims go, those two are on equal footing.

I never said that. another straw man. I said the message I presented to you was directly from scripture. that particular message was.

And since it was presented via exegesis, it wasn't directly from the scripture.

So Paul a Pharisee/Rabbi/Teacher of the Law does not know how to rightly divid Jewish scripture?

He is wrong in his observations regarding humanity - I said nothing of scriptural division.

Your an Idiot.

Still smarter than you.

How much pride does it take to assume that the bible is wrong about it self while you (can admit to not knowing much about it) remain right?

Not much. Identifying where a simple statement does not match reality is not a significant achievement. But it is, apparently, beyond you.

Can you name one person who has not ever hated another?

According to Christ to hate another is the same as Killing them.

The your Christ was wrong as well - hating someone is not the same as killing them. Otherwise, you'd be dead.