Video Gone Viral: Jesus Vs. Religion

[Damien the Leper]

It's fascinating how people choose to assume they know what an author is talking about. Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask what intent and context of the authors presentation. It is disheartening that someone's honest reflections, no matter how popular or not, are so blindly and mindlessly dismissed because they seem illogical or irrational to the interpreter.

But seriously...how dare anyone challenge the oh so holy and pious concepts of orthodoxy.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

The man has his terminology completely screwed up. He isn't talking about "religion." He's talking about hypocrisy, as has been said already in this thread.

James defines "religion" thusly:

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

You assume that he uses incorrect terminology. You, however, do not know his heart or mind's intent. Perhaps his word choice isn't poor but selective to make a point.

Once again, its fascinating how we stress the importance of context, audience, etc. when we want appropriate and accurate interpretation on others but do not hold ourselves to the same standard.

The critic who criticizes without asking questions shows the range of their comfort in ignorance.

[Deborah]

When talking to people who imagine contemplation is spirituality I have often wanted to react like this guy:

That was so funny. I love how people intellectualize spirituality.

[Deborah]

It's fascinating how people choose to assume they know what an author is talking about.

Huh! I think he spells out what he is talking about. I've seen this before and I thought it rather sad how little understanding people have of the church Christ established.

[Pahoran]

It's fascinating how people choose to assume they know what an author is talking about.

When the author in question is talking in utterly conventional low-church Protestant expressions of piety, it really isn't hard.

Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask what intent and context of the authors presentation. It is disheartening that someone's honest reflections, no matter how popular or not, are so blindly and mindlessly dismissed because they seem illogical or irrational to the interpreter.

Whoever said it was "illogical or irrational," I seem to have missed it. Nor have I seen anything being "blindly and mindlessly dismissed." Speaking only for myself, if something is offered to me as a poetic or original expression, I like to see some originality to it. He said nothing that EV's don't say every day, when they're trying to badmouth someone else's faith.

But seriously...how dare anyone challenge the oh so holy and pious concepts of orthodoxy.

Indeed. Everyone stop challenging the oh so holy and pious concepts of EV-Protestant orthodoxy that were so conventionally set forth in that rather pedestrian video.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

When the author in question is talking in utterly conventional low-church Protestant expressions of piety, it really isn't hard.

Whoever said it was "illogical or irrational," I seem to have missed it. Nor have I seen anything being "blindly and mindlessly dismissed." Speaking only for myself, if something is offered to me as a poetic or original expression, I like to see some originality to it. He said nothing that EV's don't say every day, when they're trying to badmouth someone else's faith.

Indeed. Everyone stop challenging the oh so holy and pious concepts of EV-Protestant orthodoxy that were so conventionally set forth in that rather pedestrian video.

Regards,

Pahoran

But from the video I got the impression that the author was being critical of his faith tradition claims. I didn't see it as an attack on other religions. I believe he was choosing to dissent from traditionalism as he saw it from his own experience and argues against certain thought processes in which had seen flaws. I enjoyed his piece because he obviously understands that faith and spiritually can be intellectualized. To say that spirituality and faith cannot be intellectualized creates a more comfortable false dichotomy because you cannot take reason and rationalism out of your faith or faithful conclusions. As an institute teacher once said "Faith cannot survive without reason."

Please forgive my sincere intent to mischaracterize the negative responses to illustrate the point that how we interpret ones words, no matter how simplistic they may seem, we can still get it wrong.

[BlueDreams]

I believe his personal conversion. It sounds wonderful. The problem is with his use of dichotomy. I don't know what he sees as church and what he sees as religion for one. He stated that he believed in the church but not in religion. It would be interesting to see how he compares and contrasts the two.

His reminds me of many similar stories that I've heard from those I've met. People with an amazing energy and desire, creating this sense of new faith. Their personal conversions I believed, for the most part, were of God. Things that changed lifestyles, and behaviors, and desires and turned it to something closer to God. I came to realize that many were experiencing the first strokes of repentence or a part of the power of prayer, which were always sweet and wonderful. The problem came with what followed. Various belief structures, earnest attempts to correctly interpret the Word of God, etc. But it was a constant strain of looking through their own preconceptions of what God could or couldn't be. Many would claim to not be relying on men....but they were in the end. It had just changed the manner in which it happened. They were reading the bible and studying it....with studying guides and conversation with pastors that they respected, etc. It isn't technically a problem....unless you refuse to believe that man has no connection to your relationship with God. It was a refusal to see, in my mind, the obvious. There is an assumption in our society that we, as people, can somehow move passed our biases into a world of objectivity and openness. Where we can obviously see cleary how things really are. We can't. We don't. Ever.

It leaves a subtle arrogance one in harsh realities of right and wrong. The crazy thing to me is that it's never actually seen. It seems perfectly legit and right and biblical to exhibit a pair of mormon sisters to your daughter to explain why they're wrong, pray that their pride may come down and they'd see clearly, and then tell them you can't wish them God's speed because he can't believe that we're on God's mission. Not to say this is this guy's opinion. He'd probably have his discrepancies with me as a person firmly connected to a religion. But he'd probably pray with me. I figure. I'd hope. But what he proclaims still has a major problem in its affirmation:

- it assumes religion is blind....and by that, those who follow a set religious practice

- it assumes that because he's felt the blessed love and joy of repentance that he sees clearly

- Therefore those penitent religious folk are probably missing the big picture if they claim loyalty to a specific religion

I'm usually hesitant who assumes clear vision. Cuz no one has it....not completely. I don't have it. The prophet doesn't have it. My professor doesn't have it.

I'm extremely hesitant when someone assumes blindness from religious piety.

I'm absolutely hesitant when someone points out biblical verses as proof of that they've got it right.

And as much as this man hates religion, I hate false dichotomies and broad brush strokes. As much as he sees religion as a facade. I see such statements as just as blinding.

These are some of my personal problems with the guy's views. Still, I'm glad for the ways God has touched his life. I'm always glad about that.

With luv,

BD

[Jeff K.]

The kid in the video wasn't very informed and in his ignorance, somewhat condescending. A cute turn of a phrase isn't the same as the depth and complexity of truth. Like so much that goes viral, tends to be soup for the masses.

[selek1]

It's fascinating how people choose to assume they know what an author is talking about.

Yep- how dastardly of us to take his words at face value.

Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask what intent and context of the authors presentation.

Other than your innate confirmation bias, do you have any evidence that we are NOT judging both the content and context of his agenda-driven sermon?

It is disheartening that someone's honest reflections, no matter how popular or not, are so blindly and mindlessly dismissed

Indeed. Perhaps you should stop doing that.

But seriously...how dare anyone challenge the oh so holy and pious concepts of orthodoxy.

Which translates to "Shut up. I want to promote my agenda on your boards without having them challenged in anyway."

Newsflash, Valentinus.

This is a MORMON discussion board, not your personal, private soapbox.

You don't get to censor our opinions just because they expose the clay feet of your idol de jour.

You asked for our thoughts- it's not our fault that you don't like our answers.

Edited January 27, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

Yep- how dastardly of us to take his words at face value.

Other than your innate confirmation bias, do you have any evidence that we are NOT judging both the content and context of his agenda-driven sermon?

Indeed. Perhaps you should stop doing that.

Which translates to "Shut up. I want to promote my agenda on your boards without having them challenged in anyway."

Newsflash, Valentinus.

This is a MORMON discussion board, not your personal, private soapbox.

You don't get to censor our opinions just because they expose the clay feet of your idol de jour.

You asked for our thoughts- it's not our fault that you don't like our answers.

Awww...how cute, Selek. You assume you know what I'm talking about. You should stop doing that.

NEWSFLASH! I am a MORMON, Selek!

Now...did you ask the author any questions or are you judging the intent and context based on your own understanding and knowledge? If so, maybe you should take your condescending soap box and play on the otherside of the sandbox.

[Damien the Leper]

The kid in the video wasn't very informed and in his ignorance, somewhat condescending. A cute turn of a phrase isn't the same as the depth and complexity of truth. Like so much that goes viral, tends to be soup for the masses.

But the video is based on his perception and experience. One thing we know about 'truth' is that it doesn't supercede experience. I didn't think he was condescending at all. You CHOSE to take it that way. That is on you and not him.

[selek1]

NEWSFLASH! I am a MORMON, Selek!

Not by any rational definition of the term.

Granted, you CALL yourself "a Mormon", but that's irrelevant.

You could call youself "the Pope", "the living incarnation of John Lennon's libido" or "a rabid penguin with a scorching case of hemmorhoids": but simply declaring something doesn't make it true.

In point of fact, your posts consistently reveal someone who stands at variance with the Church, who rejects the authority of the Prophets, ignores the clear and plain moral teachings of the Lord's anointed, and who willfully attempts to fashion his own "catch-as-catch can" theology based solely upon his own subjective preferences rather than the truths taught by Mormon thinkers, theologians, and leaders.

More to the point, your endless proselyting for the Gospel According to Everyone But God sets you are variance with the aims and goals of this board. Such proselyting is specifically forbidden by the board rules.

Further more, your cutesy attempts to bully dissenting opinions into silence demonstrates that you are less interested in actual discussion, but prefer to flash your apostacy and personal heresy like a Scotsman with a short kilt.

Contrary to your aggreived posturing, your personal hobby horses are neither above reproach nor out of bounds for discussion.

"Shut up, he explained", is not a cogent rebuttal to any of the points made.

Though it is revealing that such a response is your only refuge in a sea of contradiction.

But the video is based on his perception and experience. One thing we know about 'truth' is that it doesn't supercede experience.

Do we really know this?

As critics such as yourself are so quick to complain, personal experience (and personal revelation) are inherently subjective, rather than objective.

Remember the story of the blind men examining an elephant.

Each one examined a different part of the elephant and came to a different conclusion about the nature and characteristics of the beast. Each was right- and each was wrong.

What guarantee, then, do we have that the creator of this video is correct? As has been pointed out repeatedly already, he has made a number of critical and logical errors which prove fatal to his argument.

Why, then, should we take his subjective opinion as binding in any way, shape, fashion, or form?

I didn't think he was condescending at all. You CHOSE to take it that way. That is on you and not him.

There's that confirmation bias again.

This is at least the second thread in a week in which you've posited a spam video as authoritative, then gotten snippy when the conversation proved less than adoring of your "epiphany".

This is at least the second thread in a week in which you've demanded that we agree uncritically with your prejudices and dogmas- and thrown a tantrum when we refused to play along.

Just as we are under no obligation to accept the video's assumptions and prejudices without question, neither are we required to accept yours simply because you claim to be Mormon.

Selek has left the building.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Minos

[Damien the Leper]

Not by any rational definition of the term.

Granted, you CALL yourself "a Mormon", but that's irrelevant.

You could call youself "the Pope", "the living incarnation of John Lennon's libido" or "a rabid penguin with a scorching case of hemmorhoids": but simply declaring something doesn't make it true.

In point of fact, your posts consistently reveal someone who stands at variance with the Church, who rejects the authority of the Prophets, ignores the clear and plain moral teachings of the Lord's anointed, and who willfully attempts to fashion his own "catch-as-catch can" theology based solely upon his own subjective preferences rather than the truths taught by Mormon thinkers, theologians, and leaders.

More to the point, your endless proselyting for the Gospel According to Everyone But God sets you are variance with the aims and goals of this board. Such proselyting is specifically forbidden by the board rules.

Further more, your cutesy attempts to bully dissenting opinions into silence demonstrates that you are less interested in actual discussion, but prefer to flash your apostacy and personal heresy like a Scotsman with a short kilt.

Contrary to your aggreived posturing, your personal hobby horses are neither above reproach nor out of bounds for discussion.

"Shut up, he explained", is not a cogent rebuttal to any of the points made.

Though it is revealing that such a response is your only refuge in a sea of contradiction.

Do we really know this?

As critics such as yourself are so quick to complain, personal experience (and personal revelation) are inherently subjective, rather than objective.

Remember the story of the blind men examining an elephant.

Each one examined a different part of the elephant and came to a different conclusion about the nature and characteristics of the beast. Each was right- and each was wrong.

What guarantee, then, do we have that the creator of this video is correct? As has been pointed out repeatedly already, he has made a number of critical and logical errors which prove fatal to his argument.

Why, then, should we take his subjective opinion as binding in any way, shape, fashion, or form?

There's that confirmation bias again.

This is at least the second thread in a week in which you've posited a spam video as authoritative, then gotten snippy when the conversation proved less than adoring of your "epiphany".

This is at least the second thread in a week in which you've demanded that we agree uncritically with your prejudices and dogmas- and thrown a tantrum when we refused to play along.

Just as we are under no obligation to accept the video's assumptions and prejudices without question, neither are we required to accept yours simply because you claim to be Mormon.

I'm not trying to win converts, Selek. If that is how you perceive my OP and the intent of the thread then you clearly missed the point.

Your blatant and biased mischaracterization of my posts is telling. I'm not suggesting or aggressively demanding compliance or conformity. What godless individual or institution would ask such a thing? I'm suggesting that we examine the content from a perspective that is neither for or against it and try to figure out what the author is saying, In other words, maybe lay down our own religious biases and allow someone else's voice to be heard.

The Utah LDS does NOT define what a MORMON is. Nor do you and neither does this board. How you identify as Mormon may be conventional and traditional to the Utah LDS is not how I'm able to identify with the Restoration or the church. Stop pushing the 'orthodox' and faith promoting agenda on me.

As for the prophets of the church, I recognize them as the Lord's annointed. I wouldn't weekly attend church if I thought otherwise. However, just like scripture, the prophetic witness is shaped by human experience. If you disagree with this, GREAT! I hope that your theological paradigm serves you well.

Grace and Peace, Selek. I love you whether we are hostile toward each other or when we are able to embrace as followers and forever disciples of Christ. I also ask that you forgive me for my hostility towards you. And as for you...there is nothing for me to forgive. I love ya nonetheless.

[3DOP]

So do I need to be baptized or not? So where do I go to get baptized? Is the boy doing this performance qualified to be my priest? Maybe on your soul. Not on mine. All of Christian Tradition from the times of Moses and continuing through the record of Jesus Christ in the Gospels proclaims hierarchical priestly authority. We may argue about who has this authority, but that the Gospel proclaims it, and thus establishes one true religion, is beyond any rational doubt according to the most superficial reading of the shortened 66 books of this young and naive kid's little Bible.

PS: As a Catholic, I hold that baptism is one of seven sacraments established by Christ, and a priest is not essential, although desirable to be the minister of baptism. (I was sounding rather LDS wasn't I up above? Heh.) There is no way in the world that I can reconcile even the Evangelical shortened Bible with no true church and no true ordinanances/sacraments. This kid has been put up to this without thinkiing of the practical realities of what is entailed in a valid marriage or whether Christians may neglect a remembrance of the Lord's Supper or how it is to be ritualized. Does he think we don't need to go to church somewhere? Mark it down. This poor boy has been indoctrinated by anti-ritualists, who have given little thought as to how to reconcile their message with the way God has revealed Himself through institutional hierarchy.

Jesus' parents brought Him to the Temple at the times prescribed by Moses. Who did they meet there? The priest Simeon who prophesied of the trials of Jesus and His Blessed Mother. When the Boy was lost where did they find Him? In God's Temple! When Christ healed lepers, did He tell them to start having personal relationships with God, or did He send them to the priests, for a testimony to the law of Moses? My postscript could go on, but I think the point is clear.

Edited January 27, 2012 by 3DOP

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 26 January 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

The kid in the video wasn't very informed and in his ignorance, somewhat condescending. A cute turn of a phrase isn't the same as the depth and complexity of truth. Like so much that goes viral, tends to be soup for the masses.

But the video is based on his perception and experience. One thing we know about 'truth' is that it doesn't supercede experience. I didn't think he was condescending at all. You CHOSE to take it that way. That is on you and not him.

You should know "perception" isn't truth. And any experience this young man may claim to have had in his young years is not unique to him. I chose to take from him the judgement he had for others who were not "him". I saw nothing that reflected an honest evaluation of his own perception so much as a condemnation of others.

Take for example his opening lines regarding religion starting wars. A very shallow judgement. Did he focus in his rhyme on how it may not have been the religion but the people who had gained power? Did he differentiate between doctrine and the frailties of man? I did not hear it. It was a nice turn of the phrase, "kewl" as my youngest daughter would say. But I would not call it truth, I would not call it speaking power to truth. I would simply call it a pleasant ditty, an interval, consumed like cotton candy and soon forgotten.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Damien the Leper]

You should know "perception" isn't truth. And any experience this young man may claim to have had in his young years is not unique to him. I chose to take from him the judgement he had for others who were not "him". I saw nothing that reflected an honest evaluation of his own perception so much as a condemnation of others.

Take for example his opening lines regarding religion starting wars. A very shallow judgement. Did he focus in his rhyme on how it may not have been the religion but the people who had gained power? Did he differentiate between doctrine and the frailties of man? I did not hear it. It was a nice turn of the phrase, "kewl" as my youngest daughter would say. But I would not call it truth, I would not call it speaking power to truth. I would simply call it a pleasant ditty, an interval, consumed like cotton candy and soon forgotten.

Be careful of your absolute statement on perception. No disrespect to LDS but their theology is but one perception and approach to Christianity. To say that the LDS way is the one true way is a perception and opinion and not a known or unknown truth. Because of the LDS claims are what they are does not make them the official standard.

For example, a person open mindedly takes the missionary discussions but doesn't receive an affirmative confirmation to join our church. This does not mean we are to conclude that the person isn't ready or that they didnt get it or that something is wrong. I believe God will call us all to where He believes we need to be. We as a church cannot project our agenda that consists of our theology and the need to convert others to our faith on God. Modern revelation is only relevant to those who are part of our faith. We cannot demand that our take on all things Christian is the standard for the whole world. Once again, I mean no disrespect.

[selek1]

Be careful of your absolute statement on perception.

There is a certain irony in someone who demands that we accept the video's claims and perceptions without criticism lecturing us about "absolutes".

No disrespect to LDS but their theology is but one perception and approach to Christianity.

This assumes that all of the approaches are of equal value- which is a fruitless exercise in both nihilism and moral equivalency.

To say that the LDS way is the one true way is a perception and opinion and not a known or unknown truth.

Because of the LDS claims are what they are does not make them the official standard.

Wait a second...weren't you lecturing us earlier that we had to accept you as a Mormon because you said so?

Why then shouldn't we accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Lord's one true church? They claim to be.

So why is YOUR claim more valid than THEIRS?

The bottom line, however is that I don't accept the Church as God's own because THEY say so. I accept them as such because HE says so, and I take the Lord at his word.

For example, a person open mindedly takes the missionary discussions but doesn't receive an affirmative confirmation to join our church. This does not mean we are to conclude that the person isn't ready or that they didnt get it or that something is wrong.

We can't? Why not? Because you said so?

I believe God will call us all to where He believes we need to be.

Setting aside (once again) the disingenuousness of the "our Church" mantra, your position above is a statement of belief.

Can you back it up with something more solid than your naked opinion?

We as a church cannot project our agenda that consists of our theology and the need to convert others to our faith on God.

Actually, those of us who are faithful members do precisely that every day. Our missionaries are called and sent forth in God's name. Our Priesthood blessings, our religious services, our Church meetings- and even our family meals are consecrated in God's name, and according to his commandments.

We are commanded by God to do these things- and so we very well can project our calling, our commission, and our sacred duty on him.

Anything less would be denying Christ (which is, incidentally, a mortal sin).

Modern revelation is only relevant to those who are part of our faith.

Because you say so? Your position flatly contradicts Scripture.

We cannot demand that our take on all things Christian is the standard for the whole world. Once again, I mean no disrespect.

We can't?

Why not?

[MorningStar]

I didn't like the video. Reminds me of people who knock us for going to church every Sunday, as if that's a bad thing.

[california boy]

So do I need to be baptized or not? So where do I go to get baptized? Is the boy doing this performance qualified to be my priest? Maybe on your soul. Not on mine. All of Christian Tradition from the times of Moses and continuing through the record of Jesus Christ in the Gospels proclaims hierarchical priestly authority. We may argue about who has this authority, but that the Gospel proclaims it, and thus establishes one true religion, is beyond any rational doubt according to the most superficial reading of the shortened 66 books of this young and naive kid's little Bible.

PS: As a Catholic, I hold that baptism is one of seven sacraments established by Christ, and a priest is not essential, although desirable to be the minister of baptism. (I was sounding rather LDS wasn't I up above? Heh.) There is no way in the world that I can reconcile even the Evangelical shortened Bible with no true church and no true ordinanances/sacraments. This kid has been put up to this without thinkiing of the practical realities of what is entailed in a valid marriage or whether Christians may neglect a remembrance of the Lord's Supper or how it is to be ritualized. Does he think we don't need to go to church somewhere? Mark it down. This poor boy has been indoctrinated by anti-ritualists, who have given little thought as to how to reconcile their message with the way God has revealed Himself through institutional hierarchy.

Jesus' parents brought Him to the Temple at the times prescribed by Moses. Who did they meet there? The priest Simeon who prophesied of the trials of Jesus and His Blessed Mother. When the Boy was lost where did they find Him? In God's Temple! When Christ healed lepers, did He tell them to start having personal relationships with God, or did He send them to the priests, for a testimony to the law of Moses? My postscript could go on, but I think the point is clear.

You bring up some interesting points. So when Jesus was baptized, which church was He being baptized in? His church that He had not yet established or the Jewish church of his birth? Or was His baptism a commitment between Him and God and had no relevance to an organized religion. Is baptism entrance into an orgainized religion, or is it entrance into the Kingdom of God.

[Damien the Leper]

You bring up some interesting points. So when Jesus was baptized, which church was He being baptized in? His church that He had not yet established or the Jewish church of his birth? Or was His baptism a commitment between Him and God and had no relevance to an organized religion. Is baptism entrance into an orgainized religion, or is it entrance into the Kingdom of God.

Probably not some ancient form of the modern LDS church. I base this solely on Biblical account and not LDS interpretation of the account.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Valentinus

[altersteve]

Is baptism entrance into an orgainized religion, or is it entrance into the Kingdom of God.

There's no difference.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 26 January 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

You should know "perception" isn't truth. And any experience this young man may claim to have had in his young years is not unique to him. I chose to take from him the judgement he had for others who were not "him". I saw nothing that reflected an honest evaluation of his own perception so much as a condemnation of others.

Take for example his opening lines regarding religion starting wars. A very shallow judgement. Did he focus in his rhyme on how it may not have been the religion but the people who had gained power? Did he differentiate between doctrine and the frailties of man? I did not hear it. It was a nice turn of the phrase, "kewl" as my youngest daughter would say. But I would not call it truth, I would not call it speaking power to truth. I would simply call it a pleasant ditty, an interval, consumed like cotton candy and soon forgotten.

Be careful of your absolute statement on perception. No disrespect to LDS but their theology is but one perception and approach to Christianity. To say that the LDS way is the one true way is a perception and opinion and not a known or unknown truth. Because of the LDS claims are what they are does not make them the official standard.

For example, a person open mindedly takes the missionary discussions but doesn't receive an affirmative confirmation to join our church. This does not mean we are to conclude that the person isn't ready or that they didnt get it or that something is wrong. I believe God will call us all to where He believes we need to be. We as a church cannot project our agenda that consists of our theology and the need to convert others to our faith on God. Modern revelation is only relevant to those who are part of our faith. We cannot demand that our take on all things Christian is the standard for the whole world. Once again, I mean no disrespect.

The irony of claiming I speak in absolutes while the poet wannabe's perceptions are somehow sacrosanct reflects a certain blindness in your posting. I think his evaluation is honest, but ignorant. I have pointed out why in part, as have many others. An ignorant observation by a poet is no more valid than a misleading observation by a knowledgeable man. Neither is of any real worth. Indeed, I haven't even noted the LDS is the one true way. Absent of that, the young man is still ignorant of the world around him, religion, the general basis of most belief systems and of course ignorant of his own hypocrisy. Other than that, I am sure he provides a wealth of wisdom, well for some perhaps.

[frankenstein]

The video, while clever, makes me think of itchy ears. Many people are turning too unorganized religion due to dissatisfaction with organized religion.

On another note, the video seems like something that was produced within. The last few years, it was not lyrical but waseemed a rant against organized religion.

[california boy]

Many people see organized religion as a major source of hatred and bigotry in the world today. Churches sometimes preach a counterfeit for the message of Christ. For some reason Christianity has latched on the the catch phrase of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" to justify their actions against any who they don't agree with. It seems to grant them permission to justify this behavior that is no where found in the life of Christ. Certainly this election cycle has seen this rational used against the Mormon church for example. It is so often repeated that many have even come to believe that it is in the scriptures.

Of course Christ never made such a statement. He did however clearly set an example to us on how to threat those in sin. Through out His ministry, He would be found by the Pharisees breaking bread and hanging out with the prostitutes and publicans. Of course Christ does not accept the sins found in all of us, but a persons sins never affected how He respected and treated them. While the Pharisees condemned Christ for not shunning those living in sin, Christ didn’t seem to care. His answer to them was that He had come to heal the sick. Walking on the other side of the street of those in His need was never an option for Christ. The strongest words of Christ against others were directed to the Pharisees who had polluted the gospel and turned it into one of us verses the sinners.

Judging others and their sins has become a passion for many who claim to follow Christ, They spend more time working on other peoples sins so that in their own minds, their sins don't look so bad. This video may not have all the doctrine right. But instead of discussing some very good points this young man brings up, it is easier to pick apart what we don't like about the video.

So what part of the video do you agree with? Or are you only willing to look at the part you don't agree with.

[Storm Rider]

Many people see organized religion as a major source of hatred and bigotry in the world today. Churches sometimes preach a counterfeit for the message of Christ. For some reason Christianity has latched on the the catch phrase of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" to justify their actions against any who they don't agree with. It seems to grant them permission to justify this behavior that is no where found in the life of Christ. Certainly this election cycle has seen this rational used against the Mormon church for example. It is so often repeated that many have even come to believe that it is in the scriptures.

Of course Christ never made such a statement. He did however clearly set an example to us on how to threat those in sin. Through out His ministry, He would be found by the Pharisees breaking bread and hanging out with the prostitutes and publicans. Of course Christ does not accept the sins found in all of us, but a persons sins never affected how He respected and treated them. While the Pharisees condemned Christ for not shunning those living in sin, Christ didn’t seem to care. His answer to them was that He had come to heal the sick. Walking on the other side of the street of those in His need was never an option for Christ. The strongest words of Christ against others were directed to the Pharisees who had polluted the gospel and turned it into one of us verses the sinners.

Judging others and their sins has become a passion for many who claim to follow Christ, They spend more time working on other peoples sins so that in their own minds, their sins don't look so bad. This video may not have all the doctrine right. But instead of discussing some very good points this young man brings up, it is easier to pick apart what we don't like about the video.

So what part of the video do you agree with? Or are you only willing to look at the part you don't agree with.

I think this is as dangerous a misconception as the one which you are discussing. Jesus sat and ate with those who sought to be with him. These were they that sought to partake of the Living Water; they were in the process of looking for that which gave them peace and overcame sin. His call to them was repeatedly to repent. This was an invitation to each of us and remains just as effective today. The choice is ours; we must choose. We can sit down with him and partake, but when the bridegroom comes, our lamps must be full or we will be left behind.

He did not force himself on those who rejected his message of "go and sin no more". Regardless, what is absolutely true in what you discuss above, Jesus loved those around him and he was not interested in condemning them....unless of course one was a hypocrite. For them and for liars he had not pity and condemned them readily.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Storm Rider