Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

do you believe the Torah and the Holy Bible


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#46    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

Quote

Argumentum ad populum.
  Nice try, but no.

Quote

Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude.  There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

From <http://philosophy.la...ic/popular.html>
I did not even appeal to an "authority" much less try to win popular assent.  I pointed out that the context of the passage clearly shows that your interpretation was not correct.


Quote

I told you the Spirit led me to this view but you claim it is just mine. Exactly, you are indeed speaking for It.
Like I said earlier, this tactic of trying to dismiss a point by making the ridiculous argument that one is taking on the role of prophet or Speaker for God is tired and useless.

Quote

There is no one True path but many paths.
That's not what the Bible teaches, which is why you've had to take verses fantastically out of context to attempt to garner support for your view from it.

Quote

So you are accusing me of taking verses and passages out-of-context and in your view it is either due to ignorance or an attempt to justify my actions? OK well since I used to believe like you and have since grown let us skip past ignorance, I should know better right?
Nice try, but before we "skip" off you would have to convince me that you've actually grown.

Quote

Secondly, if I am doing what you claim to justify my actions what actions would those be? To accept everyone. Wow how evil and while I am being sarcastic sadly you probably do believe my view is evil maybe even poison, yes accepting others is exactly that (sarcasm again).
Now, this is argumentum ad populum!  As I said in an earlier post, I think that is a very nice belief and I hope it helps you be more respectful and loving to others.  I have no problem with what you choose to believe, I take issue with your attempt to make it seem Biblically correct by taking Bible passages out of context.

Quote

And you are debating against this as if you don't want to accept everyone. Well OK I am sure you will give us an elaborate excuse of how you are not doing that and you do accept everyone but your words speak for themselves, they don't speak for me,
I am not debating your belief, I am pointing out you are using Scriptural passages out of context, that in context, those passages do not actually support your view.  Heck, Jesus Himself in John 14:6 says the exact opposite.



Quote

I have already acknowledged your charge now, above, but I won't be discussing it again with you because it is not out-of-context.

Yet my main priority is accepting others including you and if you feel you are attacked then you should correct that feeling because the only thing that might be under attack is your view, not you, and the fundamentalist view that there is only one path and we don't have to accept those not on it, you can claim left and right this is not you, but most of us know this is modern Christianity and it needs to change.
That's the thing, as I said earlier, you are not attacking me, you are attacking the argument instead of making a counterargument.  As a Bible Christian, what I see taught in the Bible and modeled by Jesus is not a call to not accept those who do not believe, but to love them as I love anyone else, to share God's love with them, not to revile them.  So, you're whole schtick, trying to lump me in with people who take passages out of context to validate their hatefulness is a weak attack and still does not actually form a valid counter to my point that you are taking passages out of context.

Quote

Well it does not say to accept others directly but when coupled with the fundamentalist position of rejecting those who do not share the same exact views there is a strong inference that we shouldn't judge others (which is what rejecting those who do not agree with us exactly is doing, it is a form of judging then going further and taking action on that judgment such as an attack or another action such as exclusion).

Modern Christianity has done horrible things and each Christian must decide to continue that or to change and according to the Spirit.
Since I am not rejecting anyone, nor am I condoning the rejection of anyone, I'm not sure how this answers the fact that you took passages out of context.

Quote

A parallel here could be one of a bigot counting how many "different" type of friends he has, usually on one hand too. I am not impressed at your claims, do not find them genuine, because if you really accepted everyone then you would, in word and deed, through posts, but you are not accepting others by listing those who are "different" that you accept. Try instead to think of them as equals, peers, just like you: human.
Thank you for calling me a bigot.  I'll have to figure out how this is a counterargument to my point that you took Bible passages out of context.

Quote

Again talking for the Spirit.
Now an even older, more overused, and stupid attempt at a counterargument.

Quote

Notice when I mention the Spirit with a pronoun it is always It and not He. Another thing that modern Christianity needs is to either remove the raw masculinity from it and understand the Spirit is not a he or her, or to add more femininity for balance. Of course this is not something you probably agree with and neither would I be surprised.

In the end you have done a fair bit more than just simply make a charge of out-of-context as you finally claimed. You called other belief's poision, of course since you didn't specificy you will try to wiggle out perhaps, so tell us what did you mean by poision, I think we already know but you can change it since we can't stop you. Secondly you speak for the Spirit often as if you are the official arbitrator that know if someone else is following it or not. That is not possible or convincing.

Then you have defended yourself continuously when you are not even under attack. It is not that difficult, accept others, allow the scriptures to open up, know that you or me are not the perfect specimen but don't try to pretend you are a greater one than me when it comes to being Christian because I won't accept it as something you could say or claim definitively.
The situation stands.  You have taken Bible passages wildly out of context in an attempt to argue that your view is Biblically correct.

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 05 March 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

To recap you can claim I am wrong, I am not claiming you are but will defend my position lightly if you insist.

Keep in mind claiming I am wrong goes against the example in the first half of Acts 19 where they simply walked away.

Secondly, I don't think everyone is at the same level and people are still growing all the time which is why I would not call you wrong since you now are not a finished product.

You can continue to do as you have and when you are ready to change you can do that to.
I pointed out you took Bible passages out of context.  I did not attack your belief and even praised it.

Edited by IamsSon, 05 March 2013 - 05:53 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#47    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:34 PM

The heart of the matter is simply this, large segments of modern Christianity do not believe all paths lead to heaven, thus they believe if others believe differently than them they are going to hell, thus they reject others when the Bible (Romans 2:1) clearly says to knock it off.

This stupid belief has caused much harm in history.

You have even failed to acknowledge this and only then can a real conversation begin but it is fine and predicatable that you most likely will choose not to.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

Please post the verses in Acts 19 where you see this.  Because what I see in Acts 19 is:
  • Paul arrives at Ephesus (Acts 19:1)
  • Found disciples baptized by John the Baptist  (Acts 19:2-4)
  • Baptized disciples into Jesus’ name (Acts 19:5-7)
  • Spoke boldly in synagogue (Acts 19:8-9)
  • All in Asia heard (Acts 19:10)
  • Performs striking miracles (Acts 19:11-12)
  • Demonized man attacks the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16)
  • All became fearful (Acts 19:17-20)
  • A trip to Jerusalem and Paul’s motivation (Acts 19:21)
  • The cult of Artemis (Acts 19:22-27)
  • City in an uproar (Acts 19:28-34)
  • Officials stop the riot (Acts 19:35-41)

Acts 19 and verse 37: For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess.

This can be said about the disciples. Can it be said about you?

Do you believe those who worship the goddess are either:

a. following demons?
b. following nothing but their imagination?
b. drinking poision they will die from?
c. believing in something that will take them to hell?
e. all or most of the above?

If so then you are a blasphemer of the goddess.

I don't believe any of those things.

Do you?

Will you answer? Can you answer? Failure to answer is just as fine.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

Actually, if you notice that part of my post you just quoted starts out with my encouragement to RE-READ, which clearly implies I believe you have already read it at least once.

I know exactly what you meant, an insinuation that I do not understand the material and am wrong.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

Actually, as the article I quoted on my previous post shows, in context, Romans 2 is for the most part Paul's presentation of the beliefs he is about to refute (the particular verses you're probably referring to--verses 12 and 13--are very clearly refuted in verse 3:20).

What are you talking about? Nothing in Romans 2 is refuted.

Romans 3:20 is also connected to 3:19 which is clearly directed to those under the law. We will call this group A.

Now Romans 2:12 mentions both group A those under the law and group B those without the law.

It is Romans 2:14-16 though which clearly talks about group B so whatever you see in Romans 3:20 is about group A not B (the gentiles aka those without the law).

Again in Romans 2:12 it states those who follow the law (group A) will be judged by the law but in Romans 2:14-16 it says those who do not have the law (group B will be accused or excused by their own conscience.

Group B is people who do not follow the Bible or God and they have an equal chance to go to heaven.

We agree on pretty much the rest of that post of yours except on a few minor details but I would rather focus on these. You can continue to ignore these points but they are the only ones I am interested in because once one understand that everyone not just Bible-believers can go to heaven then it allows them to accept others better and allows them to quit judging others which are two huge problems within the church today.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Nice try, but no.
I did not even appeal to an "authority" much less try to win popular assent.  I pointed out that the context of the passage clearly shows that your interpretation was not correct.

You clearly stated, "The thing is, it's not my view alone," about your view when discussing my view that all paths have equal chances to go to heaven as if just because a large segment of Christianity agrees with you means it is right especially since Christianity changes from era to era in what beliefs they most choose to focus on.

So argumentum ad populum also can be stated as an argument by consensus, aka, "if everyone else agrees with me then I must be right!"

Also populum means people not authority. If I had accused you of an argument from authority then I would have said argumentum ad verecundiam instead.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Like I said earlier, this tactic of trying to dismiss a point by making the ridiculous argument that one is taking on the role of prophet or Speaker for God is tired and useless.

That's not what the Bible teaches, which is why you've had to take verses fantastically out of context to attempt to garner support for your view from it.

Nice try, but before we "skip" off you would have to convince me that you've actually grown.

Convincing you, a fundamentalist Christian who does not believe all paths go to heaven, has never been a goal.

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Now, this is argumentum ad populum!  As I said in an earlier post, I think that is a very nice belief and I hope it helps you be more respectful and loving to others.  I have no problem with what you choose to believe, I take issue with your attempt to make it seem Biblically correct by taking Bible passages out of context.

I am not debating your belief, I am pointing out you are using Scriptural passages out of context, that in context, those passages do not actually support your view.  Heck, Jesus Himself in John 14:6 says the exact opposite.

Thank you for bringing up John 14:6. "No one comes to the Father except through me."

You will claim that this means there is only one path.

I will claim that no one can go to the Father (spirit) except through the Son (humanity). Thus to accept Jesus is to accept humanity. The greatest commandment must be observed with the second greatest and they were to love God and love your neighbor. The theme repeats itself there, one must accept all others as they are to accept humanity, and only then can one truly grow.

Notice how I state it, that you will claim that, I will claim this, no where do I say you are wrong, this might be the best you are doing now, and that is fine I accept your view as being right for the stage you are in, you don't have to accept mine, I don't expect you to.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

That's the thing, as I said earlier, you are not attacking me, you are attacking the argument instead of making a counterargument.  As a Bible Christian, what I see taught in the Bible and modeled by Jesus is not a call to not accept those who do not believe, but to love them as I love anyone else, to share God's love with them, not to revile them.  So, you're whole schtick, trying to lump me in with people who take passages out of context to validate their hatefulness is a weak attack and still does not actually form a valid counter to my point that you are taking passages out of context.

There is no schtick just one Christian calling out other Christians for how they operate, you can decide which type of Christian you want to be, the kind that hold doctrines which have caused suffering in the past while ignoring that, or the kind that acknowledges that. Your choice I don't think you are wrong in either case if you are doing the best you can.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Since I am not rejecting anyone, nor am I condoning the rejection of anyone, I'm not sure how this answers the fact that you took passages out of context.

Thank you for calling me a bigot.  I'll have to figure out how this is a counterargument to my point that you took Bible passages out of context.

Now an even older, more overused, and stupid attempt at a counterargument.

The situation stands.  You have taken Bible passages wildly out of context in an attempt to argue that your view is Biblically correct.

I pointed out you took Bible passages out of context.  I did not attack your belief and even praised it.

We have discussed that already and I am focusing on these others points, I did mention I would only acknowledge that portion once so there is no way my statements are in continued defense of your charge which is yours alone.

Now what is your view on those who follow the goddess? What is your view on that path? Are they going to hell? Do they have an equal chance to get into heaven?

What about the way the church has harmed so many because of the view that only they are the one true way and all others are false? What about those who have been hurt, will you discuss that? It is still a problem in the modern church. Why won't you acknowledge this?

It is fine to discuss what you wish but a lack of acknowledgement speaks just as loudly!

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 05 March 2013 - 07:42 PM.


#48    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:04 PM

Quote

You clearly stated, "The thing is, it's not my view alone," about your view when discussing my view that all paths have equal chances to go to heaven as if just because a large segment of Christianity agrees with you means it is right especially since Christianity changes from era to era in what beliefs they most choose to focus on.
I clearly stated it is not simply my view, but the contextually correct view.  I did not appeal to anything other than the context of the passage.

Quote

So argumentum ad populum also can be stated as an argument by consensus, aka, "if everyone else agrees with me then I must be right!"
But I was not saying "everyone else agrees with me,"
I simply pointed out that in context the passage does not say what you want it to say.

Quote

Also populum means people not authority. If I had accused you of an argument from authority then I would have said argumentum ad verecundiam instead.
Maybe you need to take that up with the dictionary.



Quote

Convincing you, a fundamentalist Christian who does not believe all paths go to heaven, has never been a goal.
Gee, I wonder why?

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.



Quote

Thank you for bringing up John 14:6. "No one comes to the Father except through me."

You will claim that this means there is only one path.

I will claim that no one can go to the Father (spirit) except through the Son (humanity). Thus to accept Jesus is to accept humanity. The greatest commandment must be observed with the second greatest and they were to love God and love your neighbor. The theme repeats itself there, one must accept all others as they are to accept humanity, and only then can one truly grow.

Notice how I state it, that you will claim that, I will claim this, no where do I say you are wrong, this might be the best you are doing now, and that is fine I accept your view as being right for the stage you are in, you don't have to accept mine, I don't expect you to.
So, basically, you know you're completely full of it here so you're not even going to attempt to defend this dribble.

There is no reason to take this verse allegorically.  The context clearly shows Jesus was having a direct conversation with His followers when He said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Quote

There is no schtick just one Christian calling out other Christians for how they operate, you can decide which type of Christian you want to be, the kind that hold doctrines which have caused suffering in the past while ignoring that, or the kind that acknowledges that. Your choice I don't think you are wrong in either case if you are doing the best you can.
Actually, all that is happening here is that I'm pointing out you're taking passages out of context to fit your agenda.


Quote

We have discussed that already and I am focusing on these others points, I did mention I would only acknowledge that portion once so there is no way my statements are in continued defense of your charge which is yours alone.

Now what is your view on those who follow the goddess? What is your view on that path? Are they going to hell? Do they have an equal chance to get into heaven?

What about the way the church has harmed so many because of the view that only they are the one true way and all others are false? What about those who have been hurt, will you discuss that? It is still a problem in the modern church. Why won't you acknowledge this?

It is fine to discuss what you wish but a lack of acknowledgement speaks just as loudly!
People have been harmed because people have taken passages out of context to fit their agenda, just like you're doing.  You, my friend, are the one who has the potential for hurting people.  I'm simply pointing out that you're taking passages out of context.

Edited by IamsSon, 05 March 2013 - 09:05 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#49    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

I clearly stated it is not simply my view, but the contextually correct view.  I did not appeal to anything other than the context of the passage.

But I was not saying "everyone else agrees with me,"
I simply pointed out that in context the passage does not say what you want it to say.

Maybe you need to take that up with the dictionary.



Gee, I wonder why?

All you are insinuating is that the Holy Spirit which guides me is not the same one you follow, and that is fine, I have no need to agree or disagree, that is between you and the Spirit but again you are already speaking for It.



So, basically, you know you're completely full of it here so you're not even going to attempt to defend this dribble.

There is no reason to take this verse allegorically.  The context clearly shows Jesus was having a direct conversation with His followers when He said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Actually, all that is happening here is that I'm pointing out you're taking passages out of context to fit your agenda.



People have been harmed because people have taken passages out of context to fit their agenda, just like you're doing.  You, my friend, are the one who has the potential for hurting people.  I'm simply pointing out that you're taking passages out of context.

Accepting everyone is not an agenda it is the second greatest commandment.


#50    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:25 PM

Matthew 22:36-40.

One cannot love their neighbor if they believe their neighor is going to hell because they are on a different path.

This is something the church must reconcile when they are able to understand it. In time they too will grow.


#51    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 05 March 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Accepting everyone is not an agenda it is the second greatest commandment.
The second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself."  This does not in any way mean be a doormat to anyone and everyone, nor does it mean accept anything anyone does or says.  Love often requires being the one to tell someone a hard truth.  My wife, my parents and my best friends have been the only people who have ever called me on things I am doing or not doing.  They did it because they love me.  They did it despite the fact that it hurt me.  They did it despite the fact that they knew I would get upset and might initially take it out on them.  Why did they do this?  Why were they the only ones who did this?  Because they were the only ones who loved me enough to tell me what they knew I needed to be told and take the consequences.

If you think loving someone means accepting whatever they say or do, you have a very small concept of love.

However, love means you tell the hard truths in as gentle a way as possible; even if sometimes "gentle" takes on the "pull the band-aid quickly so the pain isn't dragged out" sort of way.

I do not go around telling people they are going to hell.  I do not go around pointing out sins to strangers, I do not accost people in the street.  In fact, outside of these forums, I rarely speak with people about religious/spiritual matters unless I have gotten to know them well, and even then it's usually only in response to a direct question from them.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 05 March 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Matthew 22:36-40.

One cannot love their neighbor if they believe their neighor is going to hell because they are on a different path.

This is something the church must reconcile when they are able to understand it. In time they too will grow.
Au contraire!  One can most definitely love their neighbor and fear for their eternal situation.  

Look, the fact that you have taken Biblical passages out of context is firmly laid out.  The fact that you think your beliefs are important enough to justify taking verses out of context is of concern, since I am sure every other person who has taken Scripture out of context also thought it was the right thing to do, even if it led to terrible harm to many people throughout history.  

The fact you want to believe everyone will find their path to heaven is your prerogative, and frankly, it sounds like you just want to be nice to everyone, which is great.  I commend your intent.

Edited by IamsSon, 05 March 2013 - 09:59 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#52    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:00 PM

I do not believe these books to be what most do though in answering the original question yes they were holy inspired.They were inspired by a group of peoples god,not the only god or gods believed in at the time around the world.Man has written and re-written these books to the point from the original translation i hardly doubt is even close to the same book.I have nothing against christians or their beliefs as long as not trying to push them on me.My question to those who believe in these books,why and how do you believe in something that no one else around the world outside of one small group is the one and only?People around the world lived great lives,civilizations rose and fell,the sun came up and went down every day with only this tiny group of people ever hearing of him.How is he the one and only highest power when all of this went on without most of the world ever hearing about him until rome decided to take the religion for their own and spread it around?These books were also written by man,man is corrupt does anyone here ever question if man may have put some of his own ideas in there for his own purposes?

Not trying to offend anyone just a few thoughts.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#53    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,927 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:52 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 05 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

The heart of the matter is simply this, large segments of modern Christianity do not believe all paths lead to heaven, thus they believe if others believe differently than them they are going to hell, thus they reject others when the Bible (Romans 2:1) clearly says to knock it off.

This stupid belief has caused much harm in history.
I don't want to get into the middle of your debate, so I'm not going to ask you whether you see a difference between saying "not all paths lead to heaven" compared to "you are not going to heaven" (I see them as two different things altogether, one is Judging, one is not, as per Romans 2:1). Instead, I'd just like to ask you one simple question.  From what I can tell you do identify yourself as "Christian", so with that in mind, do you believe Jesus died for your sins?  That's the question I want to know, if your answer is yes, how do you square that with people of other faiths who have not accepted Jesus?

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#54    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

The second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself."  This does not in any way mean be a doormat to anyone and everyone, nor does it mean accept anything anyone does or says.

Some Christians are so entrenched in doctrine they would view accepting others as being a doormat.

These Christians judge and condemn others from other paths that when they see Christians like myself accepting and open to those on other paths these Christians think it is a hostile action as if those from other paths are enemies.

The hostility is visible from them. That is not love.

It is a perversion on their part of love to view it as hostile. Love is accepting others as they are not as you want them to be.

I don't accept all some Christians do or say, you are right that to do so would not be love, such as your belief that there is only one true path and all others lead to hell, but I accept you as doing and believing the best you know how so you are not wrong especially since the Spirit operates within you as much as is possible but your view is responsible for many bad things that have and still happen.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Love often requires being the one to tell someone a hard truth.  My wife, my parents and my best friends have been the only people who have ever called me on things I am doing or not doing.  They did it because they love me.  They did it despite the fact that it hurt me.  They did it despite the fact that they knew I would get upset and might initially take it out on them.  Why did they do this?  Why were they the only ones who did this?  Because they were the only ones who loved me enough to tell me what they knew I needed to be told and take the consequences.

You are not in any position to claim you love me, you are not telling me any hard truths, I am not hurt, upset, or wanting to take it out on you.  

Your example is non sequitur since none of those things apply here.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

If you think loving someone means accepting whatever they say or do, you have a very small concept of love.

In your view I am sure you see it that way. Love is not believing others are going to hell for disagreeing with your doctrine. It is not attempting to reprove others who think differently since your view is not superior to others even if you and your group think it is.

I accept your view as the best you can do for now but I won't adopt it. I accept your view even if it is the same view that harms others. I am not a doormat because I accept you. I do not accept all you do or say.

This is the second time you mention that. You really must believe it. I don't because their is vast nuance between accepting someone and accepting all they say or do.

My concept of love is small indeed, you are right, but not because of the reasons you stated.

Does it make you feel good to say such things? Do you believe your love for others is greater? Do you believe that your love is closer to perfection than mine? Do you believe yours is more Christ-like?

You must to call or insinuate my concept of love small.

I consider you a fellow Christian even if you do not.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

However, love means you tell the hard truths in as gentle a way as possible; even if sometimes "gentle" takes on the "pull the band-aid quickly so the pain isn't dragged out" sort of way.

A simplistic view which again assumes you are in a superior position to decide who is right or wrong and who needs to be reproved or corrected except this is the job of the Spirit and I doubt you are capable of doing that job which is not yours to do.

And in your attempts to reprove it is your own intellect, will, and flesh that most comes to the fore.

The Spirit is operating still no doubt and through you as much as it possibly can but you are not Its official mouthpiece and won't be accepted as such or given  that illusion here even if you attempt to maintain it.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

I do not go aound telling people they are going to hell.  I do not go around pointing out sins to strangers, I do not accost people in the street.  In fact, outside of these forums, I rarely speak with people about religious/spiritual matters unless I have gotten to know them well, and even then it's usually only in response to a direct question from them.

This is commendable but I encourage you to take it a step further and do not even judge or condemn others in your own thought or actions.  
You do exactly that when you believe so-and-so is on this path and that path leads to hell.

You don't have to say these things to others or out loud to still carry the same core beliefs as those who do. And as you continue to believe those on other paths are drinking posion or will go to hell for it then you are indeed judging and condeming even without accosting others. Your upheld doctrine licenses others to continue accosting and actually harming others as well.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Au contraire One can most definitely love their neighbor and fear for their eternal situation.

Except you are not authorized to judge and condemn others (Romans 2:1 again) and do not have an actual clue to anyone's eternal situation especially not through inference based on what path they are on.

Besides in this post I demonstrated how your version of love is perverted.

Try helping others in the here and now instead which would help more. Recall that is a mission and you simply thinking others are going to hell and acting or reacting on that belief is not a mission or works.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Look, the fact that you have taken Biblical passages out of context is firmly laid out.  The fact that you think your beliefs are important enough to justify taking verses out of context is of concern, since I am sure every other person who has taken Scripture out of context also thought it was the right thing to do, even if it led to terrible harquote] to many people throughout history.

You are still discussing out-of-context but have demonstrated you have difficulties grasping verses and passages in-context just as when you claimed that verse in Romans 3 refuted the other 2 verses in Romans 2 (this was the specific example you gave).

The Spirit would have not got that wrong but you in your own intellect, will, and flesh did get that wrong.

View PostIamsSon, on 05 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

The fact you want to believe everyone will find their path to heaven is your prerogative, and f rankly, it sounds like you just want to be nice to everyone, which is great.  I commend your intent.

I never stated "everyone" will go to heaven just that others have as much as a chance as you regardless if they are an atheist, pagan, or on some other path.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 March 2013 - 10:56 AM.


#55    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:54 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 06 March 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

I don't want to get into the middle of your debate, so I'm not going to ask you whether you see a difference between saying "not all paths lead to heaven" compared to "you are not going to heaven" (I see them as two different things altogether, one is Judging, one is not, as per Romans 2:1). Instead, I'd just like to ask you one simple question.  From what I can tell you do identify yourself as "Christian", so with that in mind, do you believe Jesus died for your sins?  That's the question I want to know, if your answer is yes, how do you square that with people of other faiths who have not accepted Jesus?

No worries since what you witnessed was not an actual debate, no winners or losers, and we were obviously discussing two different things without him ever acknowledging my points and me only addressing his out-of-context charges just once, so there was nothing to interrupt.

Now since you labeled it a debate you must have believed it was one and to insure myself that you just do not want to continue that perceived-on-your-part-debate or to augment it when you saw Iams perhaps was insufficient by not asking the questions you wanted asked, and since I am not willing to debate, will you instead have an even conversation with me and acknowledge and answer to the best of your ability my own questions that I have for you?

Or is this just one-sided?

Keep in mind too that Iams chose to ask me to expand my view most likely with a critical eye and whether you have one or not you are also asking me. I did not volunteer.

This is not something I just want to throw out and am even hesitant to respond feeling you want a debate and not a conversation.

You also said you had one question but I actually see two questions you have asked.

Now I have questions I would like to ask and you can answer now or after I respond if you commit yourself to answering them. If so let me know because I too am interested in discussing the topics I find relevant. I am prepared to answer you if you answer me, or tell me you will after I do, so go first or let me but if it is one-sided then there will be no continued discussion but that choice is yours.

Will you answer what you think about the goddess and those who follow her? Do you blaspheme her? Do you believe they are on a path to hell?

When it comes to the view that there is only one true path, and that view has been the source which has allowed so many others to suffer at the hands of those who believe that view, what are your thoughts on the harm that view has caused?

And most importantly how do you square away your belief that "not all paths lead to heaven" (and I am not discussing paths of violence or hate but other beliefs such as Buddhism, paganism, and atheism) without assuming those on those paths are also destined to not be permitted in heaven just based on their path?

That is judging and condemning even if you don't tell someone to their face they are going to hell you are operating on a script that thinks exactly that.

Elucidate if you wish or let me know your intent before I respond to your questions.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 March 2013 - 11:37 AM.


#56    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,927 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

No worries since what you witnessed was not an actual debate, no winners or losers, and we were obviously discussing two different things without him ever acknowledging my points and me only addressing his out-of-context charges just once, so there was nothing to interrupt.

Now since you labeled it a debate you must have believed it was one and to insure myself that you just do not want to continue that perceived-on-your-part-debate or to augment it when you saw Iams perhaps was insufficient by not asking the questions you wanted asked, and since I am not willing to debate, will you instead have an even conversation with me and acknowledge and answer to the best of your ability my own questions that I have for you?

Or is this just one-sided?

Keep in mind too that Iams chose to ask me to expand my view most likely with a critical eye and whether you have one or not you are also asking me. I did not volunteer.

This is not something I just want to throw out and am even hesitant to respond feeling you want a debate and not a conversation.
I was sincerely only asking a simple question, I didn't expect multiple paragraphs questioning whether I was sincere or expected two-way debate.  To allay your fears, I hate one-sided discussions, I've ended discussions myself with members in the past who refused to engage in two-way discussion with me.  I wouldn't disrespect someone by doing the same to them as I hate being done to me.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

You also said you had one question but I actually see two questions you have asked.
There was technically only one question, the second part of the comment was a clarification of the first, "if your answer is yes, then...".  But if it works better to consider them two separate questions, then I amend my comment to include two questions, not just one.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Now I have questions I would like to ask and you can answer now or after I respond if you commit yourself to answering them. If so let me know because I too am interested in discussing the topics I find relevant. I am prepared to answer you if you answer me, or tell me you will after I do, so go first or let me but if it is one-sided then there will be no continued discussion but that choice is yours.

Will you answer what you think about the goddess and those who follow her? Do you blaspheme her? Do you believe they are on a path to hell?

When it comes to the view that there is only one true path, and that view has been the source which has allowed so many others to suffer at the hands of those who believe that view, what are your thoughts on the harm that view has caused?

And most importantly how do you square away your belief that "not all paths lead to heaven" (and I am not discussing paths of violence or hate but other beliefs such as Buddhism, paganism, and atheism) without assuming those on those paths are also destined to not be permitted in heaven just based on their path?

That is judging and condemning even if you don't tell someone to their face they are going to hell you are operating on a script that thinks exactly that.

Elucidate if you wish or let me know your intent before I respond to your questions.
Essentially, you seem to be asking me how I square away my beliefs in only one path, saying that if I don't accept all paths as equally valid then I'm "judging" others, and therefore going against the command to "Judge not, or you may be judged yourself".  To answer I would contend your assertion that (to quote you) "that is judging and condemning even if you don't tell someone to their face".  I believe this is a false statement.  I think you have a misunderstanding of what it means to "judge" someone.  To "judge" does not mean simply to hold an opinion on whether a path leads to heaven or not, but to actually condemn a person on that basis.  I may believe that only through Christ can we be saved, but I will never judge another person for believing differently.  Everyone makes their own choice, and I respect that choice.

Furthermore, the biblical understanding of judgement also has strong overtones of condemnation, and that is a matter of the heart.  If I warn someone that their actions may lead to severe consequences then that is  warning done out of love, if I say the exact same thing but with an intent to accuse and belittle and heap hatred on them, then that is condemnation.  Let's say, for example, that I see someone I know taking cocaine or heroin.  I could warn them that the path they are on is destructive and will lead to pain for them and their families.  I am judging their actions in terms of deciding they are on a destructive path, but am I judging them in terms of condemning them?  On the surface, no.  But I might be, if I am doing it with hatred in my heart - "FINE, KEEP GOING THIS WAY, BEFORE LONG YOU'LL BE IN JAIL AND YOU NO LONGER DESERVE MY FRIENDSHIP, YOU ARE A BAD HUMAN BEING AND I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN".

The gist of my comment on their drug taking may be very similar, but the heart is what decides whether I am saying what I am saying in order to condemn or in order to help them.  In short, and to get back to the question you asked, I totally disagree with your assertion that simply holding an opinion about other paths thus classifies me as one who judges.  Jesus' warning to "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself" were in terms of condemnation - do not condemn another person, only God can do that.  And I fully support that view, I will never condemn another person for what they believe, I will respect them and even support them in their decision.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Ok, with that said, would you mind answering my question (or two questions, if it makes it easier to think of) - do you believe that Jesus died for your sins?  If yes, how do you square this with people of other faiths who have not accepted Jesus?

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#57    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 05 March 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I do not believe these books to be what most do though in answering the original question yes they were holy inspired.They were inspired by a group of peoples god,not the only god or gods believed in at the time around the world.Man has written and re-written these books to the point from the original translation i hardly doubt is even close to the same book.I have nothing against christians or their beliefs as long as not trying to push them on me.My question to those who believe in these books,why and how do you believe in something that no one else around the world outside of one small group is the one and only?People around the world lived great lives,civilizations rose and fell,the sun came up and went down every day with only this tiny group of people ever hearing of him.How is he the one and only highest power when all of this went on without most of the world ever hearing about him until rome decided to take the religion for their own and spread it around?These books were also written by man,man is corrupt does anyone here ever question if man may have put some of his own ideas in there for his own purposes?

Not trying to offend anyone just a few thoughts.

While you touched many topics I would like to focus on your view that the texts today are so corrupt compared to the original since you stated, "man has written and re-written these books to the point from the original translation i hardly doubt is even close to the same book."

How did you ascertain this? Because others have said it? Have you actually read the texts in the original tongues and then the other translations to see how accurate they are? If not then one cannot be certain the texts are corrupt or claim so.

To be fair I will answer your question but my answer only applies to me and not all Christians. I believe because I grew up in a Christian culture, so acculturation. Had I been born somewhere else at another time there is a strong chance I would be on another path.

We take it on faith that our God is the highest power but personally I understand that other people claim other deities and unlike most other Christians I do not believe God will send all these other people on other paths to hell but instead will accept them as we should too.

You probably did not read this whole thread but Romans 2 clearly mentions that there are two groups of people: those who are under the law and those who do not have the law, those under the law will be judged by it, this is the Bible, those who choose another path have the same laws written on their heart and it is their own conscience that will accuse or excuse them.

So this is the reason I believe God is the highest because God accepts all, gives all a chance, even those who do not recognize God or even ever heard of God such as the millions of people who lived before and even during the time of Christ but were too far removed to learn of Christ.

It will probably not be a reason for you to accept but you don't have to but maybe you can understand why I do.


#58    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

While you touched many topics I would like to focus on your view that the texts today are so corrupt compared to the original since you stated, "man has written and re-written these books to the point from the original translation i hardly doubt is even close to the same book."

How did you ascertain this? Because others have said it? Have you actually read the texts in the original tongues and then the other translations to see how accurate they are? If not then one cannot be certain the texts are corrupt or claim so.

To be fair I will answer your question but my answer only applies to me and not all Christians. I believe because I grew up in a Christian culture, so acculturation. Had I been born somewhere else at another time there is a strong chance I would be on another path.

We take it on faith that our God is the highest power but personally I understand that other people claim other deities and unlike most other Christians I do not believe God will send all these other people on other paths to hell but instead will accept them as we should too.

You probably did not read this whole thread but Romans 2 clearly mentions that there are two groups of people: those who are under the law and those who do not have the law, those under the law will be judged by it, this is the Bible, those who choose another path have the same laws written on their heart and it is their own conscience that will accuse or excuse them.

So this is the reason I believe God is the highest because God accepts all, gives all a chance, even those who do not recognize God or even ever heard of God such as the millions of people who lived before and even during the time of Christ but were too far removed to learn of Christ.

It will probably not be a reason for you to accept but you don't have to but maybe you can understand why I do.

Well said and thanks for replying!Sorry for not spacing my questions out was in a hurry lol

I have not read the texts in there original tongues,but i do know the church left certain parts out as they deemed them not necessary.As i said who gave them this authority?

I still do not understand why a all powerful being did not make himself known to the entire world and just focused his book and his attention to one part of the world.If all powerful his laws should have been known and observed by all from every corner of the earth.

Yes i understand why you and other christians believe.I have nothing against what others believe,i have my own beliefs though which i can prove to be as true as anything christians or any faiths can actually prove.My thoughts and beliefs have nothing to do with blind faith,more just a basic understanding of everything that is,could have been,or could be.

Thanks again for the reply

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#59    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 06 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

I was sincerely only asking a simple question, I didn't expect multiple paragraphs questioning whether I was sincere or expected two-way debate.  To allay your fears, I hate one-sided discussions, I've ended discussions myself with members in the past who refused to engage in two-way discussion with me.  I wouldn't disrespect someone by doing the same to them as I hate being done to me.


There was technically only one question, the second part of the comment was a clarification of the first, "if your answer is yes, then...".  But if it works better to consider them two separate questions, then I amend my comment to include two questions, not just one.


Essentially, you seem to be asking me how I square away my beliefs in only one path, saying that if I don't accept all paths as equally valid then I'm "judging" others, and therefore going against the command to "Judge not, or you may be judged yourself".  To answer I would contend your assertion that (to quote you) "that is judging and condemning even if you don't tell someone to their face".  I believe this is a false statement.  I think you have a misunderstanding of what it means to "judge" someone.  To "judge" does not mean simply to hold an opinion on whether a path leads to heaven or not, but to actually condemn a person on that basis.  I may believe that only through Christ can we be saved, but I will never judge another person for believing differently.  Everyone makes their own choice, and I respect that choice.

Furthermore, the biblical understanding of judgement also has strong overtones of condemnation, and that is a matter of the heart.  If I warn someone that their actions may lead to severe consequences then that is  warning done out of love, if I say the exact same thing but with an intent to accuse and belittle and heap hatred on them, then that is condemnation.  Let's say, for example, that I see someone I know taking cocaine or heroin.  I could warn them that the path they are on is destructive and will lead to pain for them and their families.  I am judging their actions in terms of deciding they are on a destructive path, but am I judging them in terms of condemning them?  On the surface, no.  But I might be, if I am doing it with hatred in my heart - "FINE, KEEP GOING THIS WAY, BEFORE LONG YOU'LL BE IN JAIL AND YOU NO LONGER DESERVE MY FRIENDSHIP, YOU ARE A BAD HUMAN BEING AND I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN".

The gist of my comment on their drug taking may be very similar, but the heart is what decides whether I am saying what I am saying in order to condemn or in order to help them.  In short, and to get back to the question you asked, I totally disagree with your assertion that simply holding an opinion about other paths thus classifies me as one who judges.  Jesus' warning to "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself" were in terms of condemnation - do not condemn another person, only God can do that.  And I fully support that view, I will never condemn another person for what they believe, I will respect them and even support them in their decision.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Ok, with that said, would you mind answering my question (or two questions, if it makes it easier to think of) - do you believe that Jesus died for your sins?  If yes, how do you square this with people of other faiths who have not accepted Jesus?

You can continue to believe I have a misunderstanding of the word "judge" because that is only your view and I don't need you to agree with me for me to feel secure in my own view.

I believe that the Spirit can allow us different definitions for different reasons, maybe one of us has to grow in that area, while another has to grow in another and for them the actual understanding of the word "judge" is not necessary. Still you can claim I am wrong, I will simply claim your view is for you and not me at this time but also that I used to believe exactly like you before.

You can think in your head my change in views is because I am being tricked, believing lies, being seduced by an evil spirit, or whatever else, I can almost guarantee you do not believe my change in position is due to the Holy Spirit.

If you believe that, you don't even have to say it to my face, just be certain because if you dismiss my view like IamsSon did by saying it must be another spirit that led me to that view, like him you would not be really talking about me but about the Spirit itself.

Now I had more than two questions and just as you thought it a bit off that I responded to your simple questions with paragraphs I feel it a bit off that you didn't fully answer all of mine. To be fair I should figure out what percentage of my questions did you answer and only answer that same percent but that would be even more unsatisfying to you as your response was to me and at least I want to have the most satisfaction for both of us when it comes to a dialogue, not a debate because I am not interested in that.

To answer your two questions, yes, I believe Jesus died for all our sins. Now I can't prove the following but I also believe this, that Jesus finished the work began at Creation, that Satan was defeated, and that the whole world was given a greater chance. That Jesus died to begin a new dispensational period so that no longer would one have to use the Jewish priests as intermediaries and sacrifice but one could go directly to the Source.

There is nuance and a difference in my view and what is most likely to be your view. Just because Jesus died for all our sins still does not mean that is the only path, the act was so powerful that it covers all sins, for all peoples, even those who had lived and died before Jesus began His ministry.

And that is why I also cannot believe that all those on other paths will go to hell or that there is only one path to heaven. What about all the Native Americans? They never heard about Jesus and am I to believe beause of geography that they are destined to hell? What about babies? What about someone who grew up in China, was given to their government as a baby, and the only information they have is from the state?

I believe God is big enough to accept them even if they have never heard about God.

What about those who were abused by so-called Christians? So abused they could never become Christians themselves?

The scripture is also clear to me that there are two groups of people, those under the law (they chose to follow the Bible), and those without the law (they either chose not to follow or never even heard of it), both have a chance to go to heaven.

There is no need for me to square anything off, I understand why you asked the second question in that way, in your mind you would have to square it off, to me as I explained above it is rather an organic part of the Bible itself.

In the end some, not all, Christians might not want to accept that those on other paths have the same chances because to them being a Christian is hard work and it would seem like cheating of someone else was less disciplined. Those Christians do not realize it is just as difficult to grow and become better in this world under any system. I do believe the Spirit works even in non-believers, even in those against Christ, the Spirit can and has used these people as God used Pharoah.

I understand how evolution works and how we evolved in the jungles and that to go against the group could mean everyone would die. Part of the reason Jesus also came was because the world was leaving behind the tribal era and mindsets in favor of urban and cosmopolitan settings. This called for a new dispensational period. But many today still are operating as a tribe with group think and to believe differently than them is not going against God but simply against their groupthink but sorry if that word does not apply and could have been replaced with another: groupthink that is.

Again you don't have to agree, it is not as if your approval will validate my view and whether it is right or wrong depends on if you or Iams say it is. I don't need all my ideas vetted by the groups you belong to either and when some speak that is who I hear more, the voice of their group, not them, and not the Spirit.


#60    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,927 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 06 March 2013 - 04:16 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

You can continue to believe I have a misunderstanding of the word "judge" because that is only your view and I don't need you to agree with me for me to feel secure in my own view.

I believe that the Spirit can allow us different definitions for different reasons, maybe one of us has to grow in that area, while another has to grow in another and for them the actual understanding of the word "judge" is not necessary. Still you can claim I am wrong, I will simply claim your view is for you and not me at this time but also that I used to believe exactly like you before.

You can think in your head my change in views is because I am being tricked, believing lies, being seduced by an evil spirit, or whatever else, I can almost guarantee you do not believe my change in position is due to the Holy Spirit.

If you believe that, you don't even have to say it to my face, just be certain because if you dismiss my view like IamsSon did by saying it must be another spirit that led me to that view, like him you would not be really talking about me but about the Spirit itself.
I did not say you were being tricked or believing lies or seduced by evil spirits.  Please do not place words in my mouth.  The single and solitary reason I disagree with you is that your definition of Judgement does not align with the biblical definition of the word.  It is textually inconsistent, therefore, to insert your own definition and supersede your personal interpretation over that of the textual definition.  Likewise, I don't "need" you to agree with me, I'm just pointing out what is!  You can choose to research the biblical definition of judgement, or you can choose to accept your own personal definition of judgement.  Personally, I choose the biblical definition.  It's up to you what you do with the Bible, it's your life and your decision.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Now I had more than two questions and just as you thought it a bit off that I responded to your simple questions with paragraphs I feel it a bit off that you didn't fully answer all of mine. To be fair I should figure out what percentage of my questions did you answer and only answer that same percent but that would be even more unsatisfying to you as your response was to me and at least I want to have the most satisfaction for both of us when it comes to a dialogue, not a debate because I am not interested in that.
I thought my answer covered the entirety of the question/s you asked.  The other two questions you raised were:

1- Will you answer what you think about the goddess and those who follow her? Do you blaspheme her? Do you believe they are on a path to hell?

2- When it comes to the view that there is only one true path, and that view has been the source which has allowed so many others to suffer at the hands of those who believe that view, what are your thoughts on the harm that view has caused?


I felt that both answers were covered under the third question, which was: "And most importantly how do you square away your belief that "not all paths lead to heaven" (and I am not discussing paths of violence or hate but other beliefs such as Buddhism, paganism, and atheism) without assuming those on those paths are also destined to not be permitted in heaven just based on their path?"  The first question, in particular, is virtually answered word-for-word, except that I didn't answer whether I "blaspheme" the goddess.  The answer is probably yes, I do blaspheme the goddess, but only insofar as believing she doesn't exist (which is the same blasphemy as non-Christians lay towards Yahweh/Jesus).

The second question is more detailed, because it has to take in large parts of human history, and naturally arguments about what causes all the wars and disagreements we as a species have had.  In general, I lament that people have taken things too far throughout history to the point of the sword, killing in the name of whatever God they believed in.  Those who understand Jesus' teachings understand that they should never have been so judgemental in the first place.  A large part of this was the political power that the heads of these religious organisations gained, the power to influence popular opinion.  I am not convinced that all these religious wars and persecutions would have been avoided simply with an encompassing belief in all paths leading to God.  I seriously think that had religion not been used as an excuse to promote segregation and violence people would have found other ways to justify hatred towards others, regardless of what their religion teaches (which should be "love your neighbour" as the second greatest command).

Apologies for not fully answering before, I figured I would deal primarily with the biggest question you raised, but hopefully I've fixed that up, I can't see any other questions you asked.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

To answer your two questions, yes, I believe Jesus died for all our sins. Now I can't prove the following but I also believe this, that Jesus finished the work began at Creation, that Satan was defeated, and that the whole world was given a greater chance. That Jesus died to begin a new dispensational period so that no longer would one have to use the Jewish priests as intermediaries and sacrifice but one could go directly to the Source.

There is nuance and a difference in my view and what is most likely to be your view. Just because Jesus died for all our sins still does not mean that is the only path, the act was so powerful that it covers all sins, for all peoples, even those who had lived and died before Jesus began His ministry.
I'm sorry, but I just can't see how God would send his only son to die for us, and then say that only through Jesus can we be saved.... and then turn around and say "believe whatever you like, it doesn't actually matter anymore".


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

And that is why I also cannot believe that all those on other paths will go to hell or that there is only one path to heaven. What about all the Native Americans? They never heard about Jesus and am I to believe beause of geography that they are destined to hell? What about babies? What about someone who grew up in China, was given to their government as a baby, and the only information they have is from the state?

I believe God is big enough to accept them even if they have never heard about God.
These are special cases not addressed in the Bible.  The Bible only speaks of two types of people - those who have heard and accepted the message, and those who have heard and rejected the message.  It speaks nothing of the Native Americans who haven't ever even heard of Jesus.  It doesn't speak of the Chinese kid who has never heard about Jesus.  It doesn't speak of the child who dies as a baby.  I personally believe that we are ALL given  chance to accept Jesus at some point.  During our lifetime, if we hear the message then we have the choice to reject or accept it.  If we don't hear it during our lifetime, then God will search those people's hearts after their death, and know with certainty how we would have reacted to God's message IF we did hear it.  I also don't believe that children need to have accepted God.  They are innocent and sinless and therefore have not lost their place in heaven, thus if they die as a baby they are going to heaven - at some point in their growth, they will develop cognitively to the point where they can consciously choose to accept or reject God and at some point they do reject God, thus committing sin (it is not my place to say what age that is, every child develops at a different rate, and in the end only God can know for certain).

These groups of people are not mentioned in the Bible as to their fate, so we have to hypothesise based on other sections not directly related.  I find this to be a very different thing to saying that therefore all people regardless of whether they accept or reject God are saved.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

What about those who were abused by so-called Christians? So abused they could never become Christians themselves?
If they hear the message and reject it, then they have to deal with the consequences, regardless of the horrors they may have experienced at the hands of so-called Christians.  I don't believe a person could be so turned away from God that they are physically incapable of returning.  They may have prejudices a mile long against Christianity but that doesn't make them incapable of searching out God.  With God, all things are possible.


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

The scripture is also clear to me that there are two groups of people, those under the law (they chose to follow the Bible), and those without the law (they either chose not to follow or never even heard of it), both have a chance to go to heaven.
The Bible actually says that those under the Law are doomed - the Law actually condemns us.  Those who are no longer under the Law but under Grace have received salvation as a free gift through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).  No Christian today is under the Law - though as Christians we do express our desire to live for God by adhering to the Law, the Bible clearly states that we are under Grace, not the Law.  


View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

There is no need for me to square anything off, I understand why you asked the second question in that way, in your mind you would have to square it off, to me as I explained above it is rather an organic part of the Bible itself.

In the end some, not all, Christians might not want to accept that those on other paths have the same chances because to them being a Christian is hard work and it would seem like cheating of someone else was less disciplined. Those Christians do not realize it is just as difficult to grow and become better in this world under any system. I do believe the Spirit works even in non-believers, even in those against Christ, the Spirit can and has used these people as God used Pharoah.

I understand how evolution works and how we evolved in the jungles and that to go against the group could mean everyone would die. Part of the reason Jesus also came was because the world was leaving behind the tribal era and mindsets in favor of urban and cosmopolitan settings. This called for a new dispensational period. But many today still are operating as a tribe with group think and to believe differently than them is not going against God but simply against their groupthink but sorry if that word does not apply and could have been replaced with another: groupthink that is.

Again you don't have to agree, it is not as if your approval will validate my view and whether it is right or wrong depends on if you or Iams say it is. I don't need all my ideas vetted by the groups you belong to either and when some speak that is who I hear more, the voice of their group, not them, and not the Spirit.
I don't see it as "cheating" per se.  I simply can't square a God who requires repentance and a desire to worship him who then turns around and says "actually, you don't have to repent, you don't have to do anything, actually.  Live your life how YOU want, do what YOU want, ignore ME all you like, I don't really care".  The two views are incompatible in my opinion (and I believe, the opinion of the Bible).  I'm not demanding you agree with me, I'm simply sharing how I see it.  Best wishes,

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 06 March 2013 - 04:19 PM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users