Are these verses of the Bible implemented by Christians?

[Compassionist]

Christians have been around for about 2000 years and there are currently around 2.3 billion Christians on Earth.

Are these verses of the Bible implemented by Christians at present? Have they been implemented throughout the last 2000 years Christians have been around? If they are not implemented, why are they not implemented by Christians? After all, Christians claim to hold the Bible as the Word of God. Perhaps YOU can help me understand?

Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

Matthew 5:40-42
If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Matthew 6:19
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Luke 14:33
Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.

Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Luke 9:23-25
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

Matthew 13:22
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

Hebrews 13:5
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

Phillippians 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

[Compassionist]

So Compassionist

You say you do not have free will so you cannot make choices. Everything you say is predestined by casuality therefore you have no independence of thought. Since you have no independence of thought you cannot make a decision. Since you cannot make a decision you cannot have free will. So like the insect you are not a truly thinking being. Neither you or ants have free will.

So what good would arguing with an ant do? Since you like the ant have no free will what good would disagreeing with you do?

The problem I have with the entire 'free will' vs 'predestintation/determinism' is that I don't see how it can be tested, one way or another.

Please bear with me as I clarify what I mean. I do make choices. For example, I chose to reply to your post. However, this is not free choice. It is a choice that is dependent upon preceding events i.e. you posting what you posted and before that what I posted and the events leading up to these. We don't have free will - we have constrained will - the will is constrained by causality. Omnipotence is a prerequisite for free will. If I had free will, I would be omnipotent and if I were omnipotent, there would be no suffering in the omniverse. I say omniverse because I think that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. My view of reality is that all things are the dance of energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) which changes form according to the music of causality. Obviously, 'dance' and 'music' are metaphors.

I agree that discussion about determinism goes round and round in circles but it does not mean that we are free from causality - it rather confirms that we are not free.

[Compassionist]

Very good point Goat. I remeber reading about a Greek philosopher who stated that he was the only person who really existed and all others were just products of his imagination. The only that could prove he was wrong would be for him to die and others to keep on existing. But that could not offer any proof to him since he would no longer be around to argue the point with.

Thanks for posting this nercisistic conundrum. Yes, it cannot be proven to the philospher that we are not imaginary. However, by our very experience of being sentient it is self-evident to at least ourselves that we are not products of the philosopher's imagination. So, it is possible to refute the narcisistic 'only I exist' stance but not to the self-absorbed narcisist himself or herself.

Of course, if living things have immortal souls which are sentient in absence of living brains, it would certainly be possible to execute the philosopher and thereby prove to him that the 'only I exist' stance is incorrect.

[Compassionist]

God gave Adam & Eve a perfect world. There was only one rule. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
They did & turned rule of this world over to Satan. We as mankind have been born into a naturally evil world & have the task of teaching our children Good.
Blaming God for all the evil in the world is a cop out. Something that children do instead of taking responsibility for it ourselves.

God did give us freewill, but he can see the future & everything we will do so therefor can give us guidelines & direction to help us with choices.

I read many times of people using the guidelines for Slavery as if God is condoning it, not so, he seen in advance what we were going to do & gave us guide lines to treat them fairly. It doesn't mean he condones it!!! Just one example of many things misunderstood by unbelievers who try & discredit Gods word...

Why does a perfect world need the one rule 'do not eat from this tree'? How is this world perfect if you can't eat from a tree? What evidence do you have to irrefutably prove that the Adam and Eve is true and not mere fiction?

Why didn't God say in the Bible, "Slavery is forbidden." Instead of saying, "Slaves submit to your masters." If I said that slaves submit to your masters instead of reporting the slave owner to the police for breaking the anti-slavery law mere humans created I would be condoning slavery.

Please face the fact that Christianity is of human construct and what is more, it is a construct with is false at its core, incongruent as a whole and unethical from start to finish. I haven't yet found a single Christian out of the 2.3 billion who on Earth who can refute my factual and ethical issues with Christianity. Guess why? Because I am right and they are wrong but they are far too self-indulgent, self-comforting denialists to admit it.

[samuelbb7]

By my free will I can choose to no longer debate.

[Compassionist]

Yes, you have chosen not to debate but that is not by your free will but by a will constrained by causality. Free will requires omnipotence and neither I, nor you are omnipotent.

[s0ren]

God gave Adam & Eve a perfect world. There was only one rule. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
They did & turned rule of this world over to Satan. We as mankind have been born into a naturally evil world & have the task of teaching our children Good.
Blaming God for all the evil in the world is a cop out. Something that children do instead of taking responsibility for it ourselves.

God did give us freewill, but he can see the future & everything we will do so therefor can give us guidelines & direction to help us with choices.

I read many times of people using the guidelines for Slavery as if God is condoning it, not so, he seen in advance what we were going to do & gave us guide lines to treat them fairly. It doesn't mean he condones it!!! Just one example of many things misunderstood by unbelievers who try & discredit Gods word...

Why does a perfect world need the one rule 'do not eat from this tree'? How is this world perfect if you can't eat from a tree? What evidence do you have to irrefutably prove that the Adam and Eve is true and not mere fiction?

Why didn't God say in the Bible, "Slavery is forbidden." Instead of saying, "Slaves submit to your masters." If I said that slaves submit to your masters instead of reporting the slave owner to the police for breaking the anti-slavery law mere humans created I would be condoning slavery.

Please face the fact that Christianity is of human construct and what is more, it is a construct with is false at its core, incongruent as a whole and unethical from start to finish. I haven't yet found a single Christian out of the 2.3 billion who on Earth who can refute my factual and ethical issues with Christianity. Guess why? Because I am right and they are wrong but they are far too self-indulgent, self-comforting denialists to admit it.

Can you say more about that?

[McCulloch]

Please face the fact that Christianity is of human construct and what is more, it is a construct with is false at its core, incongruent as a whole and unethical from start to finish.

Can you say more about that?

Here is the big picture. God creates the universe and in it two humans. God tells the humans not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet since God foreknows everything and God allowed a deceiving lying talking snake to converse with the innocent humans, it is inevitable that the humans will disobey.

Because these two humans disobey, God condemns all of their descendants. But that's just because God has a plan. God decides to wipe out all of the humans because they are evil. But he changes his mind, and allows eight of them to live.

The humans become evil again and God chooses a nomadic desert tribe to become his chosen people. They don't care too much for that and have to be punished. Then God decides to be a human, so that the other humans can kill him. This murder would then satisfy his blood lust so that he could forgive the humans. He then raises the dead god/man from death to prove to the humans that he loves them. But the sacrifice fails to redeem all of the humans, since only those humans that believe the story can be saved from the eternal torment that God created for the unbelievers.

The ideas of love, justice, forgiveness and power are all turned on their heads.

[s0ren]

But you equate Christianity with a literal interpretation of the Bible. All you are doing is refuting the Bible's creation story, which I don't have a problem with.