The good man that turned bad out of necessity

[Nathaniel]

I corrected him as soon as I saw that post.

Wonderful, great job. Since we are having this conversation anyway. May I refer you to post #1666, a very fitting number I might add, in the thread "What books are you reading." You were shocked by my reply, but not until this evening, and that exchange was a ways back. I reported the comment at the time, nothing happened. I'm curious as to what you thought of the comment which I responded to, it was actually right there in the comment that you thought was such a WOW

 

[Debp]

Seriously?
Sir, I fart in your general direction.
Have a nice day.

Your above comment was the one to which I gave a wow emoji.

@Jay Ross 's comment sounded sensible. If you reported it and it still remains, the administrator or moderator saw no problem with what he said. Following is Jay Ross's statement:

"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

Wonderful, great job. Since we are having this conversation anyway. May I refer you to post #1666, a very fitting number I might add, in the thread "What books are you reading." You were shocked by my reply, but not until this evening, and that exchange was a ways back. I reported the comment at the time, nothing happened. I'm curious as to what you thought of the comment which I responded to, it was actually right there in the comment that you thought was such a WOW

 

[Matthias]

View attachment 90492

Proposal rejected.

Thought: Followers of Jesus don’t kill each other. The modest proposal wasn’t made to them.

 

[Nathaniel]

Your above comment was the one to which I gave a wow emoji.

@Jay Ross 's comment sounded sensible. If you reported it and it still remains, the administrator or moderator saw no problem with what he said. Following is Jay Ross's statement:

"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

So let me make sure that I have this correct. I don't want there to be any misunderstandings concerning what moderators in this forum consider sensible Christlike commentary.

A new member (me) comes into your community, he responds to a thread that asks "what books you are reading?" He lists two books and another that he plans to read again soon. These are Christian books, written by highly esteemed Christian authors.

And then one of your long time members decides to respond to this new member. There is no "hello, welcome to the forum", "God bless you, glad you are here", "Hi Nate, my name is Jay", and no previous interactions at all between this long time member and myself.

But instead, he says this:

"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

He first presumes and accuses me of never opening my bible.
"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all.."

This is someone who has never met me in this forum before, or said a single word to me. Mind you, this is only my 6th or 7th post since joining your little club.

But it gets better.
"...unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened..."

What does this even mean? It's such a poorly constructed sentence that I have difficulty following along. "Scriptures" is in quotations. Does he presume that the scriptures quoted in the books I'm reading are not reliable? Or is he suggesting that since my bible is never opened, that the only place I would encounter the word of God would be in some extra biblical resource?

But wait, there's more.
"..to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

So apparently, I don't read my Bible.
I only read books other than the bible.
The books that I read other than the bible are somehow less than "scriptural".
And the only reason I read these books is to justify some preconceived narrative or agenda not supported by the scriptures themselves, which I apparently never read.

And this comment, this unkind, presumptuous, baseless attack upon the motives and character of a fellow believer is what you consider sensible here at Christianityboard?

 

[Matthias]

So let me make sure that I have this correct. I don't want there to be any misunderstandings concerning what moderators in this forum consider sensible Christlike commentary.

A new member (me) comes into your community, he responds to a thread that asks "what books you are reading?" He lists two books and another that he plans to read again soon. These are Christian books, written by highly esteemed Christian authors.

And then one of your long time members decides to respond to this new member. There is no "hello, welcome to the forum", "God bless you, glad you are here", "Hi Nate, my name is Jay", and no previous interactions at all between this long time member and myself.

But instead, he says this:

"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

He first presumes and accuses me of never opening my bible.
"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all.."

This is someone who has never met me in this forum before, or said a single word to me. Mind you, this is only my 6th or 7th post since joining your little club.

But it gets better.
"...unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened..."

What does this even mean? It's such a poorly constructed sentence that I have difficulty following along. "Scriptures" is in quotations. Does he presume that the scriptures quoted in the books I'm reading are not reliable? Or is he suggesting that since my bible is never opened, that the only place I would encounter the word of God would be in some extra biblical resource?

But wait, there's more.
"..to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

So apparently, I don't read my Bible.
I only read books other than the bible.
The books that I read other than the bible are somehow less than "scriptural".
And the only reason I read these books is to justify some preconceived narrative or agenda not supported by the scriptures themselves, which I apparently never read.

And this comment, this unkind, presumptuous, baseless attack upon the motives and character of a fellow believer is what you consider sensible here at Christianityboard?

I haven’t known you for very long but my first impression of you was that you’re a regular reader of the Bible. You haven’t said anything that has caused me to change that impression. We may not always see things the same way but I’m glad you’re here.

 

[Nathaniel]

I haven’t known you for very long but my first impression of you was that you’re a regular reader of the Bible. You haven’t said anything that has caused me to change that impression. We may not always see things the same way but I’m glad you’re here.

Thank you Matthias, I feel the same about you brother. If it were not for brothers such as yourself and a couple others, this place would be unbearable.

But alas, it matters not. I have been threatening to get rid of this smart phone for a while now. My service ends today, and when it does I will be activating a little dumb phone instead. In a few months or so I may get a tablet, but probably not.

It has been a pleasure talking with you and answering your questions.
I like your posts. Take care and be blessed.

 

[Matthias]

He only did it to survive.

He didn’t recognize the things that make for peace. That’s the story of man separated from God.

 

[Matthias]

“The passage in Romans 5 [verses 8 and 10] stresses that people usually will not die for their enemies. But the text raises a question. Do we really believe in our hearts that God had forgiven us while we were still enemies of God and the Jesus way? If so, we will joyously be about loving our enemies, whether or not we think they are deserving of our love. If we are reconciled to God, we will become ministers of reconciliation.”

(Dale W. Brown, Biblical Pacifism, p. 146)

What is the “Jesus way”?

 

[Matthias]

Christianity is the religion of peace.

Is that what Yahweh, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles intended?

Is that what fractured and fragmented Christianity has delivered?

 

[Matthias]

“Peace is a central theme in the biblical narrative and is often depicted as a hallmark of God’s Kingdom. The concept of peace in the Bible transcends mere absence of conflict; it encompasses a holistic sense of well-being, harmony, and reconciliation with God and others. …

Peace, as a marker of God’s Kingdom, is a profound and multifaceted concept in the Bible. It is both a present reality and a future hope, rooted in the person and work of Jesus Christ. As believers live out this peace, they bear witness to the transformative power of God’s Kingdom in the world.”

(“Peace as a Marker of God’s Kingdom”)

https://biblehub.com/topical/p/peace_as_a_marker_of_god's_kingdom.htm

 

[Debp]

So let me make sure that I have this correct. I don't want there to be any misunderstandings concerning what moderators in this forum consider sensible Christlike commentary.

A new member (me) comes into your community, he responds to a thread that asks "what books you are reading?" He lists two books and another that he plans to read again soon. These are Christian books, written by highly esteemed Christian authors.

And then one of your long time members decides to respond to this new member. There is no "hello, welcome to the forum", "God bless you, glad you are here", "Hi Nate, my name is Jay", and no previous interactions at all between this long time member and myself.

But instead, he says this:

"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

He first presumes and accuses me of never opening my bible.
"Sounds like the Bible is not opened at all.."

This is someone who has never met me in this forum before, or said a single word to me. Mind you, this is only my 6th or 7th post since joining your little club.

But it gets better.
"...unless you are relying upon the "scriptures" used in the two books that you have opened..."

What does this even mean? It's such a poorly constructed sentence that I have difficulty following along. "Scriptures" is in quotations. Does he presume that the scriptures quoted in the books I'm reading are not reliable? Or is he suggesting that since my bible is never opened, that the only place I would encounter the word of God would be in some extra biblical resource?

But wait, there's more.
"..to justify a particular thrust of understanding."

So apparently, I don't read my Bible.
I only read books other than the bible.
The books that I read other than the bible are somehow less than "scriptural".
And the only reason I read these books is to justify some preconceived narrative or agenda not supported by the scriptures themselves, which I apparently never read.

And this comment, this unkind, presumptuous, baseless attack upon the motives and character of a fellow believer is what you consider sensible here at Christianityboard?

Are you willing to forgive @Jay Ross for what you perceive to be an offense against yourself?

 

[Nathaniel]

Are you willing to forgive @Jay Ross for what you perceive to be an offense against yourself?

I've already forgiven him, and ignored him. And it wasn't perceived, it was an actual offense. But it wasn't against me. That's the point.
And much worse is said around here that goes completely ignored by the staff. Or perhaps the staff is ill equipped to deal with it.
I would think that we would first be seeking to love one another in these forums, and secondly to shine the light of Christ for those lost souls seeking to find their way home.
How many true seekers arrive here looking for love and comfort, hope and redemption, only to spend 10 minutes in one of the threads and leave, never to return? And who could blame them?

 

[Debp]

And much worse is said around here that goes completely ignored by the staff. Or perhaps the staff is ill equipped to deal with it.

This is a busy forum so we can't read everything in all of the various threads. That is why we ask members to report posts.

 

[Nathaniel]

I haven’t known you for very long but my first impression of you was that you’re a regular reader of the Bible. You haven’t said anything that has caused me to change that impression. We may not always see things the same way but I’m glad you’re here.

You are far too kind. And you probably just missed it, and I'm glad. I may have not said anything that would appear to be out of line on the surface, but by my understanding in the Spirit, I have fallen far below the mark I set for myself, and far far below that of my Father's will.

I've said things on line, to my shame, that would get me slapped on the sidewalk, maybe in church, but in here those same words may illicit a wow, but the next thread over someone else is saying something even more ridiculous and outrageous. It's hard not to notice and it's hard not to react, even if just internally. I've survived (and caused) a ton of emotional negativity in my lifetime. It's no longer my thing, and hasn't been, all glory to Christ, for some time now.

I really enjoy the fellowship, but such as yourself, I'm a man of peace. So much peace. I love His peace, and His mercy and His loving kindness, and His joy and all that good stuff.

Much love in Christ bro.
God's will and Godspeed!

 

[Matthias]

Is Christianity the religion of peace?

Here’s what AI Overview says about it:

“Christianity contains a profound core message of peace, love, and forgiveness, but history and texts also reveal significant paradoxes. Whether it is considered a peaceful religion depends on whether you look at the foundational teachings of Jesus Christ or the historical and political actions of Christian institutions.

Core teachings and Pacifism

• The example of Jesus: The New Testament centers on the life and words if Jesus, who explicitly preached nonviolence, mercy, and reconciliation.

• Famous Directives: Jesus instructed followers to ‘turn the other cheek,’ love their enemies, and act as peacemakers.

• Early Church: For its first three centuries, Christianity was a marginalized minority. The early church largely practiced strict Christian pacifism, refusing military service and accepting persecution rather than inflicting violence.

• Modern Pacifism: Major historical figures Martin Luther King Jr. and organizations like the historic peace churches draw directly from Christian principles to champion nonviolent social change.

Historical Violence and Conflict

• The ‘Just War’ Tradition: As Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, theologians like Augustine developed ‘just war’ theories, arguing that violence could sometimes be morally necessary to protect the innocent or stop greater evil.

• State-Sanctioned Violence: Christian institutions have a long history of military engagement and coercion. Major examples include the Crusades, the Inquisition, forced conversions, and European wars of religion following the Reformation.

• Political Alignment: Critics point out that when the church had political power, it frequently functioned like any other state empire - using religious justification to conquer, suppress dissent, and wage war.”

I haven’t come up with anything new or clever @Riven. It’s just church history, which anyone can - and should - read for themselves.

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning -

“Muslims kill Christians.

Christians pray for Muslims.

Christianity is the true religion of peace.”

Danny (@Truth_matters20) on X

Muslims kill Christians. Christians pray for Muslims. Christianity is the true religion of peace.

x.com

Not when it kills Muslims (and / or other enemies of Christianity.)

 

[Riven]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning -

“Muslims kill Christians.

Christians pray for Muslims.

Christianity is the true religion of peace.”

Danny (@Truth_matters20) on X

Muslims kill Christians. Christians pray for Muslims. Christianity is the true religion of peace.

x.com

Not when it kills Muslims (and / or other enemies of Christianity.)

They would bring up the crusades.

 

[Matthias]

They would bring up the crusades.

They should. (If they didn’t, I might. I would certainly be prepared for it.)

Crusades = Christianity betrayed; an apostate Christianity.

 

[David in NJ]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning -

“Muslims kill Christians.

Christians pray for Muslims.

Christianity is the true religion of peace.”

Danny (@Truth_matters20) on X

Muslims kill Christians. Christians pray for Muslims. Christianity is the true religion of peace.

x.com

Not when it kills Muslims (and / or other enemies of Christianity.)

Putting down shariah law terrorists who commit rape, torture and murder the 'jew & christian infidels' is a GOOD THING to do!

If governments around the world did this, there would be safety for the citizens who do not commit such violence upon the innocent!

Instead, we see governments being overtaken by shariah law advocates who are just waiting for their time to murder in the name of allah

English Standard Version
They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

Berean Standard Bible
They will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.

King James Bible
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

New King James Version
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

New American Standard Bible
They will ban you from the synagogue, yet an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering a service to God.

 

[Matthias]

Putting down shariah law terrorists who commit rape, torture and murder the 'jew & christian infidels' is a GOOD THING to do!

If governments around the world did this, there would be safety for the citizens who do not commit such violence upon the innocent!

Instead, we see governments being overtaken by shariah law advocates who are just waiting for their time to murder in the name of allah

English Standard Version
They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

Berean Standard Bible
They will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.

King James Bible
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

New King James Version
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

New American Standard Bible
They will ban you from the synagogue, yet an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering a service to God.

Romans 13. What a government of the world does is not the same as what the follower of Jesus does.

 

[David in NJ]

Romans 13. What a government of the world does is not the same as what the follower of Jesus does.

REPEAT
Putting down shariah law terrorists who commit rape, torture and murder the 'jew & christian infidels' is a GOOD THING to do!

If governments around the world did this, there would be safety for the citizens who do not commit such violence upon the innocent!