Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[bbyrd009]

A certain season?
Maybe.
Maybe we know nothing...
Sometimes I wonder...
Tomorrow bb
Buona Notte

ciao, bella

 

[jimd]

j
You have successfully explained co-dependency.
I understand about enabling.

Now, could you explain interdependency?
I'm afraid bb gave me two examples...
I know good ole' Chuck,
But not the Cooper guy.

An interdependent relationship is where both partners are mutually reliant on each other. It is a safe bond where partners can rely on each other but also maintain their autonomous identity.

 

[amadeus]

LOL
Because not everybody is a Christian!
When Christianity was new, they lived as a family.
One would never sue someone in their own family.
Today, this has changed.

God's Word has not changed, even if people's ways have changed. Really I don't believe that the hearts of people have ever changed much with the exception of a few believers who allowed themselves to be changed by God. There needs to be brothers and sisters who resolve any differences among themselves rather going outside the Church for judgment...or Jesus came for nothing. He did not!

 

[amadeus]

Hi bbyrd,

Let's pretend that the difference is I say abortion is murder, she says it isn't.

Which Church do we go to settle this difference?

Mary

The authority to settle the difference belongs to God. Man has tried to usurp the authority and to insert his own judgments, but those are at best temporal even though will be quite painful to some. God already made the decision.

 

[DicipleofJesus]

The authority to settle the difference belongs to God. Man has tried to usurp the authority and to insert his own judgments, but those are at best temporal even though will be quite painful to some. God already made the decision.

That is what I find frusterating: how many talk up a storm about what God says about things and are off the mark so badly. Its as if these Christians think they are so right and are so incorrigeable at times.......
unless caught with.pants down
Then they hide from view.

 

[Richard_oti]

You yourself have stated a change...
Can one give a certificate of divorce for burning toast or not???

Do you know where that comes from? Because it isn't within the Instruction.

I say NOT.
So something WAS changed and Jesus had to change it back to the original intent.

And you are correct with regard to the "original intent". Just as there were many many such things which are not within haTorah but were added externally. So no, it wasn't changed. It was made correct by removing the external additions.

And yes, I confess. Man helped God along a bit in all those rules that had to be kept.

Indeed, they added a multitude of "rules" which were not, and are not, within the Instruction. They added to the point of making things a true burden. But it was not always so:

Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Once God made Himself be known to the Hebrews, they then attributed everything that happened to Him -- even those things God did not cause. What I say has been taught to me--I don't make up my own ideas.

Are Christians really any different? I have witnessed plenty of us do so as well. Like I have said, I have had time here to post, due to a series of small calamities. Who caused them? Or, who allowed them? Why was I awoken from my slumber.

I can't decide if you're a Christian who wants to follow the O.T. or a Jewish person who believes Jesus is the Messiah...

I am just one of the Yisra'el of YHVH.

 

[Richard_oti]

<snip>
YOU are not reading from the same book I am.
I'm using the bible.
You're using the Tanakh and accompanying Jewish rules that are taught to this day by Rabbis.

Umm, you do realize that the TaNaKh, is basically the same as the what you know as the OT. Mostly, just the books are in a different order. TaNaKh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, which is the Law, Prophets, and the Writings. Same contained in the OT.

The extraneous "rules" that were made that are outside of the TaNaKh, I have nothing to do with, though I am aware of many of them.

Sin is not imputed. We are each responsible for our own sin.
How could I be responsible for my father's sin?
Deuteronomy 24:16

As I previously stated: Many sins may be propagated, for the children follow after that which they learned from their parents. And thus the sin is propagated down through generations until comes one that decides to not walk after it.

Thus, it behooves each of us, to walk in righteousness and teach our children the way. Lest our sins be visited upon our descendants, as they walk after that manner.

I said from the beginning that understanding that Adam's sin is imputed to us is a valid concept believed by theologians.
I don't agree. I agree with those that say it is propogated, not imputed.

Not everything in the bible is black or white.
Some legitimate differences can exist.

Perhaps. Many seem to be a matter of semantics.

What does the above have to do with a Covenant being perpetual?

It was from the beginning, and as shown there in Isaiah, extends into the new heavens and the new earth.

Are you serious?
After all I've said, you ask the above?

Yes, I was serious. She was formed from the rib of Adam. Not like that was a hard question. You shouldn't even have needed to open your Bible for that one.

This is an interrogation and not a discussion.
I suggest you study Covenants.
It seems to me you're lacking in understanding them.
Begin with the Edenic, not the Adamic.

As I asked, does a covenant extend to a descendant?

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man

 

[Richard_oti]

That's very nice of you RO.
And, just for the record, I finished all my schooling many years ago and am not into taking tests, which is what you write sounds like.

In that which you previously replied unto, there were only two questions. Asked to make a point. Both were so easy, that you didn't even need to open your Bible, nor should they have required any real thought.

In that which you replied to here: I asked three questions.

Question 1) Asked and answered.
Question 2) Was with regard to that which you introduced into this, the Didache. Of which, example was also given.
Question 3) Rhetorical in nature, based upon the example you gave.

Most of the rest, was in response to 2 of your questions, and your response of "je ne sais pas", which I respected as an honest answer.

I've taught the Christian faith and have used questions to make persons think. This is a good method.
However, when there are too many questions and no answers provided, it begins to feel like an interrogation.

See above. However, as you so see it then.

<snip>

 

[GodsGrace]

An interdependent relationship is where both partners are mutually reliant on each other. It is a safe bond where partners can rely on each other but also maintain their autonomous identity.

Thanks.
I see codependence as being very bad.
Enabling, it used to be called -- at least that I knew of.
It makes a "sick" person sicker. It enables him to feed on whatever the "sickness" might be.

Interdependence is good, in my opinion.
My husband and I are interdependent.
Nothing wrong with that. We all need each other one way
or another.

Some modern people these days, especially girls, see a lot wrong with this. They want to be super independent. As far as I can see, this causes problems with relationships because it doesn't allow each partner to play their proper part (role). Yeah. I believe in roles.
It worked better...

 

[GodsGrace]

God's Word has not changed, even if people's ways have changed. Really I don't believe that the hearts of people have ever changed much with the exception of a few believers who allowed themselves to be changed by God. There needs to be brothers and sisters who resolve any differences among themselves rather going outside the Church for judgment...or Jesus came for nothing. He did not!

If you read my posts, this is what I said.

However, if I'm a Christian and the guy that hit my car isn't and he says I HIT HIM (which has happened to me) then, yes, he is going to court so I could get my car fixed. I am not paying for his mistake.
Jesus said to be gentle as a dove and wises as a serpent.
We don't have to be taken advantage of just because we're Christian.

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you know where that comes from? Because it isn't within the Instruction.

And you are correct with regard to the "original intent". Just as there were many many such things which are not within haTorah but were added externally. So no, it wasn't changed. It was made correct by removing the external additions.

Indeed, they added a multitude of "rules" which were not, and are not, within the Instruction. They added to the point of making things a true burden. But it was not always so:

Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Wow. We agree on something.
I was starting to doubt we'd ever agree on anything.
I get much slack from Chrisitians for saying what you're agreeing to.

Are Christians really any different? I have witnessed plenty of us do so as well. Like I have said, I have had time here to post, due to a series of small calamities. Who caused them? Or, who allowed them? Why was I awoken from my slumber.

I know the Tanakh is the O.T. -- my comment was that Jewish persons ADD learnings to it of which I can't remember the name. But they study much more than just the O.T.

As to calamities?
If we listen to Isaiah 45:7 it would seem that God causes calamity.
Even Exodus 15:3, and many other verses.
OR, we could glean from the O.T. that God protected His people.
Lamentations 3:33
Ezekiel 33:11

So which is it?
God is a good God and cannot cause evil.
The mystery of mysteries....
Many answers, none satisfy.

I'd say that God does not CAUSE calamity, but He ALLOWS it to happen. I don't know why.

You were awakened from your slumber
because you shouldn't be sleeping.

I am just one of the Yisra'el of YHVH.[/QUOTE]
I do believe this means you're Jewish...not sure.
Not that it makes a difference to me.

 

[GodsGrace]

Umm, you do realize that the TaNaKh, is basically the same as the what you know as the OT. Mostly, just the books are in a different order. TaNaKh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, which is the Law, Prophets, and the Writings. Same contained in the OT.

The extraneous "rules" that were made that are outside of the TaNaKh, I have nothing to do with, though I am aware of many of them.

As I previously stated: Many sins may be propagated, for the children follow after that which they learned from their parents. And thus the sin is propagated down through generations until comes one that decides to not walk after it.

Thus, it behooves each of us, to walk in righteousness and teach our children the way. Lest our sins be visited upon our descendants, as they walk after that manner.

Perhaps. Many seem to be a matter of semantics.

It was from the beginning, and as shown there in Isaiah, extends into the new heavens and the new earth.

Yes, I was serious. She was formed from the rib of Adam. Not like that was a hard question. You shouldn't even have needed to open your Bible for that one.

As I asked, does a covenant extend to a descendant?

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man

The Torah is the first five books of the O.T.
The Tanakh is the entire N.T.
Surely you know this.
As far as not needing to open my bible to learn how Eve was made...
Did you think I DIDN'T know?
I grow tired of too many questions when the answers are so obvious.

 

[GodsGrace]

In that which you previously replied unto, there were only two questions. Asked to make a point. Both were so easy, that you didn't even need to open your Bible, nor should they have required any real thought.

In that which you replied to here: I asked three questions.

Question 1) Asked and answered.
Question 2) Was with regard to that which you introduced into this, the Didache. Of which, example was also given.
Question 3) Rhetorical in nature, based upon the example you gave.

Most of the rest, was in response to 2 of your questions, and your response of "je ne sais pas", which I respected as an honest answer.




See above. However, as you so see it then.

<snip>

You speak very much as one who is not of faith, although you seem to know the bible.
Your comments on fathers and sons and sins being passed on do not demonstrate knowledge of theology but of humanism.

I'm not sure to whom I'm speaking anymore.
If you knew the Covenants, for example, you would not ask the question as to whether or not they are passed down to descendants.
And you certainly would not be asking me since I'm the one who brought up the Covenant in the first place. If I brought it up, surely I must know about it.

You even asked me if I knew where the Certificate of Divorce is spoken of when I'M the one who brought it up. How could I NOT know?

Plus, there's too much going on here at one time.
I look forward to future discussions.

 

[amadeus]

That is what I find frusterating: how many talk up a storm about what God says about things and are off the mark so badly. Its as if these Christians think they are so right and are so incorrigeable at times.......
unless caught with.pants down
Then they hide from view.

But... in spite of the truth in your words, sometimes God will speak through the seemingly most unexpected vessels. Consider Balaam's donkey [Numbers chapter 22] and also the high priest (who also conspired to have Jesus killed) in the time when Jesus walked among us in his flesh [John 11:50]. I would guess that God will use whatever is available at the moment...

 

[amadeus]

If you read my posts, this is what I said.

However, if I'm a Christian and the guy that hit my car isn't and he says I HIT HIM (which has happened to me) then, yes, he is going to court so I could get my car fixed. I am not paying for his mistake.
Jesus said to be gentle as a dove and wises as a serpent.
We don't have to be taken advantage of just because we're Christian.

No argument! I understand your point very well, but sometimes others do not and clarification may be helpful.

 

[DicipleofJesus]

But... in spite of the truth in your words, sometimes God will speak through the seemingly most unexpected vessels. Consider Balaam's donkey [Numbers chapter 22] and also the high priest (who also conspired to have Jesus killed) in the time when Jesus walked among us in his flesh [John 11:50]. I would guess that God will use whatever is available at the moment...

I have no problem with that at all. And I totally agree. However some of those Christians I referred to above are not interested in God's will as they are in their fix to end boredom of the moment. And when this is recognised it is not edifying. But you are right for the greater part.

 

[amadeus]

I have no problem with that at all. And I totally agree. However some of those Christians I referred to above are not interested in God's will as they are in their fix to end boredom of the moment. And when this is recognised it is not edifying. But you are right for the greater part.

Yes, this would certainly be the wrong way of looking at or doing things. Perhaps some of these people really had a good experience with God at the beginning of their walk but they started learning things [even things from the Bible] and away they went along their own way leaving God's Way well behind them. Because of their starting point and where they think they are with church attendance and what they describe as works for God they have moved back into blindness and do not even realize where they are:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt 7:22-23

 

[DicipleofJesus]

I agree. I had a great relation with God, but not so much with Christian assemblies at the end. I left them as they were into idolatory. And likw I was FREE. It was great in the beginning. Then I subtly got farther from God. Then issues came about and I spent loads of my life in 12 STEP meetings. as a result of the one I'm in now I decided I want to be close to Jesus. That is it. So I'm back but cautious of extremist and fanatical Christians and listening too much to them. But look at how many Christians are so much against 12 STEP meetings. So God can use anything and anyone for his means.

 

[Richard_oti]

The Torah is the first five books of the O.T.
The Tanakh is the entire N.T.
Surely you know this.

I didn't know it was the "entire N.T." <chuckle>

However, I did just explain that TaNaKh was an acronym and what it stood for. So there is a chance that perhaps I knew that. OTOH: I might have just looked it up online <grin>.

As far as not needing to open my bible to learn how Eve was made...
Did you think I DIDN'T know?

Absolutely not. I knew you would know. But I have also paid attention and watched.

<snip>

 

[Richard_oti]

You speak very much as one who is not of faith, although you seem to know the bible.

Why umm, thank you?

Your comments on fathers and sons and sins being passed on do not demonstrate knowledge of theology but of humanism.

And yet, you posted information in the thread "What is wrong with this picture?" from the web siting sources of patheos and gospelway affirming what I stated *after* I had stated it.

Kinda funny that. But it is not the first time I have noticed such.

My source with regard to it, was reading the Bible. Yours, were websites, which you posted information from about 9 hours after your reply here.

I'm not sure to whom I'm speaking anymore.

'Oti.

<snip>