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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0