to _you_ it's a simple question, to me, it's simplistic.
In what way? Since everyone here (that I know of) once took the PFAL class and stated publicly "I love the Lord Jesus Christ" in session 12, it's a simple matter of reaffirming or recanting your previous statement. Trying to qualify it with some personal definition of agnosticism is just evading the question.
quote:yet it always draws a bunch of armchair lawyering, for some reason. Always with the qualifications and rationalizations...
Well I'm presented with a false dilemma like yours I generally don't fall for it. Why should I (or any of the other non-Christians) be required to fit our beliefs into your little box?
Nobody's requiring you to do anything, Oak. There's no false dilemma, for reasons stated above. If one never believed in Christ to begin with, the point is moot. But since this is an ex-Way discussion board, a previous belief in Christ is a fair assumption.
quote:but at least Bramble was honest about it. Thanks.
Yes Bramble was honest. So am I, so is Lindy, so is Abigail. It just doesn't fit into your limited understanding.
Temper, temper. There's no need to get personal.
quote:How about if I alter it to be a hypothetical?...Would you turn back to Christ on your deathbed in case you might have been wrong in your earlier rejection?
If I ever turn to Christ it will because I sincerely believe, because I have been convinced to _my_ satisfaction, not because I'm trying to hedge my bets.
Does the fact that you once believed enter into that decision?
quote:If not, what would you really have to lose under the circumstances?
Is that why you're a Christian, Zixar? Because you have nothing to lose? Wow! What a great testimony. -->
Maybe I'll decide to become a Christian someday. Maybe something about it will click and I'll be "glory bound" - but it sure won't be because of arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug, Xians like yourself Zixar.
Ad hominem. If you're so unsure of your position that you have to resort to personal attacks, then you might want to reexamine it.
"Abigail: Interesting point if you're Jewish. Hadn't really considered that one before."
Interesting how?
In that it's the same God. In a sense, it's asking God to be treated according to the Law instead of the New Covenant. I don't see why He wouldn't accede, but I haven't given it extensive thought.
"They want God to be "all-caring" and "all-loving", but they want him to toss being "all-just" when they screw up. Pretty "conveeeenient", as the Church Lady would say."
Well that is sort of the God TWI promised us isn't it? At least when we first signed that little green card?
Pretty much, yes.
I don't think agnostics want god to be a wish-fulfilling Genie anymore so than the rest of us do. They are just looking at things from a different place than those who are convinced there is a God are looking from.
It may not be an all-encompassing agnostic belief, but an awful lot of arguments against God take some form of "If there's a God, why doesn't He miracle up a sandwich for the starving kids in Bangladesh? Since they're still starving, there is no God, QED." What that really boils down to is "unless God does things MY way, I'm not going to believe in Him."
I'll give you an example from another perspective. In physics, current theories say that when electrons move between orbits in an atom, they do so without crossing the intervening space. They simply disappear from orbit 1 and reappear in orbit 2 instantaneously. Now, suppose there were a quantum skeptic who didn't want to believe in this seeming impossibility. He says, "Quantum tunneling? Humbug! I can't move from one place to another without passing through some intervening space, and nothing I can see ever has either. Therefore, I don't care what some quantum nut over at Burning Bush Labs says, electrons cannot teleport. It's just a fanciful explanation for something he can't see either. There's got to be some other 'rational' explanation for it. Until I see something teleport myself, I'm not going to believe in it. I don't care how it makes the numbers work, if I can't see it with my own eyes, I won't believe it."
It's the fallacy of arrogance, that one's own experiences or senses are somehow inviolate. I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that electrons really do teleport between orbits, but I have no problem believing either of them. I realize that there are things that are beyond my ability to experience or define to an absolute certainty. To do otherwise is to force reality to fit into one's own narrow framework, and that's simply arrogant.
Since this is in the doctrinal forum,can Greek words be brought up?....Zixar,remember in PAFL,the Greek words apiethia and apiestia were mentioned to describe "those who had not not heard enough to believe,and those who heard enough,but refuse to believe"...Would you categorize PFAL grads who no longer believe in the "apiethia" category? Weirwille also said we get the English word "apathy" from "apiethia"...
It seems like the only examples the Bible gave of apiethia were really
"disobedience"...The Old Testament Jews,or New Testament believers,were not calling God into question,but rather God's ways...I don't see anybody here "refusing" to believe because they're pursuing filthy lucre,or the lusts of the flesh,or earthly treasures or they don't like the results they've gotten...It almost seems like some of those who don't believe are in the "apiestia" category...That is,even though we all have a decent Bible background,we may not actually know enough about God to believe..I hope I didn't butcher the Greek spellings..
"In that it's the same God. In a sense, it's asking God to be treated according to the Law instead of the New Covenant. I don't see why He wouldn't accede, but I haven't given it extensive thought."
By your definition - those who in some way stem from OT promises, the Muslim's too would be in the same boat. They stem from Hagar's son who was also promised to bring forth a great people. And who knows what was promised to people of other religions which were not recorded in our modern version of the Bible.
Zix, if you ever studied Judaism in depth as opposed to limiting yourself to the OT, you would find that there are many writings and oral traditions which have been passed down that were not cannonized into the Bible but are very much believed by the Jewish people. You will also find that the interpretation and application of those laws in the Pentatuche will vary quite a bit. There is much writing on the various arguments of what it all means.
Simon: Good question. According to Wierwille's definition, they would fall under "apeitheia". According to yours, they don't. Interesting. I'll have to mull that one over some more.
Abigail: Oh, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, or even adequately knowledgeable about Judaica. Sounds like it might be worth looking into, though.
Actually Zixar, if you would read with any level of understanding, you would see that lack of surety is my position. A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C...get it?
It is a false dilemma, it is simplistic, and here's why: Your question, and your subsequent explanations assume that there are only two choices: accept Christ or reject Christ. I, and others here have given our opinion that there is more to it than that. You have seemingly locked yourself into that position and apparently refuse to acknowledge that things might be different than you have decided they ought to be.
Maybe for you there ARE only two choices because that's all that you can see; your inability to understand what some of us are talking about doesn't negate our point of view.
quote:Temper, temper. There's no need to get personal.
No temper involved. Your understanding, at least at this time, is limited, you're ignorant of the nuances of spirituality that exist, and it looks like you want to stay that way.
And, the way I see it, the last part of my post that you addressed is not strictly an ad hominem argument, it's purely an observation (admittedly an insulting observation, but an observation nonetheless). In that statement I am making no argument to you; I am not saying I believe such and such because you are "arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug", but that these qualities that I observe in you will in no way influence me towards Christianity.
Frankly, I am tired of dealing with you in a civil manner, you implied that I, and others who posted here, lied, among other things. You mock our beliefs and describe our explanations as "lawyering".
I don't expect you to agree, just make an effort to understand.
quote:That's not a syllogism, lindy. If you're going to be petty, could you at least look up the big words first? Thanks.
Actually, it is more or less. I added a bit. I'm not being petty. I'm answering a petty question. Simply, those that believe Jesus is the Christ, believe in a god. I don't believe in a god. SO, I don't believe Jesus is the Christ. You know this. So the question is, why would you want someone to renouce JC?
quote: I add the caveat because I don't know what the future brings, and I don't know all of the past, but as of right now, I don't believe. I could be wrong. That is one difference between us, you can't.
Whoever said I can't be wrong? Put the straw man away.
Not a straw man, man. Don't be so literal. In relation to your belief system, you don't except other possiblities outside of it, that may make your beliefs wrong. That seems unacceptable to you. This is based on our discussions in the past. An obsernvation. So, unless you are made of straw....
quote: I didn't post the question to get pleasure out of it. It just amuses me because skeptics aren't supposed to be that touchy about things they've reasoned away.
Ah, so YOU are the one being petty. And amusement isn't a form of pleasure for you? I feel sorry for you. I suspect it is. So which is it?
Perhaps I am not the one needing the dicitonary. You might want to look up skepticand [/url]agnostic. They don't have to do with ruling anything out, but being doubtful and questioning the status quo. I not, and I don't think others are, being touchy.
quote: Oh, so it would be ok if God were someone who made a bunch of rules and then didn't really care whether any of them were followed or not?
When it come to your deathbed, Yes. As Abigail pointed out, good fathers have the right to and should bend the rules at times. Your god sound more like a referee or a lawyer than a father. Plus you are assuming your god is the true god. Would you renounce JC on your deathbed just in case the real god hated Christians? I'm sure you think I'm being petty again.
quote: Call it bitter, call it what ever, your the one that posed the silly hypothetical.
If it's so silly, why are your feathers ruffled?
Actually, it is really silly, and my feathers arn't being ruffled. You are being rather amusing to me. I'm laughing and scratching my head, not yelling and cursing. I think your misunderstanding has a little to do with this bing the internet (you not seeing my face), bad reading comprehension, and mostly you just trying to make me look emotional and stupid....and therefore wrong. I'm neither.
quote: Who said anything about chapter and verse? If you're going to be sarcastic, could you at least make the sarcasm have some tiny semblence of relevance to the topic?
It does. Connect the dots.
I said:
quote: I've said it before. If there is a God, I would rather be judged by using the brain he/she/it gave me, than by the fear of being wrong (ie believing just in case). I think Jefferson said something similar. Besides if there is a god and he/she/it is all love and all knowing, and I am wrong, I'm sure it'll understand.
you said:
quote: There's nothing inherently illogical in belief, regardless of what fundamentalist atheists keep pushing. Besides, a Supreme Being might understand all, but that does not imply that he/she/it will necessarily forgive all.
True, but you don't know that anymore than I do my statement. And I think this is at the core of most of our issues. By questioning and stating my point of view, I am NOT trying to threaten your intelligence or ability to reason. NONE of my posts have attacked your beliefs as they relate to you, only how they relate to me. (at least not untill I have been attacked) There is nothing inherently illogical in disbelief, questioning, and doubting.
this has been long.
to be continued....
(don't bother pointing out spelling mistakes. I am not checking, it is late, and I don't care. I hope you are able to get the gist. -->)
quote: It's the fallacy of arrogance, that one's own experiences or senses are somehow inviolate. I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that electrons really do teleport between orbits, but I have no problem believing either of them. I realize that there are things that are beyond my ability to experience or define to an absolute certainty. To do otherwise is to force reality to fit into one's own narrow framework, and that's simply arrogant.
You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework? Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.) You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you?
Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question. The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way.
Not quite true, lindy. I am not saying either of those. What I'm saying is that "being sure of things seen does not necessarily equal being absolutely unsure of things unseen"
True. Where's Mike when I need him to do a word study on your use of "necessarily". Not necessarily...but there is nothing wrong with being unsure of things unobservable when you already question most things you can.
Another very important point is, if an unverifiable answer has the possibility of being true, then there are an infinite number of other unverifiable answers that could also be true or be true instead.
I seem to be questioning all possible answers, you have chosen one, and Sir G has chosen and is willing to accept most. Is that fair to say? Not trying to be offensive.
This is what drives science, when the questions are asked. Faith wants the answer of "why" as an intention and wants it now. Science asked "why" in the sense of "how" but is willing to wait. Sure science will make assumptions based of what we already have a grasp on but they don't hold on to it the way Faith does.
When we are so sure of the answer to the question of why, prematurely, we stop the process.
I would have worded that a little differently. Faith assumes God made all this for us, then when it is possible to see the order in the universe, it is assumed that it is intelligent design.
I for one, don't reject the idea of god. It is just that everything I have seen and heard has left bigger and tougher questions, even when God is a possible answer. So I continue to seek answers and question them. The questions just don't stop and the possibilities just seem endless.
That last one is where we should be. Zix, deep down, you realise that we all have nothing more to accept than "foggy" answers. So, there is no reason to continue blowing smoke. We all already know it is just fog.
quote: It's the fallacy of arrogance, that one's own experiences or senses are somehow inviolate. I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that electrons really do teleport between orbits, but I have no problem believing either of them. I realize that there are things that are beyond my ability to experience or define to an absolute certainty. To do otherwise is to force reality to fit into one's own narrow framework, and that's simply arrogant.
You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework?
What framework would THAT be? You have completely failed to comprehend my position and instead concocted some convenient fundamentalist stereotype to attack. That's a straw man.
Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.)
That's a complete fabrication. It seems your memory is as faulty as your comprehension skills.
You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you?
More delusion. I'm not threatened by it in the slightest. Why do you feel you have to make this an emotional argument instead of a rational one?
Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question.
Oh, really? Ever seen an electron? Actually seen one move? How did electrons move before quantum mechanics arrived?
The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way.
You don't know the difference between a "natural fact" and a "current theoretical model". Scientists could come up with a new explanation tomorrow and your jumping-electron "natural fact" would get tossed into the laughingstock bin along with N-rays and cold fusion. Consequently, Christ could come back tomorrow and your certainty over God not being a "fact" would be just as ill-conceived.
Oakspear: Wow, that was certainly dramatic. Feel better? -->
The atheists usually have no problem saying "Nope, not even on my deathbed."
The believers have no problem saying "Of course, I'd turn to God."
There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer, no matter how one might pontificate and procrastinate, because in the end the person will still have chosen one way or the other, period.
Why yes I do :)--> Thanks for caring...I most certainly will convert (or revert) on my deathbed now.
And back to your question. There is no gray area to the question, since it only assumes that there are two options, but there is to the answer, your refusal or inability to see nothwithstanding.
Maybe Zixar's style is getting in the way of what he's saying (geez, Zix, don't they have a finishing school down your way that still has a few openings for the fall semester?). It seems to me that what Zixar is saying is that belief in God is something that is visceral or primal. In other words, the question over the existence of God isn't an academic question. Faith either exists in a person or it doesn't, and it is often discovered during a time of crisis (i.e. "death bed"). I don't hear him saying that when it comes to an intellectual consideration of God, no gray area exists. What I hear him saying is that at the moment life brings you to your knees, you will either know God or you won't.
What do you think of this theory? Does a rational understanding of God bring anyone any closer to God? Or is God pure experience?
I dunno. I had a "death bed" moment on an airliner a year or so ago (or so I thought at the time).
I wasn't feeling right, and was trying to make it to the bathroom when I passed out. When I came to there was a whole circus of people hovering over me, a doctor shining a flashlight in my eyes, a couple of flight attendants (Wow! This is my first "medical"! , said one) and one or two passengers trying to render aid somehow.
I thought at the time that this might be "it", as I looked up at the ceiling of the 737 swirling around.
The only deathbed plea I made at that time was not to set down in Sacramento. "$hit, if I'm gonna die it's gonna be in my own bed!" and on we went to Seattle. Honestly, any thought of gods or Holy Thunderers, or eternal rewards (or damnation) was the furthest thing from my mind.
What do I think? I think that Zix has a real need to believe in something, so much so that he's willing to go through all sorts of mental contortions in order to make a silly superstition sound like the epitome of logic.
He'll graft scientific principles and theory onto his religion in order to give it more "curb appeal", and condemn anyone that doesn't share his beliefs as being sore losers or whiners, or spewing sour grapes.
The idea that non-believers could actually be acting out of logic must be negated at all costs...
I think you are giving Zixar too much credit. The death bed analogy is only part of his presentation, he began with his invitation for the non-Christians to renounce Christ. Any who refused were called liars (by implication) and had their beliefs and opinions branded "lawyering" (if LarryP was here, would he consider that an insult?) and "pontificating (if the pope were here, would he consider that an insult?)The death-bed scenario was a refinement, or perhaps a detour. If Zixar is claiming that faith is visceral, rather than rational, he is going against his history of posts here on GS. Zix is the poster-boy for rational Christianity.
quote:...at the moment life brings you to your knees, you will either know God or you won't.
What do you think of this theory? Does a rational understanding of God bring anyone any closer to God? Or is God pure experience?
It depends on the person. I am looking for a little of both. I have to have the experience, yet it has to make sense. Don't bother asking me just what I mean by that, I'll let you know when I figure it out for myself :D-->
I am assuming that by “Christianity,” def59 means “the modern Christianity of the land” or some such thing (otherwise, there are many many other different heads on this Christianity thing).
Why not?
A few things…
Because this Christianity of the land is sickningly contrary to everything I have come to read and learn and experience about God and Spirit and Jesus. It is contrary in the way it thinks and behaves regarding business, science, ethics, sex, politics, ecology, medicine, feminity, and spiritual practice, to name some biggies.
The Jesus of the Bible was a radical revolutionary when it comes to compassionate and selfless living. This quantum-leap in human potential he illustrated and demonstrated is still quite beyond the Christian masses, who use the name of Christ to justify greed, pride, gluttony, violence, waste, etc… (just as VP/twi did)
Most christians do not really believe in or practice or even understand the virtues of atonement or purification, because the “Jesus as scapegoat” idea has really relieved them of this duty (to the detriment of us all, it seems). This has got to be one of the worst misconceptions.
Jesus expressed godliness not as gain or attainment, but as a complete loss and destruction of your carnal self. I don’t know a Christian who would dare to approach such a burning bush. Most Christians are not even “born again,” because they cling to self and ego with all the fear of a dying animal. There is nothing near a transformation process beyond going from heroine-addict on a mission to convert to a church-addict on a mission to convert (this is not a witness of Christ, but a witness of the wonderful benefits of group-support).
Today’s Christianity is no more spiritually nourishing than those who followed the Mosaic laws. Which is why it is contrary to Christ (just as those laws were).
And the differences between TWI and mainstream Christianity was/is so minor, its almost not worth distinguishing the two. All that they sleep, eat, talk, act, judge, emote is/was basically the same.
I sell Christian art, have many clients, and have travelled all over the west doing hotel-ballroom shows. And I tell ya, the USA is full of spiritually paranoid TWIs, who are also afraid of (even hate) most other sub-sects of Christianity.
When looking at a religion or circle or nation, ask yourself, “how healthy and whole are the women and children?” This will tell you how and where and if the Prince of Peace lives there. If the ill of body and soul are piling up at your temple gates, who can honestly say Christ lives there?
“Peace on earth and goodwill towards men” is a global and universal idea. But most Christians think that only they are “God’s people.” And that Christ would justify war or violence on behalf of such a carnally-identified religion (in order to bring peace on earth and goodwill towards men, of course).
What most Christians think about other traditions of other scriptures is quite ignorant. Because most Christians are driven to their version of Christ by fear of their own devil, and not by love at all. They’ll never even investigate before they condemn and shoehorn their favorite boogeyman as the author.
Mainly, Christians still do not understand their own Jesus, let alone Moses, Abraham, Melchizadek, Solomon, etc… Because the current dogma is quick and easy, just like a big mac in a drive thru. You don't even have to know what a cow or potato looks like to eat them.
Truth is, Christ is quicker and healthier than even this.
This spirit is more like picking living fruit off a living tree.
And I long for a day when the name of Christ is rescued from the hands of Christians.
And just as most major world religions – all their true spiritual gems are buried under a mountain, it seems. Christianity is just historically one of the more aggressive and nasty mountains.
Measure the waste, not the food, and you can measure a faith's relationship with Gehenna, always.
quote:Why does Christianity for you have to be about what it is about for other people? You look at them and say which one is right.
Its not. And its why I don't use the word "right." I look at an animal's poop to tell what its been eating and how healthy it is.
quote:Is'nt true Christianity just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis?
Depends on who is saying it, and what they mean.
If to me, my relationship with God is expressed by torturing heretics, it will be different than one whose relationship with God is expressed by (fill in the blank).
quote:Why does it have to be something other than that?
It can't not be something other than that, because those words are empty by themselves.
Besides, "just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis" is not even taught in the Bible as the basic thingy we are to do.
There are two commandments, right? Do they also contain the nuts and bolts of how to express them? Or must we discover this ourselves (if we even try at all, of course).
Although, in a sense, it is absolutely true. Depends on who is saying it and why.
quote:I find something easy to spot about those that love the Lord, they are always engaged with him.
ok. Tell me what this looks like. And how does it resemble Jesus the Christ?
And, how would you recognize it if the person was not Christian and/or did not speak english?
Can a person not be an "official" Christian and also engage in the two commandments, even to the point of manifesting Christ?
Besides, "just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis" is not even taught in the Bible as the basic thingy we are to do.
So your saying the Bible isnt a book about God's and Christs relationship to man and ( ok i missed the part about our relationship to each other.) You lost me here. Isnt that the embodiment of the two commandments that you said, Love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself? What are you saying that love isnt a relationship with God? Thats exactly what that commandment is, if love isnt a relationship what is it?
Your comment:
Its not. And its why I don't use the word "right." I look at an animal's poop to tell what its been eating and how healthy it is
ok i see where your going with this, your examining others to determine what? That some peoples Christianity smells like dog poop? I agree
your comment:
Depends on who is saying it, and what they mean.
If to me, my relationship with God is expressed by torturing heretics, it will be different than one whose relationship with God is expressed by (fill in the blank).
I agree and we dont always know a book by its cover. Yet there fruits are pretty obvious on the face of the cover if we check out there dog poop. Yep sounds good to me. Are they only interested in expanding there ministry via financial gain? Are they teaching uncleanliness to Christians like Baalim did? etc etc works for me.
Your comment:
ok. Tell me what this looks like. And how does it resemble Jesus the Christ?
And, how would you recognize it if the person was not Christian and/or did not speak english?
Can a person not be an "official" Christian and also engage in the two commandments, even to the point of manifesting Christ?
ok language barrier is a problem.
Tell you what what looks like?
Yes I think a person can be an offical Christian and engage in the two commandments and would manifest Christs love. I am simply saying I think its noticeable.
Which is why clarity (further illumination) is useful.
"It all comes down to this" can be said about things, it seems, but only ever so lightly.
I actually asked, can a person NOT be an official Christian and manifest Christ via love?
quote:Are they only interested in expanding there ministry via financial gain? Are they teaching uncleanliness to Christians like Baalim did? etc etc works for me.
But these are not fruit. They are the seed. They are the intent, not the result.
So, how do we recognize the results?
Are the people more or less ill?
Are the people more or less broken?
Are they more or less ignorant?
Are they more or less afraid?
Are they more or less depressed?
Do they hate their enemy more or less?
What do they waste and what do they do with it?
This is the kind of poop that tells all.
And all things must poop, even religious movements.
;)-->
Because The Christ has a name that is beyond human language (thus, beyond human control).
It is in form and function, which manifests from within a human heart.
Unmistakable if one is looking.
Most Christians of the land can't seem to recognize Christ when they see it.
They are about as caught up on labels and nametags as we were in twi.
"Are you a declared Christian" (based on seperation) is more important than "is your love universal?" (based on a more divine embrace).
Which is why clarity (further illumination) is useful.
"It all comes down to this" can be said about things, it seems, but only ever so lightly.
Ok i understand the word love is misused and interdependent on the definition of the person using it.
Your comment:
I actually asked, can a person NOT be an official Christian and manifest Christ via love?
No I dont think they can. God's love is unconditional and holy. Man is unperfected. Interestingly the I John I beleive says we are "perfected in love" or with love i dont remember.
With respect to your other things u said:
I dont know if I can characterize the love of God based on viewing different indiviuals, for how can I be sure of the depth of there experience? I know of no love of God meter. I mean people can be depressed over something and have the love of God lift them up, but that doesnt make the pain of whats bothering them go away. Why? Because man is unperfect in God's love today that is.
Conceptually as to what is love isnt it a growing experience? When I was young I thought to do what everyone told me was loving everyone. Now, I realize it takes more love to say no and tell people they are wrong about some things. Agreed?
George: Was that during your flight home from that truly awful trip to Thailand? It pained me to read about it. I think it's time for you to stay put for awhile. So what happened next on the plane? Never mind whether you became suddenly acquainted with God, did you recover enough to walk out of the plane?
Come to think of it, I had a "death bed" experience, too, last spring. I was sitting in front of my computer at work, when some sort of weird strobe light thing started happening, and there were flashing lights everywhere. I recalled reading somewhere that having a stroke involves some sort of vision disturbance, so I figured that must be what was happening. I had the same thoughts you did. If I was going to die, I wanted to be in my own house. So I drove home (it's only a few blocks), climbed into bed, and waited for death to come. No angels. No white light. No communing with God. Just silence, and the promise of death. After an hour, I felt fine, so I went back to work. And here I am.
Oakspear: Maybe you're right. I'll read the genesis of the "death bed" analogy later. It sounds like an interesting theory, though, no matter the origin.
Speaking of mental contortions, condemnation, and arrogance, in my opinion, Zix has nothing on sirguess. Not that you were making a comparison, but I don't find Zixar nearly so offensive as sirguessalot's haughty appraisal of people and ideals he knows so little about, and seems to understand even less.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
27
27
26
Popular Days
Aug 24
22
Aug 31
19
Aug 25
16
Sep 1
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 18 posts
Abigail 27 posts
Oakspear 27 posts
Zixar 26 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2004
22 posts
Aug 31 2004
19 posts
Aug 25 2004
16 posts
Sep 1 2004
16 posts
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Since this is in the doctrinal forum,can Greek words be brought up?....Zixar,remember in PAFL,the Greek words apiethia and apiestia were mentioned to describe "those who had not not heard enough to believe,and those who heard enough,but refuse to believe"...Would you categorize PFAL grads who no longer believe in the "apiethia" category? Weirwille also said we get the English word "apathy" from "apiethia"...
It seems like the only examples the Bible gave of apiethia were really
"disobedience"...The Old Testament Jews,or New Testament believers,were not calling God into question,but rather God's ways...I don't see anybody here "refusing" to believe because they're pursuing filthy lucre,or the lusts of the flesh,or earthly treasures or they don't like the results they've gotten...It almost seems like some of those who don't believe are in the "apiestia" category...That is,even though we all have a decent Bible background,we may not actually know enough about God to believe..I hope I didn't butcher the Greek spellings..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"In that it's the same God. In a sense, it's asking God to be treated according to the Law instead of the New Covenant. I don't see why He wouldn't accede, but I haven't given it extensive thought."
By your definition - those who in some way stem from OT promises, the Muslim's too would be in the same boat. They stem from Hagar's son who was also promised to bring forth a great people. And who knows what was promised to people of other religions which were not recorded in our modern version of the Bible.
Zix, if you ever studied Judaism in depth as opposed to limiting yourself to the OT, you would find that there are many writings and oral traditions which have been passed down that were not cannonized into the Bible but are very much believed by the Jewish people. You will also find that the interpretation and application of those laws in the Pentatuche will vary quite a bit. There is much writing on the various arguments of what it all means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Simon: Good question. According to Wierwille's definition, they would fall under "apeitheia". According to yours, they don't. Interesting. I'll have to mull that one over some more.
Abigail: Oh, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, or even adequately knowledgeable about Judaica. Sounds like it might be worth looking into, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Actually Zixar, if you would read with any level of understanding, you would see that lack of surety is my position. A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C...get it?
It is a false dilemma, it is simplistic, and here's why: Your question, and your subsequent explanations assume that there are only two choices: accept Christ or reject Christ. I, and others here have given our opinion that there is more to it than that. You have seemingly locked yourself into that position and apparently refuse to acknowledge that things might be different than you have decided they ought to be.
Maybe for you there ARE only two choices because that's all that you can see; your inability to understand what some of us are talking about doesn't negate our point of view.
No temper involved. Your understanding, at least at this time, is limited, you're ignorant of the nuances of spirituality that exist, and it looks like you want to stay that way.And, the way I see it, the last part of my post that you addressed is not strictly an ad hominem argument, it's purely an observation (admittedly an insulting observation, but an observation nonetheless). In that statement I am making no argument to you; I am not saying I believe such and such because you are "arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug", but that these qualities that I observe in you will in no way influence me towards Christianity.
Frankly, I am tired of dealing with you in a civil manner, you implied that I, and others who posted here, lied, among other things. You mock our beliefs and describe our explanations as "lawyering".
I don't expect you to agree, just make an effort to understand.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Can I accept Christ and yet reject him as "THE WAY"?
Can't I acknowledge him as "a way" for some and yet not be the way for me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Zixy,
Actually, it is more or less. I added a bit. I'm not being petty. I'm answering a petty question. Simply, those that believe Jesus is the Christ, believe in a god. I don't believe in a god. SO, I don't believe Jesus is the Christ. You know this. So the question is, why would you want someone to renouce JC?
Not a straw man, man. Don't be so literal. In relation to your belief system, you don't except other possiblities outside of it, that may make your beliefs wrong. That seems unacceptable to you. This is based on our discussions in the past. An obsernvation. So, unless you are made of straw....
Ah, so YOU are the one being petty. And amusement isn't a form of pleasure for you? I feel sorry for you. I suspect it is. So which is it?
Perhaps I am not the one needing the dicitonary. You might want to look up skepticand [/url]agnostic. They don't have to do with ruling anything out, but being doubtful and questioning the status quo. I not, and I don't think others are, being touchy.
When it come to your deathbed, Yes. As Abigail pointed out, good fathers have the right to and should bend the rules at times. Your god sound more like a referee or a lawyer than a father. Plus you are assuming your god is the true god. Would you renounce JC on your deathbed just in case the real god hated Christians? I'm sure you think I'm being petty again.
Actually, it is really silly, and my feathers arn't being ruffled. You are being rather amusing to me. I'm laughing and scratching my head, not yelling and cursing. I think your misunderstanding has a little to do with this bing the internet (you not seeing my face), bad reading comprehension, and mostly you just trying to make me look emotional and stupid....and therefore wrong. I'm neither.
It does. Connect the dots.
I said:
you said:
True, but you don't know that anymore than I do my statement. And I think this is at the core of most of our issues. By questioning and stating my point of view, I am NOT trying to threaten your intelligence or ability to reason. NONE of my posts have attacked your beliefs as they relate to you, only how they relate to me. (at least not untill I have been attacked) There is nothing inherently illogical in disbelief, questioning, and doubting.
this has been long.
to be continued....
(don't bother pointing out spelling mistakes. I am not checking, it is late, and I don't care. I hope you are able to get the gist.
-->)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
continued...
You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework? Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.) You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you?
Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question. The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way.
All this reminds me of a great thread we had....
Here it is, Science and the Bible
Here is a highlight. IMHO (lol)
That last one is where we should be. Zix, deep down, you realise that we all have nothing more to accept than "foggy" answers. So, there is no reason to continue blowing smoke. We all already know it is just fog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oakspear: Wow, that was certainly dramatic. Feel better?
-->
The atheists usually have no problem saying "Nope, not even on my deathbed."
The believers have no problem saying "Of course, I'd turn to God."
There is no gray area at all to the question. In the end, one either would, or one would not. Agnosticism doesn't really offer another answer, no matter how one might pontificate and procrastinate, because in the end the person will still have chosen one way or the other, period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Why yes I do
:)--> Thanks for caring...I most certainly will convert (or revert) on my deathbed now. 
And back to your question. There is no gray area to the question, since it only assumes that there are two options, but there is to the answer, your refusal or inability to see nothwithstanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Hey Oakspear,
Maybe Zixar's style is getting in the way of what he's saying (geez, Zix, don't they have a finishing school down your way that still has a few openings for the fall semester?). It seems to me that what Zixar is saying is that belief in God is something that is visceral or primal. In other words, the question over the existence of God isn't an academic question. Faith either exists in a person or it doesn't, and it is often discovered during a time of crisis (i.e. "death bed"). I don't hear him saying that when it comes to an intellectual consideration of God, no gray area exists. What I hear him saying is that at the moment life brings you to your knees, you will either know God or you won't.
What do you think of this theory? Does a rational understanding of God bring anyone any closer to God? Or is God pure experience?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I dunno. I had a "death bed" moment on an airliner a year or so ago (or so I thought at the time).
I wasn't feeling right, and was trying to make it to the bathroom when I passed out. When I came to there was a whole circus of people hovering over me, a doctor shining a flashlight in my eyes, a couple of flight attendants (Wow! This is my first "medical"! , said one) and one or two passengers trying to render aid somehow.
I thought at the time that this might be "it", as I looked up at the ceiling of the 737 swirling around.
The only deathbed plea I made at that time was not to set down in Sacramento. "$hit, if I'm gonna die it's gonna be in my own bed!" and on we went to Seattle. Honestly, any thought of gods or Holy Thunderers, or eternal rewards (or damnation) was the furthest thing from my mind.
What do I think? I think that Zix has a real need to believe in something, so much so that he's willing to go through all sorts of mental contortions in order to make a silly superstition sound like the epitome of logic.
He'll graft scientific principles and theory onto his religion in order to give it more "curb appeal", and condemn anyone that doesn't share his beliefs as being sore losers or whiners, or spewing sour grapes.
The idea that non-believers could actually be acting out of logic must be negated at all costs...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Laleo:
I think you are giving Zixar too much credit. The death bed analogy is only part of his presentation, he began with his invitation for the non-Christians to renounce Christ. Any who refused were called liars (by implication) and had their beliefs and opinions branded "lawyering" (if LarryP was here, would he consider that an insult?) and "pontificating (if the pope were here, would he consider that an insult?)The death-bed scenario was a refinement, or perhaps a detour. If Zixar is claiming that faith is visceral, rather than rational, he is going against his history of posts here on GS. Zix is the poster-boy for rational Christianity.
It depends on the person. I am looking for a little of both. I have to have the experience, yet it has to make sense. Don't bother asking me just what I mean by that, I'll let you know when I figure it out for myselfLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Why not Christianity?
I am assuming that by “Christianity,” def59 means “the modern Christianity of the land” or some such thing (otherwise, there are many many other different heads on this Christianity thing).
Why not?
A few things…
Because this Christianity of the land is sickningly contrary to everything I have come to read and learn and experience about God and Spirit and Jesus. It is contrary in the way it thinks and behaves regarding business, science, ethics, sex, politics, ecology, medicine, feminity, and spiritual practice, to name some biggies.
The Jesus of the Bible was a radical revolutionary when it comes to compassionate and selfless living. This quantum-leap in human potential he illustrated and demonstrated is still quite beyond the Christian masses, who use the name of Christ to justify greed, pride, gluttony, violence, waste, etc… (just as VP/twi did)
Most christians do not really believe in or practice or even understand the virtues of atonement or purification, because the “Jesus as scapegoat” idea has really relieved them of this duty (to the detriment of us all, it seems). This has got to be one of the worst misconceptions.
Jesus expressed godliness not as gain or attainment, but as a complete loss and destruction of your carnal self. I don’t know a Christian who would dare to approach such a burning bush. Most Christians are not even “born again,” because they cling to self and ego with all the fear of a dying animal. There is nothing near a transformation process beyond going from heroine-addict on a mission to convert to a church-addict on a mission to convert (this is not a witness of Christ, but a witness of the wonderful benefits of group-support).
Today’s Christianity is no more spiritually nourishing than those who followed the Mosaic laws. Which is why it is contrary to Christ (just as those laws were).
And the differences between TWI and mainstream Christianity was/is so minor, its almost not worth distinguishing the two. All that they sleep, eat, talk, act, judge, emote is/was basically the same.
I sell Christian art, have many clients, and have travelled all over the west doing hotel-ballroom shows. And I tell ya, the USA is full of spiritually paranoid TWIs, who are also afraid of (even hate) most other sub-sects of Christianity.
When looking at a religion or circle or nation, ask yourself, “how healthy and whole are the women and children?” This will tell you how and where and if the Prince of Peace lives there. If the ill of body and soul are piling up at your temple gates, who can honestly say Christ lives there?
“Peace on earth and goodwill towards men” is a global and universal idea. But most Christians think that only they are “God’s people.” And that Christ would justify war or violence on behalf of such a carnally-identified religion (in order to bring peace on earth and goodwill towards men, of course).
What most Christians think about other traditions of other scriptures is quite ignorant. Because most Christians are driven to their version of Christ by fear of their own devil, and not by love at all. They’ll never even investigate before they condemn and shoehorn their favorite boogeyman as the author.
Mainly, Christians still do not understand their own Jesus, let alone Moses, Abraham, Melchizadek, Solomon, etc… Because the current dogma is quick and easy, just like a big mac in a drive thru. You don't even have to know what a cow or potato looks like to eat them.
Truth is, Christ is quicker and healthier than even this.
This spirit is more like picking living fruit off a living tree.
And I long for a day when the name of Christ is rescued from the hands of Christians.
And just as most major world religions – all their true spiritual gems are buried under a mountain, it seems. Christianity is just historically one of the more aggressive and nasty mountains.
Measure the waste, not the food, and you can measure a faith's relationship with Gehenna, always.
Todd (a notorious thread killer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
There is a Christianity that looks for a messiah in the flesh.
There is a Christianity that sees the messiah within all of us.
There is a Christianity that feeds the poor in the kitchens.
There is a Christianity that thinks the poor get what they deserve.
There is a Christianity that thinks other religions were made by the devil.
There is a Christianity that sees the Christ in all things.
There is a Christianity that stands on the corner with "the end is near" on its back.
There is a Christianity that sees and feels the very logos in the stars and smiles about it.
There is a Christianity that is happy that their judgemental God is far far away in heaven.
There is a Christianity that enters heaven and finds peace and sees God as easy as they breathe.
There is a Christianity that thinks a sacrifice on an altar is something done long ago in temples.
There is a Christianity that sees their mouth as the altar and their ego as the idol, and so takes great care what they offer to their maker.
on and on and on...
So, which Christianity are we talking about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
...thread...dy-ing!....think-ing...hurts!...must...keep
...mov-ing....on!
(((flop!!!)))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
sirgues:
Your comment:
So, which Christianity are we talking about?
Why does Christianity for you have to be about what it is about for other people? You look at them and say which one is right.
Is'nt true Christianity just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis? Why does it have to be something other than that?
I find something easy to spot about those that love the Lord, they are always engaged with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
If to me, my relationship with God is expressed by torturing heretics, it will be different than one whose relationship with God is expressed by (fill in the blank).
It can't not be something other than that, because those words are empty by themselves.
Besides, "just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis" is not even taught in the Bible as the basic thingy we are to do.
There are two commandments, right? Do they also contain the nuts and bolts of how to express them? Or must we discover this ourselves (if we even try at all, of course).
Although, in a sense, it is absolutely true. Depends on who is saying it and why.
ok. Tell me what this looks like. And how does it resemble Jesus the Christ?And, how would you recognize it if the person was not Christian and/or did not speak english?
Can a person not be an "official" Christian and also engage in the two commandments, even to the point of manifesting Christ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
sirgues:
your comment:
Besides, "just simply God and Christs relationship to you on a daily basis" is not even taught in the Bible as the basic thingy we are to do.
So your saying the Bible isnt a book about God's and Christs relationship to man and ( ok i missed the part about our relationship to each other.) You lost me here. Isnt that the embodiment of the two commandments that you said, Love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself? What are you saying that love isnt a relationship with God? Thats exactly what that commandment is, if love isnt a relationship what is it?
Your comment:
Its not. And its why I don't use the word "right." I look at an animal's poop to tell what its been eating and how healthy it is
ok i see where your going with this, your examining others to determine what? That some peoples Christianity smells like dog poop? I agree
your comment:
Depends on who is saying it, and what they mean.
If to me, my relationship with God is expressed by torturing heretics, it will be different than one whose relationship with God is expressed by (fill in the blank).
I agree and we dont always know a book by its cover. Yet there fruits are pretty obvious on the face of the cover if we check out there dog poop. Yep sounds good to me. Are they only interested in expanding there ministry via financial gain? Are they teaching uncleanliness to Christians like Baalim did? etc etc works for me.
Your comment:
ok. Tell me what this looks like. And how does it resemble Jesus the Christ?
And, how would you recognize it if the person was not Christian and/or did not speak english?
Can a person not be an "official" Christian and also engage in the two commandments, even to the point of manifesting Christ?
ok language barrier is a problem.
Tell you what what looks like?
Yes I think a person can be an offical Christian and engage in the two commandments and would manifest Christs love. I am simply saying I think its noticeable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Hate is also a relationship.
So is rape.
So is theft.
Which is why clarity (further illumination) is useful.
"It all comes down to this" can be said about things, it seems, but only ever so lightly.
I actually asked, can a person NOT be an official Christian and manifest Christ via love?
But these are not fruit. They are the seed. They are the intent, not the result.So, how do we recognize the results?
Are the people more or less ill?
Are the people more or less broken?
Are they more or less ignorant?
Are they more or less afraid?
Are they more or less depressed?
Do they hate their enemy more or less?
What do they waste and what do they do with it?
This is the kind of poop that tells all.
And all things must poop, even religious movements.
Because The Christ has a name that is beyond human language (thus, beyond human control).
It is in form and function, which manifests from within a human heart.
Unmistakable if one is looking.
Most Christians of the land can't seem to recognize Christ when they see it.
They are about as caught up on labels and nametags as we were in twi.
"Are you a declared Christian" (based on seperation) is more important than "is your love universal?" (based on a more divine embrace).
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
sirgues:
Hate is also a relationship.
So is rape.
So is theft.
Which is why clarity (further illumination) is useful.
"It all comes down to this" can be said about things, it seems, but only ever so lightly.
Ok i understand the word love is misused and interdependent on the definition of the person using it.
Your comment:
I actually asked, can a person NOT be an official Christian and manifest Christ via love?
No I dont think they can. God's love is unconditional and holy. Man is unperfected. Interestingly the I John I beleive says we are "perfected in love" or with love i dont remember.
With respect to your other things u said:
I dont know if I can characterize the love of God based on viewing different indiviuals, for how can I be sure of the depth of there experience? I know of no love of God meter. I mean people can be depressed over something and have the love of God lift them up, but that doesnt make the pain of whats bothering them go away. Why? Because man is unperfect in God's love today that is.
Conceptually as to what is love isnt it a growing experience? When I was young I thought to do what everyone told me was loving everyone. Now, I realize it takes more love to say no and tell people they are wrong about some things. Agreed?
Peace also
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
George: Was that during your flight home from that truly awful trip to Thailand? It pained me to read about it. I think it's time for you to stay put for awhile. So what happened next on the plane? Never mind whether you became suddenly acquainted with God, did you recover enough to walk out of the plane?
Come to think of it, I had a "death bed" experience, too, last spring. I was sitting in front of my computer at work, when some sort of weird strobe light thing started happening, and there were flashing lights everywhere. I recalled reading somewhere that having a stroke involves some sort of vision disturbance, so I figured that must be what was happening. I had the same thoughts you did. If I was going to die, I wanted to be in my own house. So I drove home (it's only a few blocks), climbed into bed, and waited for death to come. No angels. No white light. No communing with God. Just silence, and the promise of death. After an hour, I felt fine, so I went back to work. And here I am.
Oakspear: Maybe you're right. I'll read the genesis of the "death bed" analogy later. It sounds like an interesting theory, though, no matter the origin.
Speaking of mental contortions, condemnation, and arrogance, in my opinion, Zix has nothing on sirguess. Not that you were making a comparison, but I don't find Zixar nearly so offensive as sirguessalot's haughty appraisal of people and ideals he knows so little about, and seems to understand even less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.