Eleventh Doctor Q&A

[Eleventh Doctor]

Because Gods Kingdom is not of this earth so it is on a different level than the kingdoms of the world. To say that we are citizens of Gods Kingdom in the same way we are citizens of the USA is to cheapen Gods Kingdom. I also look at the example of St Paul in the NT and he claimed his rights as a Roman citizen many times, why would he do that if your theory about the kingdoms is true?

[aragtaghooligan]

I'm confused, you are a pluralist? What does that mean? I'm soo confused (re OxR and your conversation about the image of God and three parts)

What do you think abut this: what if the image of God has something to do with our innate need for community and to give and receive love.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Pluralist as OxR is using it means I believe humans are made up of three primary parts, body, soul, and spirit. Most Christians would say body & soul only.

I could see that, I'm just more convinced by my pluralist stance

[Miss Friendship]

Because Gods Kingdom is not of this earth so it is on a different level than the kingdoms of the world. To say that we are citizens of Gods Kingdom in the same way we are citizens of the USA is to cheapen Gods Kingdom. I also look at the example of St Paul in the NT and he claimed his rights as a Roman citizen many times, why would he do that if your theory about the kingdoms is true?

I do agree Gods Kingdom is different in the fact that it requires our full allegiance, heart and soul and passion to be able to join. It requires more than Canada would ever dream of asking. We are more loyal to its cause, and we realize we are on the side of Kingdom that has been battling another Kingdom for centuries now. Christians have made a grave error in assuming they can "repair" a Kingdom that the Bible tells us is going to lose in the end.

Paul is rather a irrelevant argument. Claiming citizen rights is hardly voting on the next Nero. You say the early Christians voted when they had the chance. The problem is they weren't "early Christians" anymore. They had strayed from Jesus's teachings and fell into compromise.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm not trying to repair the earthly kingdom for that kingdoms sake. I'm trying to repair it as an expression of love toward those that a broken kingdom hurts. I do not put my hope in earthly kingdoms.

You didn't vote for the next Nero and you've made the claim before that we shouldn't claim our rights. So why did St. Paul claim his rights?

You're using circular reasoning again, the Early Christians didn't vote because it was wrong as evidence by the fact that when they did vote they had strayed from Jesus' teachings and how do we know they had strayed? Because they were voting.

[Miss Friendship]

Something I forgot to add... You aren't giving Gods Kingdom the credit of reserving its citizens all to itself, as any other country would. That's why I was questioning the difference. If anything, it cheapens Gods Kingdom to have its citizens voting elsewhere.

Paul probably claimed his rights because he was tired of always being beaten up and knew he had that trump card. If Paul is our model, I might as well note that he disobeyed his Roman government constantly by preaching Jesus everywhere he went. He had his eyes on his King and was not trying to "belong" to the Roman empire.

Nope. We know the early Christians strayed from Jesus commands like going to war, allowing wealth, no separation of church and state, dictators like the Popes came along, took authority that belonged to Christ etc. I was not referring to the voting.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The problem is you're using an analogy, it's going to break down. I see nothing wrong with voting and the only argument you've given me is the analogy that we are to be citizens in God's Kingdom and people in God's Kingdom don't vote in other countries and why don't they vote in other countries? Because voting is bad and why is it bad? Because people in God's Kingdom don't vote, but why don't they vote? Because voting is bad of course. And on and on and on forever.

I have no problem disobeying the government, don't know where you got the idea that I did and did I ever say I want to try and belong to this earth? When have I ever said that? As for Paul using his trump card, are you saying we should claim our rights as citizens in the same way? I mean shouldn't he have just prayed? Why call on the enemy camp to come and rescue Him?

So the Church just died? After 300 years it became wholly corrupt? Christ and the Apostles Church only lasted 300 years?

[Miss Friendship]

The problem is you're using an analogy, it's going to break down. I see nothing wrong with voting and the only argument you've given me is the analogy that we are to be citizens in God's Kingdom and people in God's Kingdom don't vote in other countries and why don't they vote in other countries? Because voting is bad and why is it bad? Because people in God's Kingdom don't vote, but why don't they vote? Because voting is bad of course. And on and on and on forever.

Ok, ok, hold on. When did I say voting was "bad"? We DO happen to have plenty of verses that describe to us God's Kingdom and staying separate from the World, and the earthly Kingdoms that will fall. I'm not just going off of the fact that we have a Kingdom, so obviously "conclusion conclusion" although the fact that there IS a Kingdom is almost enough reason to know not to vote in other Kingdoms.

He rather rebuked the enemy camp, that still ended up killing him in the end. Right. You have never had any loyalty to the government over God. Sorry for adding that.

Remnants remained of course. But yes, I believe the Church was corrupted. Well, technically it was no longer the "Church" it became a deceived religion. God's true bride remained pure and spotless although it was no longer as apparent to the World.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I agree, do not put your trust in the kingdoms of this earth. Do not depend on them. But voting and participating in the governments is not doing those things. As I said, I do them to best love others.

He used the implied force of the enemy camp to get the Jews to stop beating him. I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

What remnants? Please share what groups remained totally in line with your interpretation.

[Miss Friendship]

But voting and participating in the governments is not doing those things.

So you honestly don't believe that "voting and participating" is not showing support in the government?

He used the implied force of the enemy camp to get the Jews to stop beating him. I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

Probably not. But again, there's many things recorded in the Bible that aren't right for us today. For example, men in the OT went to war. I wouldn't. Paul, I know, is a NT example. But as I said, I don't think that one scenario is a qualification for voting.

What remnants? Please share what groups remained totally in line with your interpretation.

Well first of all, I am sure there were people that followed God and obeyed Jesus even though they were in a corrupted "Church." They count as Christ's spotless bride too. Christ's bride is found in surrendered hearts to Jesus, not in a specific church group. I think I've brought up the "Waldensians" in the past... but I really don't think specific denmoniations are the point here. And it doesn't matter whether they are following "my interpretation." I'm only for them obeying Jesus.

[Eleventh Doctor]

No, I don't think I need to support every action of the government simply by voting or participating . I can vote for candidates who support good things, just as we are not perfect but can still do God's work so can government do God's work while being imperfect.

But I think you would agree that Paul was a holy man who had surrendered to God, why would he do something so against Christ's teaching as threaten the men beating him with the military force of the Roman Empire?

So what you're saying is you have no evidence of these people, I mean I could claim they don't exist; there I have just as much evidence as you. The Waldensians were nearly a thousand years after the so called corruption of the Church. It does matter if they are following your interpretation, because as I've said before I'm not calling for disobedience to Jesus. You are arguing for your interpretation of Christ's teaching, just as I am.

[Mandy]

This thread is becoming a debate.

Have you ever convinced anyone in a debate?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I have

[Mandy]

Cool! Care to share any examples?

[Miss Friendship]

But I think you would agree that Paul was a holy man who had surrendered to God, why would he do something so against Christ's teaching as threaten the men beating him with the military force of the Roman Empire?

Good point. And yes, I agree.

So what you're saying is you have no evidence of these people, I mean I could claim they don't exist; there I have just as much evidence as you. The Waldensians were nearly a thousand years after the so called corruption of the Church. It does matter if they are following your interpretation, because as I've said before I'm not calling for disobedience to Jesus. You are arguing for your interpretation of Christ's teaching, just as I am.

I suppose I could dig around and find groups. But how would I really know? There is probably sincere Christians that didn't bow down to the "Church that linked arms with the State" that were never recorded in history. I'm leaving this to God. I'm just saying take the Bible, and the early Christians if need be, and compare it to the Church that emerged and ran strong for quite a few centuries. Does it match? Was the church obeying Jesus in every aspect? I find so much lacking.

What do you think about swear words? Do you think they are all wrong to use?

Have you ever visited any type of an Anabaptist church?

This thread is becoming a debate.

The best thing a thread possibly could turn into.

[Eleventh Doctor]

@Mandy I can't really think of anything groundbreaking, they were mostly small things. I think one time I convinced someone that the police were using unnecessary force in Ferguson.

@MF You agree with me on what? That is what Paul did, he implied that if the Jewish authorities didn't release him as a Roman citizen then the Roman legions would come back to Palestine and kill thousands of Jews as they had done before. How is that in anyway an acceptable act of a man of God?

Yes, I think it matches. I find the Church from the early through St. Constantine the Great and to the present age to match with Scripture and the Early Church. Is it a perfect match? No but on the essentials they got it right.

I think it's probably best to not use them but I think of that as more of an etiquette issue than a moral issue.

I have not.

[Helios]

Pluralist as OxR is using it means I believe humans are made up of three primary parts, body, soul, and spirit. Most Christians would say body & soul only.

Um, not to break the flow of the debate or anything, but what's the difference between soul and spirit?

[Tarol]

Good question Helios! That's one of the problems with the body/soul/spirit view of humanity. It basically comes from the verses that mention the body/soul/spirit, but then, again, other verses mention heart and a mind and many other physical characteristics. Why isn't humanity 5 or 6 different parts? (small commentary here... ) (this isn't a question really, but you may comment if you wish. )

Anyway, how do you keep from just walking away from a debate? Don't some seem rather silly or stupid? Especially if you are debating someone who won't change?

Do you usually learn more from debating with someone, or from researching about that same debate?

[Eleventh Doctor]

So my understanding and this could be completely off so don't quote me is that the soul is the eternal part of us humans that make us human. While spirit is simply what makes us alive and who we are as individuals, so animals have a spirit what sustains and motivates them. I've also heard body, soul, and heart but that's more Eastern. And then yeah heart and mind is something you hear a lot about too. To me at this point I think we're more than just a body and soul but I'm not sure on the other specifics.

There is never any motivation for me to walk away from a debate, I will debate until the other person gives up. Now I probably should walk away from more debates to be honest. Especially when someone won't change but rarely ever am I trying to change the person I'm debating, all though I am changing my views on this, but in the past I was usually debating to change the minds of the people watching the debate.

I think both of those things happen at the same time, as I'm debating someone I'm researching.

[Miss Friendship]

Are you against visiting other types of churches or you just don't?

In your Orthodox Church, do they have visitors sit in a stuffy corner, and the members sit somewhere nice?

If you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church are you just a member of your certain Parish or is the membership universal?