LOL...Explaining scripture is not a deadly sin.

And according to God's Word children do not have a deeper and more intuitive understanding of scripture or anything else. I wish they did...far fewer child abductions.

Hebrews 5:13 = For every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.

So if you'll note, I was not interpreting Mark 10:15.
I was speaking to growing in spiritual maturity and discernment to understand scripture.
God's Word reveals that is a gift of His Spirit, which He imparts to believers, NOT UNbelievers.

So how about letting Jesus interpret Mark 10:15?

Mark 10:15 = Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Christ interpreting Himself:

Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

One has to be called by Christ.
One has to be converted.
One humbles himself and becomes dependent upon God as Jesus was dependent upon Him.


Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

...said the guy who was exhibiting pride, which is not only a deadly sin but also the worst.

Sin.

Beyond that, Jesus can answer your question.
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Logically then, there's a deficit of love for Jesus.

Now I have a question for you:
If one does not follow the teachings of Christ,
what makes them a Christian?



Jesus told his disciples that if they had no sword they should sell a coat and buy one. (Luke 22:36) The verse in Matthew does not mean "do not defend yourself."



According to God's Word they could be ignorant and/or false teachers out for personal gain.



I'll argue for literal interpretation of the Bible.
I'll also argue for symbolic/figurative/metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.

Jesus said "I am the door of the sheep." Literally, is he a door for sheep? No. Figuratively? Yes.

Now look at Mar 1:33: And all the city was gathered together at the door. Is the door literal? Yes. Is "all the city" figurative for a very large crowd? Yes.

Some scripture is to be taken literally.
Some scripture is to be taken figuratively.



Do what God's Word commands us:
pray for discernment and study.

Belief. Faith. Personal relationship with Christ.

But it's hard to tell because, based on what you posted re false prophets, I would say that most who proclaim to be Christians really aren't. That is, if I was going to make a judgment call...and I don't. I'm not The Decider on that.

Then what does Matt. 5:38-39 mean? Enlighten me.

Well, let me remind you of what Christ said:


Luk 6:46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

Luk 6:47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.

Luk 6:48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

Luk 6:49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."






Jesus is addressing Israel's law given in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; and Deuteronomy 19:21; the lex talionis (law of retaliation) - the principle of proportionate punishment (eye for an eye, etc.)

...and Jesus introduces "a better way" to deal with personal offenses, advancing the spirit of the law to illustrate the grace, good-will, favour...charis...from one man toward another, as a picture of the grace, good-will, favour, extended by God toward man.

So while man is at liberty to ask for retributive justice within limits, so that the punishment society exacts does not exceed the original wrong crossing the line into vengence, the better way according to Christ, is to respond with charis.

I do agree with this to point, however that slim minority seems to be typically be to people at the top charged with perpetuating "flat-earth-mentality" along with their followers throughout the ranks. "Flat-earth-mentality" has not gone away, the scientific establishment is as unreceptive to new ideas, and ideas that contradict what they have determined to be "fact". There is only room for independent thought within scientific and religious communities as long as it doesn't upset the status quo.

This totally contradicts the scientific method. Do you have an example?

Aren't scientist supposed to be skeptical? That's the purpose of the scientific process, as I think Stash was suggesting. That is, a theory does't change the prevailing scientific consensus until the theory is proven, and proven, and proven again.

As an example, remember the remarkable story of doctors in Brussels discovering that a fellow in a persistent vegetative state for 23 years was actually conscious and able to communicate with assistance.

Now comes a report that brain scans of persons in persistent vegetative states indicate brain activity. And in one case the researchers were able to communicate with the patient.

The brain activity is present in those who have experience a traumatic head injury but not in those whose vegetative state was precipitated by a lack of oxygen to the brain, such as Teri Shaivo.

Thus the science of understanding the consciousness of folks in persistent vegetative states evolves.

The point being that the transition from theory to scientific law is a slow process and all theories must be greeted with skepticism.

Agreed, however this same level of skepticism needs to be reapplied to all theories, old and new. This can be said for all disciplines of science.

With minor tweaking, this is the foundation of the scientific method. Do you have an example about which you are concerned?