Defending a religious person...

[variant]

You act as if you are accused of "having faith?" Rest easy there. (Not me, I don't have it) I will ask you to be introspective as to why this reaction took place, and if you can to tell me how I triggered it. PM might be the better venue for such details, but it was not in the actual content of my posting.

Mainly because you continue to use it to dodge a valid question.

Are you intentionally being provocative? I have told you plainly I don't consider myself to have any religion, so it should be obvious to you that I don't follow religious teaching. Repetitive ritual, especially done for the sake of ritual, is the antithesis of anything and everything Jesus had to say. In my own observations, the first thing religion does is to mess that all up. And what I see in Scripture is the constant warning to stay clear of all that.

Your beliefs are religious ones, you belong to a religion. I am not provoking you I am applying the common definition to your belief set.

The fact that you mention Jesus means I can even tell you which one.

Next up, "metaphysics" is not what the Gospel is about, neither is it in any way related to what Jesus means when He says "believe," or "those who believe," or anything similar.

The gospel contains many metaphysical statements and implications that I am pretty sure you believe.

The gospels are religious documents, containing religious teachings.

Further, when you use the word "God" what do you really refer to? Is it not defined by all sorts of religion? If we could somehow lay this on the table, you might find that I reject the same things you do. Or at least a lot of it.

I think you've gone off the rails here. If you agree or disagree with me on things you should feel free to say so.

Now I ask you to notice how much difficulty this has caused, and to realize there surely isn't enough common ground here to be able to speak deep truths in any meaningful fashion, such as you appear to wish. Instead, why not go back to my original answer to your question and actually read it, and take it at face value, and see if you don't come away with a completely different understanding than what you've been operating under?

Try actually discussing it, instead of just knee-jerk reaction this time?

I've read it fifty times! It's a cop out every single time.

Every time I go back there or read subsequent posts it is clear you simply haven't answered the question.

I don't see how, but I'm not sure its all that important to our discussion here.

It's pretty simple.

Definition for religion: contains A, B and usually C.

You.

Since I don't contain C, I am not religious.

Me

Ok, you have the right to call me religious. Which means that I also have the right to say, for instance, that you are a Catholic that should be boiled alive in oil, or a Calvinist who should be burned at the stake, or anything else I can imagine now matter how preposterous. The valid question is, is that a good idea?

Or maybe I should take you at your word that you are an atheist, and you should also take me at my word that I am not religious.

If I perhaps said I believed in God you might have reason to not take me at my word.

Similarly when you quote a theological premise of a religion to me I am going to pause at not calling you religious.

I'm not making some wild accusation for the sake of my vanity here.

I really wouldn't say any such thing. I know of a spiritual realm, because I have interacted with it, many times, and many ways. This is not "a belief," nor mere talk. I wouldn't consider God to be a "super human agent," nor do I believe I can convey to you how I perceive His essence. The most reliable way is via the Bible, but you clearly have a set of lenses that fog over as soon as you recognize anything from there, and you complete the picture in your own mind in something approaching the worst way possible before any details can be filled in. This is called "closure," and I hope you can try to keep that at bay?

See, this is where we run into problems, you are cloaking everything you say as if there is some sort of mystery to it as if you have some info that I lack yet you wont just come out and say it. Your reluctant to speak on it and yet you assume an air of authority about the subject overall.

Now you're fiddling with the common usage of "believe". Were not going to argue over that too because this conversation is overtly tedious, and you are being remarkably cagey as it is.

Let's simplify.

Question: Do you believe in God?

Question: Do you believe that God is an agent? That God acts.

Question: Do you believe that God can act in ways that humans can not attain.

I presume your answers to these questions is yes so I think you believe in super human agents. Correct me if I am wrong. If you are capable of being that straight forward.

And yet I haven't. You might not like the answer, but your own words said I claim to "know what's in your heart better than you do," or something to that effect. Be honest and admit that's at least part of what set you off. And again I point out I said no such thing, because I think no such thing. To be sure, God could reveal to me things about your own heart that not even you know - but He hasn't. And I really don't see any reason why He would.

I don't think my question has been answered. You can keep putting out self contradictory word salads to defend your non-answer answers if you like.

To be clear, I NEVER "speak for God." If there is something I know that I feel is relevant I will interject it, but this by no means concludes omniscience on my part. I'm kinda surprised I need to clarify this?

I think you are wrong to speak for God, I have not accused you of omniscience. Heck, I doubt I could accuse you of clarity.

 

[Lee M]

That is most excellent, and means that you are more than half way home.

Very often, in my experience, it is not actually God himself that people reject, but an inadequate expression of who God is.

All that any of us need to do (if you don't mind a bit of advice!!) is to ensure that the God we believe in is worth having. Clearly, some concepts of the deity as described in the OT are way off the mark, but the prophets say that themselves; they tell Israel over and over that they have missed the point in a big way. In the end Christ himself comes and shows us without a shadow of a doubt what God is really like.

I like the writings of Isaac of Syria on this matter. You might care to check them out, if you get a spare moment. He describes the kind of God I would really, really like to know, and in fact the only one I do know. God as revealed in Christ; pure love all the way through and motivated always by love.



Words from St. Isaac of Syria | Glory to God for All Things

I will always sit and listen as long as you show me the same interest and regard in return. I will try to understand you if you honestly try to understand me but please extend to me the privilege to disagree with my reputation in tact. That's what a lot of nasty little people will not do, either you can't disagree or you can disagree but you lose all reputation with them... sucks really.

Your method is a lot like my own, you've strayed from the orthodox, strict biblical view of God and found something else that resounds in your heart as true. I did the same thing though I have no text I have any faith in. Some people just love the fact that an idea was written down because they are afraid to stand only on their own beliefs (which implies belief really isn't enough) that doesn't do anything for me. I value my own ideas just as much and stick by them, that's moral integrity and courage.

 

[seeking Christ]

Now you're fiddling with the common usage of "believe". Were not going to argue over that too because

Its a mistake to think that common usage of Biblical terms has any validity towards the Scriptures.

Let's simplify.

Question: Do you believe in God?

Question: Do you believe that God is an agent? That God acts.

Question: Do you believe that God can act in ways that humans can not attain.

I presume your answers to these questions is yes so I think you believe in super human agents.

My answers are yes, but I'm not at all comfortable thinking of God as some "super human agent." That might possibly be a valid way of referring to Angels; I don't know, I've never seen one. I've seen demons and I don't like to think of them as "super human," so I don't think that's a good descriptor for them either.

I don't even relate to the term "supernatural;" Spiritual is better.

I think you are wrong to speak for God, I have not accused you of omniscience. Heck, I doubt I could accuse you of clarity.

Have you ever seen the Kingdom of God? How then can I be expected to make anything clear? And if you'll look at what you're replying to here, I never claimed to speak for God. What was that you said about letting my views be my own?

 

[variant]

Its a mistake to think that common usage of Biblical terms has any validity towards the Scriptures.

It has some validity to me and I was the one using the term.

My answers are yes

Then the term is proper.

Have you ever seen the Kingdom of God? How then can I be expected to make anything clear?

God doesn't make sense in English?

Thats borderline making my case for me.

And if you'll look at what you're replying to here, I never claimed to speak for God. What was that you said about letting my views be my own?

I don't have to look far.

Claiming authority directly from having seen "the Kingdom of God" while simultaneously saying it is incomprehensible, is the sort of passive yet authoritative thing I am talking about.

 

[seeking Christ]

God doesn't make sense in English?

That's probably the most valid communication we've had. You have the correct understanding, at least from my perspective.

 

[variant]

That's probably the most valid communication we've had. You have the correct understanding, at least from my perspective.

It's an odd proposition.

God seems nonsensical because it is.

I'm not going to argue the point, but it doesn't really help.

 

[seeking Christ]

Not making sense in English and nonsensical are not synonyms, but we've strayed from the thread topic enough for now.

 

[Tnmusicman]

That is most excellent, and means that you are more than half way home.

Very often, in my experience, it is not actually God himself that people reject, but an inadequate expression of who God is.

All that any of us need to do (if you don't mind a bit of advice!!) is to ensure that the God we believe in is worth having. Clearly, some concepts of the deity as described in the OT are way off the mark, but the prophets say that themselves; they tell Israel over and over that they have missed the point in a big way. In the end Christ himself comes and shows us without a shadow of a doubt what God is really like.

I like the writings of Isaac of Syria on this matter. You might care to check them out, if you get a spare moment. He describes the kind of God I would really, really like to know, and in fact the only one I do know. God as revealed in Christ; pure love all the way through and motivated always by love.



Words from St. Isaac of Syria | Glory to God for All Things

I read the link. Very good. Very good indeed. There's not much to disagree with on the writings of St Syria ( which I was unaware of until tonight ) as they seem to serve to uplift.

 

[variant]

Not making sense in English and nonsensical are not synonyms, but we've strayed from the thread topic enough for now.

I think if a concept can not possibly be properly represented in English the implication is that it is nonsensical.

Either that or English is nonsensical.

 

[seeking Christ]

I think if a concept can not possibly be properly represented in English the implication is that it is nonsensical.

Either that or English is nonsensical.

Those are not the only options; too deep for words exists.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

My answers are yes, but I'm not at all comfortable thinking of God as some "super human agent." That might possibly be a valid way of referring to Angels; I don't know, I've never seen one. I've seen demons and I don't like to think of them as "super human," so I don't think that's a good descriptor for them either.

I don't even relate to the term "supernatural;" Spiritual is better.

Off topic so my apology to the OP. I see why you objected to my definition of the word Satan in another thread, by virtue of you having actually seen a demon. Maybe you could clarify what you saw and the conditions under which you saw them.

Edit: I remember now, it was the word demonic/demon that you took umbrage with and how I stated that a demonic being was a creation of the mind.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not only in your definition cited, but also in normal usage, religion connotates repetitive rituals. I have none.

Do you really think so?

Some Christians value repetition (as indeed I do, very much), others prefer a free and spontaneous expression of their faith, as the Spirit leads them at any given time. The irony is, the second time that a person engages in a free and spontaneous expression of their faith, that becomes their very own repetitive ritual. There is simply no escaping this fact.

The same applies to prayer, Bible reading, worship of any kind; even saying Grace before meals. Repetitive ritual, every single one.

It is not possible for anyone to have even the barest modicum of Christian belief, and not engage in their very own chosen ritualistic behaviour, even if it is only saying the Lord's prayer once a year. That itself is a ritual, instituted by Christ, followed by Christians the world over.

Good luck with that.

 

[Catherineanne]

Are you intentionally being provocative? I have told you plainly I don't consider myself to have any religion, so it should be obvious to you that I don't follow religious teaching. Repetitive ritual, especially done for the sake of ritual, is the antithesis of anything and everything Jesus had to say.

Repetitive ritual =/= repetitive ritual for the sake of ritual.

I think you are confusing two completely different things, and in the process maligning many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even more, very devout, very Godly people. I advise you to be a shade more careful in what you say.

The Lord did not condemn ritual; in his life he took part in many Jewish ritual behaviours.

What he, and John the Baptist, condemned was outward apparent faith covering inward hypocrisy. That is NOT ritual. I am pretty sure that hypocrisy is just as rife in free churches as in any other.

 

[Catherineanne]

I will always sit and listen as long as you show me the same interest and regard in return. I will try to understand you if you honestly try to understand me but please extend to me the privilege to disagree with my reputation in tact. That's what a lot of nasty little people will not do, either you can't disagree or you can disagree but you lose all reputation with them... sucks really.

You are free to be who you are whether we agree or not, I won't take offence. Why should I? It is not possible to be the person we are, while at the same time being the person everyone else wants us to be; it simply cannot be done. In the end we have to settle for being true to who we are, with God if we have one, with our conscience if we don't. Same thing, really.

Your method is a lot like my own, you've strayed from the orthodox, strict biblical view of God and found something else that resounds in your heart as true. I did the same thing though I have no text I have any faith in. Some people just love the fact that an idea was written down because they are afraid to stand only on their own beliefs (which implies belief really isn't enough) that doesn't do anything for me. I value my own ideas just as much and stick by them, that's moral integrity and courage.

No, I have not strayed anywhere. It is the others who have strayed.

There is not one orthodox, strict Biblical view of God. The Bible describes many versions of God, most of them mutually incompatible. I choose mine to be as close to Christ as possible, because he is the perfect revelation of God to mankind. Easy enough, and not at all uncommon.

I make sure that my views are always 100% consistent with my denomination; I am not interested in founding my own little cult. I am mainstream Anglican, although a shade on the high side, and so are my beliefs. Where they differ is only that I have thought about these issues more than most, and can therefore articulate them more than most. But I am not unorthodox.

Take a look at what Isaac says, and then take a look at what Christ says. The two are very much in line. And as long as I am in line with Christ and what he says, and as long as I have checked my views with my priest and he also accepts them as valid, then I am happy.

 

[Catherineanne]

Its a mistake to think that common usage of Biblical terms has any validity towards the Scriptures.

Poppycock.

You seem to be postulating the existence of a metalanguage over and above our normal language. Apart from the word I have already used, one word that comes to mind is 'cant', another is 'humbug'.

If our normal everyday language is not sufficient to use in relation to the Scriptures, then what exactly do we translate that metalanguage into when talking to non believers? There has to be a connection. And if there is a normal everyday language to use to non believers, then why do believers need a metalanguage? Answer, we don't.

You are using doublespeak, and not doing it particularly well. Yes, our faith is a religion. Yes, religion involves ritual. Yes, ALL Christians engage in ritual behaviours. Yes, rituals differ between one denomination and another.

BUT, there is no justification whatever in Scripture for a believer of one denomination to sneer at others who have a different expression of worship towards God, or worse still to suggest that ritual is the same as empty ritual. It is not. This kind of suggestion bears false witness against our brothers and sisters in faith, and is not acceptable behaviour.

My answers are yes, but I'm not at all comfortable thinking of God as some "super human agent." That might possibly be a valid way of referring to Angels; I don't know, I've never seen one. I've seen demons and I don't like to think of them as "super human," so I don't think that's a good descriptor for them either.

I don't even relate to the term "supernatural;" Spiritual is better.

Regardless of what you are comfortable with, or relate to, those words have meaning, and it is possible to use them in relation to God. Yes, God is super human, in the sense that 'super' means above or beyond. No he is not superhuman in the sense that he uses supernatural powers in creation. Christ did not fly through the air wearing a blue cape. He turned water into wine, just as God does in nature every year.

Angels and demons are indeed super human in the sense that they are above or beyond what it means to be human. Like it or not, there is meaning in this description.

Have you ever seen the Kingdom of God? How then can I be expected to make anything clear? And if you'll look at what you're replying to here, I never claimed to speak for God. What was that you said about letting my views be my own?

Do you know how silly you sound? Probably just as well, if not.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not making sense in English and nonsensical are not synonyms ...

Erm, yes they are.

Or are you speaking MetaChristian aka Twaddle again?

 

[variant]

Those are not the only options; too deep for words exists.

The problem here is not that you are being too deep.

If you can't express something you don't understand it.

Words are how we express and understand concepts, which makes things we can't express nonsense from our perspective.

You believe your nonsense is sense, that's the problem we are having. The fact that you refuse to use the language in a way people generally do to explain yourself means you are full of it.

This is why you keep trying to change the meaning of what I say in order to disagree with me. Examples: Religion, believe, superhuman agent.

This is why you keep saying you've answered questions that you've not even begun to answer.

This is why you keep assuming an air of authority while not expressing any reason why anyone should accept it.

This is why I called you a fraud.

 

[seeking Christ]

I think you are confusing two completely different things, and in the process maligning many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even more, very devout, very Godly people.

there is no justification whatever in Scripture for a believer of one denomination to sneer at others who have a different expression of worship towards God, or worse still to suggest that ritual is the same as empty ritual.

You are fabricating maligning and sneering where none exists. Why do you think that is helpful?

Regardless of what you are comfortable with, or relate to, those words have meaning, and it is possible to use them in relation to God.

Never said it wasn't, just that I am not at all comfortable doing so. This was also written very plainly in English, that you seem to suggest is sufficient even for transmitting ineffable truths. I think this is sufficient demonstration of that notion being false.

Yes, God is super human, in the sense that 'super' means above or beyond. No he is not superhuman in the sense that he uses supernatural powers in creation. Christ did not fly through the air wearing a blue cape.

See there! You really can see what I'm saying.

 

[seeking Christ]

[QUOTE=variant

 

[Catherineanne]

See there! You really can see what I'm saying.

Nope. You did not say that; I did.

Therefore you are seeing what I said, not the other way round.