Belief in god and the right to homosexuality?

[shazeep]

Agape love, from the heart, is not something one just "starts doing" tho; but you are free to define your own salvation, in seeking it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Agape love, from the heart, is not something one just "starts doing" tho; but you are free to define your own salvation, in seeking it.

First of all, I cannot and must not define my own salvation and seek it. I have to work out my own salvation based upon what the Word clearly says. That in no way says I can seek out salvation apart from what the word says about the sole path to salvation through the cross. Working out my salvation is dealing with all I have to deal with in order to see the salvation stated in the word accomplished in me,

But as far as agape love from the heart, not being something one just "starts to do," you never qualified that with proof. SO, I am not sure what you mean.

But the point is, we could never engender enough agape love that is necessary for saving us, because we have to deal with sins. No matter how much we love, there is still the sin issue in us. And sins must be remitted. Loving people does not remit sins.

If you say Jesus had agape love, and that is what caused the cross to occur, so if we have agape love we are saved ,whether we so much as KNOW about the cross or not, that is seriously flawed reasoning. Jesus loved us so much that He died for us. That is indeed agape love. Agape love is sacrificial love. However, His sacrifice was able to save us because he was sinless. A sinless one alone could take our sins and suffer for them in our places, and pay the death penalty. But you cannot die for me and I cannot die for you, because each of us have sin. Our deaths would only resolve our personal sin problem. But because we die in sin, without sins being remitted, the penalty is paid and we are in hell, unable to resurrect from that death in victory. Jesus' sinlessness caused him to resurrect from the dead, while having also paid our sin penalty.

There simply is no other route to salvation than through the cross. No degree of agape love in us can save us if we do not go through the cross. Jesus said NO MAN cometh to the Father but by Him. NO MAN. The book of Acts says there is not other name by which we can be saved. Having OUR OWN agape love and somehow being saved by it is salvation BY OUR OWN NAMES. And that violates the Word's precedent that Jesus is the ONLY NAME whereby we can be saved.

Every other avenue aside from the cross i SALVATION BY OUR WORKS, whether it's agape love we engender in our own hearts before we physically do something about it or not. Engendering agape love in our hearts without the work of the cross involved IS STILL SALVATION BY WORKS, because it is SELF-RIGHTEOuSNESS. And the bible summed up the ultimate righteousness we could ever muster up by calling it filthy rags.

[shazeep]

well, i would say that you have defined your path here, and it is slightly different from your pastor's, or anyone else's, based upon your understanding of Scripture. While it seems to have led you to "All Catholics are lost," we have seen that even a poll of OPs does not suggest that this view is universal, and i will supply here that your take on the Golden Rule is equally reflective of your perspective, which you are certainly entitled to, but i think a more holistic view of Scripture supports "DO" as spoken by Christ in that passage.

i will say that i hardly expected "be excellent to each other" to hold up as well as it has, but i note how hard agape love is to practice in myself, and also how poorly the challenge to "Be nice" fared, so i will just restate the obvious here, that the Cross has Spiritual as well as legal implications, the chief one perhaps being "Greater LOVE has no man."

It could be stated that Paul was compelled to prove the legality of the Cross to a new dispensation, even one of Grace, but it must be admitted that this would necessarily create a new crop of lawyers, whether you are actually one or not. My personal perspective is that, like agape love, Grace is something that we do not immediately assimilate, and even believers still seek the 'rule of law,' "churches" have "bylaws" actually written down--in good conscience, of course--and other, unwritten "laws" that one is expected to adhere to, which do not apply to the Church imo.

Finally, although it has already been stated ad nauseum here, and is plainly outlined in Scripture in many, many places, like 100 places, Good fruit comes from good trees, which might be interpreted "Good works come from righteousness; righteousness does not come from good works," although pt 2 there is better understood with other supporting Scripture, but the point is that Faith without works is dead, and i might add that this deadness will be reflected in other ways among those faithful who do not have works, in the various ways that have been revealed in our discussions.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i would say that you have defined your path here, and it is slightly different from your pastor's, or anyone else's, based upon your understanding of Scripture. While it seems to have led you to "All Catholics are lost," we have seen that even a poll of OPs does not suggest that this view is universal,

I don't know why I keep talking to you. Perhaps you wonder the same thing.

The reason I say that is because I clarify my statements, and say it's not so simple as just saying all catholics are lost, because it's a doctrinal issue, not personal, and you keep consistently talking as though I never clarified anything. You sure caught that statement about all catholics being lost, though. It seems you cherry pick what I say! And it's always the questionable things I say, that need clarification, that you target and repeat forever, while totally ignoring any clarifications I make. Which is what makes me think you're disingenuous here, and not wanting to misrepresent me is claimed but not really practiced when you talk to me.

You seem to think a catholic is not someone whom I think a catholic is. I demonstrated to you that CATHOLIC agrees with CATHOLIC DOGMA, while you claimed one can be catholic and not agree with the dogma. So, when i said catholic dogma is severely false doctrine, that's what I consider catholics to believe. But if you think one can be called catholic and not believe those severely false doctrines, which YOU ADMITTED (and you NEVER respond to this point any time I make it) were serious concerns, then when I speak of catholics it's retranslated in your perceptual grid to mean something totally different than what I intended. So, while you repeatedly ignore my attempts to correct this misunderstanding, it shows talks are useless. I answer all your questions to the best of my awareness, and you distinctly avoid some of mine. Hence, no real discussion.

So far how many voted on your poll? 11? And you think that suggests an overview? Hardly. But again, I stated over and over again it's about doctrine until you got so mad at me you insulted more than anyone on this form ever came close to, and practically demanded I answer what you wanted me to answer.

So, sorry if I don't consider your overview of OP views here.

Once again you ignore and i will supply here that your take on the Golden Rule is equally reflective of your perspective, which you are certainly entitled to, but i think a more holistic view of Scripture supports "DO" as spoken by Christ in that passage.

i will say that i hardly expected "be excellent to each other" to hold up as well as it has, but i note how hard agape love is to practice in myself, and also how poorly the challenge to "Be nice" fared, so i will just restate the obvious here, that the Cross has Spiritual as well as legal implications, the chief one perhaps being "Greater LOVE has no man."

There is your misuse of "legal" again. The cross can never be legalistic. This is the same problem we're having with your use of LAW and LAWYER. You arte totally off the wall with how you use those terms in contrast to how the bible views and uses them.

Language is imply an issue here, and it makes the impasse impossible to resolve.

It could be stated that Paul was compelled to prove the legality of the Cross to a new dispensation,

There is no legality of the cross. That's like saying grac is legalism.

even one of Grace, but it must be admitted that this would necessarily create a new crop of lawyers, whether you are actually one or not. My personal perspective is that, like agape love, Grace is something that we do not immediately assimilate, and even believers still seek the 'rule of law,' "churches" have "bylaws" actually written down--in good conscience, of course--and other, unwritten "laws" that one is expected to adhere to, which do not apply to the Church imo.

Finally, although it has already been stated ad nauseum here, and is plainly outlined in Scripture in many, many places, like 100 places, Good fruit comes from good trees, which might be interpreted "Good works come from righteousness; righteousness does not come from good works," although pt 2 there is better understood with other supporting Scripture, but the point is that Faith without works is dead, and i might add that this deadness will be reflected in other ways among those faithful who do not have works, in the various ways that have been revealed in our discussions.

Again, your use of law and legalism is so far out of the bible I cannot see how anything is being handled here at all like it should be. You have your own dictionary. If we cannot agree on the meaning of words and terms, then there is no real communication, anyway. Did you also redefine "marriage"?

Put it this way.... HOW DOES THE BIBLE use the term LAW, and LAWYER, and how is LAW part of being a LAWYER? Be biblical. I got my concept of Law from the bible. Not sure where you got yours.

And your use of the concept of good fruit coming from good trees has no biblical basis, but a context you make up. When I discuss what the bible says about it, as usual, you overlook and ignore and NEVER RESPOND. .... and that, ad nauseum.

[shazeep]

I clarify my statements, and say it's not so simple as just saying all catholics are lost, because it's a doctrinal issue, not personal,

Mike, either all Catholics are lost, or all Catholics are not lost, because _________, and frankly i have no idea where you stand on the matter, even if the revelation is buried somewhere in one of your posts. If you have previously "clarified" this in a sentence or less, by all means repost it, and if you have not, then you might do so.

But if you think one can be called catholic and not believe those severely false doctrines, which YOU ADMITTED (and you NEVER respond to this point any time I make it) were serious...

yes, a child who has not gotten old enough to decide might be considered a Catholic, or any number of situations might prompt the RCC to excommunicate someone who still feels they are a Catholic, etc. This is all a rerun. Catholics are people.

the rest of your post seems to go into your views about legalism or whatever, if i am missing a question please let me know. Imo Good fruit comes from good trees needs no "context" except my taste buds, and this is = to your asking for context earlier, in passages that need no interpretation (for anyone else at least)...the legal thing, ya...imo you demonstrate a legal understanding of Christ, but not a spiritual one; have not forgiven me when i apologized, never apologize yourself, etc. but this is just imo, and after all we are on a forum, which i think necessitates some latitude there.

I forgive you; but then, i am not a Catholic.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I clarify my statements, and say it's not so simple as just saying all catholics are lost, because it's a doctrinal issue, not personal,

Mike, either all Catholics are lost, or all Catholics are not lost, because _________, and frankly i have no idea where you stand on the matter, even if the revelation is buried somewhere in one of your posts. If you have previously "clarified" this in a sentence or less, by all means repost it, and if you have not, then you might do so.

Do you believe catholics are people who believe the list of doctrines I presented or not?

It's becoming more and more an issue of definitions with us. You said you had an issue with the doctrines I listed, and then asked me about people who have no other church to go to, as if that made them catholics, when in my mind it didn't. But you never responded when i asked you about that. You leave so many posts I make without response that it's hard to talk about anything.

But if you think one can be called catholic and not believe those severely false doctrines, which YOU ADMITTED (and you NEVER respond to this point any time I make it) were serious...

yes, a child who has not gotten old enough to decide might be considered a Catholic, or any number of situations might prompt the RCC to excommunicate someone who still feels they are a Catholic, etc. This is all a rerun. Catholics are people.

You started to deal with the discrepancy in our definition of terms right there, and then suddenly stopped again.

In your mind are catholics those who adhere to that list of doctrines YOU ADMITTED you were concerned with, or not? I am asking this over and over again.

the rest of your post seems to go into your views about legalism or whatever,

"Or whatever" tells me you simply won't read what I present and deal with it.

if i am missing a question please let me know. Imo Good fruit comes from good trees needs no "context" except my taste buds,

Yes it does need context.

Seriously, is there any person you consider YOUR PASTOR who guides you through the scriptures like the Bible says a pastor directs sheep, or are you against that sort of idea? With your unique definitions of terms and unique context I've never heard anyone repeat over issues, it seems you simply don't have any spiritual leadership in your life, like some kind of lone ranger theology. Is that so?

and this is = to your asking for context earlier, in passages that need no interpretation (for anyone else at least)...the legal thing, ya...imo you demonstrate a legal understanding of Christ, but not a spiritual one;

You do not know what legalism is. Simply put. You're making definitions up, since no one sees legalism like you do. I used legalism the way ALL theologians of any stripe use it. Yours is unique.

have not forgiven me when i apologized, never apologize yourself, etc. but this is just imo, and after all we are on a forum, which i think necessitates some latitude there.

I forgive you; but then, i am not a Catholic.

I forgive you every time you apologized. I apologize if you feel I insulted you, since I don't think I did, but if I did it's you who were the issue. So, I am sincerely sorry. But any time you apologized I forgave you. Just stop making this so personal and it will be unnecessary to apologize. Although you never apologized over the last time you insulted me to the dirt.

You see, I never took offence. I know it will happen again, though, but I never took offence. To me, this is not personal like you're always making it. I try to keep this objective, but if you were personally offended, then I must have slipped somewhere and I am sorry.

[shazeep]

Do you believe catholics are people who believe the list of doctrines I presented or not?

that is Catholicism, Mike, and you have no more proof that those who practice it are lost than people who identify as Catholic; but at least you would be better understood.

Seriously, is there any person you consider YOUR PASTOR who guides you through the scriptures like the Bible says a pastor directs sheep, or are you against that sort of idea? With your unique definitions of terms and unique context I've never heard anyone repeat over issues, it seems you simply don't have any spiritual leadership in your life, like some kind of lone ranger theology. Is that so?

actually, the Bible suggests that the Holy Spirit be your guide, but as you are back to polishing your helmet i am not really interested in discussing it, at least on this thread. But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Do you believe catholics are people who believe the list of doctrines I presented or not?

that is Catholicism, Mike, and you have no more proof that those who practice it are lost than people who identify as Catholic; but at least you would be better understood.

Seriously, is there any person you consider YOUR PASTOR who guides you through the scriptures like the Bible says a pastor directs sheep, or are you against that sort of idea? With your unique definitions of terms and unique context I've never heard anyone repeat over issues, it seems you simply don't have any spiritual leadership in your life, like some kind of lone ranger theology. Is that so?

actually, the Bible suggests that the Holy Spirit be your guide, but as you are back to polishing your helmet i am not really interested in discussing it, at least on this thread. But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no.

A simple no would suffice.

Just trying to see why you have unique definitions of law and legalism, and no pastor would explain it perfectly. I suspect you NEVER had a pastor despite being a kid in church.

The Holy Spirit, and no human being, guides you.

No spiritual leadership in the church. Hey, you likely do not even go to a congregation anywhere, do you?

Excusing muslims and catholics for the same thing (all non muslims are lost, all non-catholics are lost) you castigate me for... when I do not even think one must be in the same denomination as me... .just believe the bible. And YOU and EVERYONE ELSE believes what YOU and EVERYONE ELSE thinks about salvation ought to be believed by everyone else.

But to deal with that statement alone, He simply was telling us to do what the law tried and failed to get us to do.... do everything to others you hoped someone would do to you.

Not sure how anyone can see the error in that.

Polishing the helmet?

lol

I am just trying to see where you are coming from. You have definitions of legalism and law that NO ONE ELSE HAS. And like I said, my definition comes from theologians of ALL stripes, unlike your private interpretation of the definition.

The Holy Spirit is our guide, and whether or not you are in the same vein of christianity I am in matters not. The same bible that speaks of the Spirit guiding also says God sets spiritual leadership in the church by the same Spirit.

Not sure what difference in the golden rule you think I have. But I see you sunk into insulting again, making this personal. All the golden rule, love, and good fruit words you spoke really are moot in this light.

But it explains why you have your unique definitions of law and legalism.

I tried to see us chat in a good discussion, but you simply won't have it.

A cross-is-not-necessary-if-one-has-agapé-love theology.... strange ideas of law and legalism... no spiritual leadership....

[shazeep]

And YOU and EVERYONE ELSE believes what YOU and EVERYONE ELSE thinks about salvation ought to be believed by everyone else.

if i understand you correctly here, this is exactly what i doubt. There are many mansions in my Father's house.

But to deal with that statement alone, He simply was telling us to do what the law tried and failed to get us to do.... do everything to others you hoped someone would do to you.
Not sure how anyone can see the error in that.

i'm not sure there is any error there, tbh. If there is, it might be in discounting this as salvational. "Fulfilling the law and prophets" is the same language we use to describe Christ and the cross, right? So granted, it sounds sacrilegious to us to advocate "Be as kind to people as you would want them to be to you" as a means to eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice specifically, but on the other hand it is written this fulfills the law, so one could argue that one is spiritually recognizing Christ when they do this, v legally recognizing Christ via altar works, especially when supporting Scripture--that gives so many lawyers fits--is taken into account.

But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally; however, we condemn Muslims for a few verses that we read as "antichrist" when they could rationally be construed as a defense against the RCC of the Dark Ages, and we might condemn apostates, 65 million strong in the US, who have abandoned the est'd church, but this does not mean that they are not seeking Christ, necessarily, so much as it is an indictment of religion, and the churches' tendency to obscure Christ with Law. I think one might at least consider that the point may be to give people someone to condemn out of hand, that hearts may be revealed, but this is just imo.

To answer your Q there--which reads more like another accusation, tbh--yes, i attend a congregation, but not religiously; i volunteer whenever they ask, etc., but i do not consider it "Church" per se.

Polishing the helmet?

lol

i would rescind that if i could; apparently there is a connotation of this phrase that i was unaware of. Re-reading your statement, you likely meant no harm, anyway, but just require that you be ascendant in your own mind, same as me, i guess--and my chief complaint @ "They are all lost."

I am just trying to see where you are coming from.

i understand that i am not making it easy. i have purposely been stretching some definitions here, and maybe unstretching some others, because different people have different definitions, and i suspect that this does not make them wrong, or even "lost."

God sets spiritual leadership in the church by the same Spirit.

or the Church, anyway. I would argue that one might find themselves in the Catholic church, and yet be a living stone in the real Church, or not, and the same goes for an OP church, or any other. It is the difference in religion and following Christ; and not being in denial about there being a difference. I was prepared to admit that a legal understanding and acceptance of Christ might involve crowns or other rewards at one time, but i'm not so sure now. If you have Grace, why bother with Law? Why insist people go through all these altar works if they are just going to drift away because they cannot find any Grace? Or, more likely, because they are confronted again with Law?

Not sure what difference in the golden rule you think I have. But I see you sunk into insulting again, making this personal. All the golden rule, love, and good fruit words you spoke really are moot in this light.

well, i tried my best to not be insulting there, and re-reading it i find none; "But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no." but perhaps i am quoting the wrong passage or something? Anyway, i def agree with part b there, and suggest that you might extend this to people who identify as Catholics, as well as Catholicism, and see how if you were to extend this to Muslims as well you would change the tone of at least your immediate society, surely with ripple effects.

Again, the damage--which is incalculable; likely it defines the bulk of it--to holding opinions such as "they are all lost" is the damage to yourself and your peers, and not to any Catholics or Muslims. Are they in fact lost? Anyone who has not fulfilled the Law is, surely. Why include yourself in that group by judging? Which i really don't care about, there are lots of judgemental people, but to teach this to other people as a pastor? If there is a single Scripture that can even be construed as being against judging others, why not just say that you don't know? You cannot be proven wrong in this last case, whereas you are forced to defend a position against Scripture in the other, and "be sure in your own mind," which is a euphemism for denial imo.

A cross-is-not-necessary-if-one-has-agapé-love theology.... strange ideas of law and legalism... no spiritual leadership....

these are what you have read, but we both demonstrate here that agape love is pretty hard, perhaps, and i am not the first to equate agape with the cross, am i? I genuinely doubt it. As to legalism, of course someone brought up from the crib on the legal requirements for salvation would not view these as legalistic, so you might see it this way; do you have some requirements that i must fulfill in order to be considered "saved" by you? Do you know for a fact that God has these same requirements? Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this? Is it at all possible that one might get some personal advantage in claiming that they know something even if they do not know, viv a vis other people?

As to 'no spiritual leadership,' how do i not take this as denigrating? I'm here suggesting spiritual leadership; especially if the legal leadership is commanding that "They are all lost." (which i doubt is universal, even in OP; but it is somewhat defining)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

if i understand you correctly here, this is exactly what i doubt. There are many mansions in my Father's house.

That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

i'm not sure there is any error there, tbh. If there is, it might be in discounting this as salvational.

Please confirm. Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

"Fulfilling the law and prophets" is the same language we use to describe Christ and the cross, right?

Yes. But that does not mean that other things that fulfill law and prophets save us apart from the cross, just because we read the cross fulfills the law and the prophets. Is that what you suggest?

So granted, it sounds sacrilegious to us to advocate "Be as kind to people as you would want them to be to you" as a means to eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice specifically, but on the other hand it is written this fulfills the law, so one could argue that one is spiritually recognizing Christ when they do this, v legally recognizing Christ via altar works, especially when supporting Scripture--that gives so many lawyers fits--is taken into account.

What about remission of sins? With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Fulfilling law is not pointing toward that which saves us. Someone who refuses to murder people is someone who fulfils law. But that doesn't mean that one is saved.

But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally;

"Ideally" leaves room for salvation without the cross.

however, we condemn Muslims for a few verses that we read as "antichrist" when they could rationally be construed as a defense against the RCC of the Dark Ages, and we might condemn apostates, 65 million strong in the US, who have abandoned the est'd church, but this does not mean that they are not seeking Christ, necessarily, so much as it is an indictment of religion, and the churches' tendency to obscure Christ with Law.

Christ cannot be obscured with law except by saying the cross is PART of salvation, while our works complete salvation. Legalism is always and never will be anything other than salvation by works. Again, all theological stripes agree on that definition. All of them.

I think one might at least consider that the point may be to give people someone to condemn out of hand, that hearts may be revealed, but this is just imo.

Yeah, I understand you have a unique way of thinking of how the bible offers people to fall.

To answer your Q there--which reads more like another accusation, tbh--yes, i attend a congregation, but not religiously; i volunteer whenever they ask, etc., but i do not consider it "Church" per se.

"Church" is a body of believers that is intended by God to be as much of a place for believers to belong as a herd is for cattle. I am not talking about a church building but the genuine fellowship pf true believers. Not a denomination.

i would rescind that if i could; apparently there is a connotation of this phrase that i was unaware of. Re-reading your statement, you likely meant no harm, anyway, but just require that you be ascendant in your own mind, same as me, i guess--and my chief complaint @ "They are all lost."

Like I said, you took note of that phrase, and all but bypassed all my clarifications about it, to the point you were enraged at me for not answering your question whether' they're lost or not. That hesitation of mine should have shown you my true intent on the whole issue. But I said that before.

or the Church, anyway. I would argue that one might find themselves in the Catholic church, and yet be a living stone in the real Church, or not, and the same goes for an OP church, or any other.

Again, catholic in my use of hte term is someone who believes one is lost without belonging in pen-written membership to the catholic church. And that is salvation by works. I believe one could attend a catholic church and be a genuine believer. I don't see why anyone would, though, seeing the blatant presentation of salvation by works.

It is the difference in religion and following Christ; and not being in denial about there being a difference.

Of course there's a difference.

I was prepared to admit that a legal understanding and acceptance of Christ might involve crowns or other rewards at one time, but i'm not so sure now.

Again, the term LEGAL does not fit into this concept. A legal understanding of Christ CAN ONLY mean one thinks salvation by works is related to Christ. You really are wrong in your use of the term. Research it and see for yourself.

If you have Grace, why bother with Law?

That's what I have been trying to say. lol. Grace is salvation by faith and law is salvation by works. You cannot have both at once.

Why insist people go through all these altar works if they are just going to drift away because they cannot find any Grace?

You again again again speak as though I think altar activity saves.

And I have distinctly said otherwise and refuted that concept many times. SO, what other words will I waste presenting to you to see you write as though I never wrote them?

Or, more likely, because they are confronted again with Law?

Confronted with salvation by works? Hardly.

well, i tried my best to not be insulting there, and re-reading it i find none;

Polishing my helmet was insulting.

"But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no." but perhaps i am quoting the wrong passage or something? Anyway, i def agree with part b there, and suggest that you might extend this to people who identify as Catholics, as well as Catholicism, and see how if you were to extend this to Muslims as well you would change the tone of at least your immediate society, surely with ripple effects.

I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them. But the golden rule does not save. I stand by that last sentence, too. If salvation comes b the golden rule then salvation is by works.

Again, the damage--which is incalculable; likely it defines the bulk of it--to holding opinions such as "they are all lost" is the damage to yourself and your peers, and not to any Catholics or Muslims.

As you repeat this incomplete phrase over and over, and just as many times ignore the detailed meaning and use of terms I used, I will keep reminding you of what I am currently saying... you focus on that line and ignore all my explanations about it.

Are they in fact lost? Anyone who has not fulfilled the Law is, surely.

Incorrect. Anyone who has not received God's righteousness via the cross is lost.

Why include yourself in that group by judging?

I am not judging, for the umpteenth time. the bible already judged that, long before I was around, and I merely presented what the bible said when it cast that judgment.

Which i really don't care about, there are lots of judgemental people, but to teach this to other people as a pastor?

I teach no one to judge. I teach them to read the bible and see where it made the judgment call.

If there is a single Scripture that can even be construed as being against judging others, why not just say that you don't know?

I outlined several references that deal with judging, especially Matthew 7, which you ignored. Again, the context is not saying do not judge. It is saying do not judge something over what you lack yourself. This is another example of writing something that is ignored as if I never wrote it.

Shazeep, here's an etiquette to take note of. When a person explains their position about an issue, like judging, we keep that in mind when responding about such an issue, and not speak to the person as though they never said anything about it. That's downright rude. Like the example I gave: "

Shazeep: "It's not black, it's white."

Mike: "I know it's white. I never said it's black."

SHazeep: "But why do you insist it's black?"

This has been what it;s like talking to you.

You cannot be proven wrong in this last case,

lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

whereas you are forced to defend a position against Scripture in the other, and "be sure in your own mind," which is a euphemism for denial imo.

lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

these are what you have read, but we both demonstrate here that agape love is pretty hard, perhaps, and i am not the first to equate agape with the cross, am i?

It is not equal to agape love. It is the highest form of agape love. And it is so high, that no human on earth can rise to that level. Therefore, nobody can be saved by having agape love in their hearts without the work of Jesus' cross, where he manifested that love beyond the degree we can.

I genuinely doubt it. As to legalism, of course someone brought up from the crib on the legal requirements for salvation would not view these as legalistic, so you might see it this way;

There are no legal requirements for salvation. That;'s like saying salvation without works requires works for salvation. Again, you are way off in your use of the term.

do you have some requirements that i must fulfill in order to be considered "saved" by you?

I have NONE! The Bible says obey Acts 2:38, though. But that's the bible not me.

Do you know for a fact that God has these same requirements?

They're his words, not mine.

Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?

His word does not contradict itself.

Is it at all possible that one might get some personal advantage in claiming that they know something even if they do not know, viv a vis other people?

I do not know what you are asking here.

As to 'no spiritual leadership,' how do i not take this as denigrating?

Because it's not meant to be. One either has it or doesn't. And by spiritual leadership, I mean FROM A HUMAN BEING... which the bible demands we have.