Jesus only gave 1 commandment

[Anguspure]

And would you also agree that the story of Jesus exists within each mind? "Christ in us" is what Paul called it. Therefore, that death and resurrection occurs within each mind as a renewal of the spirit.

There is truth in what you say, it is what baptism is: the outward expression of an inward reality. Nevertheless we must not forget the flesh and blood reality of it all, and that an outward expression without the recognition and acceptance of His death for salvation is a bit pointless.

 

[radhead]

To "love your God" is meaningless because everyone has a different version of God. It has not been defined, so that statement doesn't even meaning anything. "Love your neighbor" is LIKE it. That's just a very soft way of equating the love of God found in all people. You don't discriminate in whom you should love. Therefore, God is found in all humans. And I would add that God is found in all living things, not just humans.

 

[Anguspure]

"Love your neighbor" is LIKE it. That's just a very soft way of equating the love of God found in all people. You don't discriminate in whom you should love. Therefore, God is found in all humans. And I would add that God is found in all living things, not just humans.

I am sure you will be aware of what the Apostle John wrote in this regard: "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (1 John 4), and this sort of runs along the lines.

But John is not simply pointing out that Loving God is meaningless here rather he implies that it is by Loving others (and the sense of Love here is Agape as opposed to feelings such as Philos, Eros or Storge) that we Love God, because this is Gods command that we Love Him.

This Love is not merely a demonstration of the Golden rule, that says "do no harm" either. Rather this Love of God that we are to have for one another is one that always lays down its own life for the benefit of the neighbor even to death in imitation of Him.

Furthermore, as humans in sin it is ultimately impossible for us to Love completely (in the sense of Agape) unless we are acting from the power of the Creator. The very best Love that a human can offer fails at the point where the individual runs out of resources and/or dies (which is the same thing), whereas the Creator has infinite resources to draw from whereby He can Love even through death, as Christ Jesus demonstrated to us.

So a person that is Loving in this way does not shrink from terrible loss or death because they are confident that the same God who raised Jesus from the dead also works in them, and that He will not leave them or forsake them.

To "love your God" is meaningless because everyone has a different version of God. It has not been defined, so that statement doesn't even meaning anything.

It is quite irrelevant what "versions" of gods that people carry around in their heads because God is not an invention of man, rather man is the creation of God, and God has put His law in our hearts so that we all know what it is that we should be doing. That we do not know Him does not mean that we should not seek Him, quite the opposite in fact.

The God of Agape Love is well defined (He) is the Creator of all things created, The Uncaused cause who gave the name "I Am" to Moses, and we call Him YHWH. He is the God of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob, David and the Prophets. He demonstrates his Love for us through Christ Jesus in that while we were still in enmity with Him Christ was crucified, died and was buried, then on the third day God raised Him from the dead for the salvation and restoration of all and so that we can live in relationship with Him and so Love our neighbor as He has Loved us.

This is Love.

 

[radhead]

It is quite irrelevant what "versions" of gods that people carry around in their heads because God is not an invention of man, rather man is the creation of God, and God has put His law in our hearts so that we all know what it is that we should be doing. That we do not know Him does not mean that we should not seek Him, quite the opposite in fact.

The God of Agape Love is well defined (He) is the Creator of all things created, The Uncaused cause who gave the name "I Am" to Moses, and we call Him YHWH. He is the God of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob, David and the Prophets. He demonstrates his Love for us through Christ Jesus in that while we were still in enmity with Him Christ was crucified, died and was buried, then on the third day God raised Him from the dead for the salvation and restoration of all and so that we can live in relationship with Him and so Love our neighbor as He has Loved us.

This is Love.

The fact that this god has so many human-like qualities, and loves human beings above all other creation, is strong evidence that he was an invention of human beings.

That last paragraph is so outlandish that I don't think it's even possible to begin to translate what you are trying to say into common English.

 

[Anguspure]

The fact that this god has so many human-like qualities, and loves human beings above all other creation, is strong evidence that he was an invention of human beings.

Which leaves me wondering why one would consider anything Biblical even worth discussing.
The whole of the Biblical narrative is predicated upon the assumption of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and the whole of the New Testament upon: "God raised Him from the dead." which is are statements about actual historical events. Furthermore all of the decisions and actions of the people described in the books of the Bible and all of the teachings assume that YHWH is an actual living being who is the Creator of all that is created.

That last paragraph is so outlandish that I don't think it's even possible to begin to translate what you are trying to say into common English.

How so? The paragraph presents a simple and brief definition of the God of the Bible. Maybe if I put it in bullet points it will be easier for you to untangle:
The God of Agape Love is well defined;

• (He) is the Creator of all things created,
• The Uncaused cause
• (The one who) who gave the name "I Am" to Moses,
• (and) we call Him YHWH.
• He is the God of Abraham
• and (He is the God of) Isaac,
• (He is the God of) Jacob,
• (He is the God of) David
• and (He is the God of) the Prophets.
• He demonstrates his Love for us through Christ Jesus in that while we were still in enmity with Him Christ was crucified, died and was buried,
• then on the third day (this) God raised Him from the dead for the salvation and restoration of all
• (and) so that we can live in relationship with Him
• and so Love our neighbor as He has Loved us.

 

[Targaryen]

To "love your God" is meaningless because everyone has a different version of God. It has not been defined, so that statement doesn't even meaning anything. "Love your neighbor" is LIKE it. That's just a very soft way of equating the love of God found in all people. You don't discriminate in whom you should love. Therefore, God is found in all humans. And I would add that God is found in all living things, not just humans.

Flawed and touched with your own bias rather then critical analysis.

To love our God, as we are directed, it's to yes, love our fellow human beings, but to also understand the wickedness we all do as humans, or our sinful nature. So that means seeking to improve that condition and admitting and rebuking what we have done wrong. It's also about improving the condition of the world around us and spreading the message about God.

I agree that you don't discriminate in who you love, but wouldn't you say in your "humanism", you make that discrimination all the time? You want us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Does that mean blind acceptance? Does that mean we have to consider all views as equal to that message?

 

[radhead]

Anguspure, you are making the HUGE assumption that the Bible writers were literalist/fundamentalist believers like yourself. We could never agree on anything if that is your starting point.

 

[radhead]

Flawed and touched with your own bias rather then critical analysis.

To love our God, as we are directed, it's to yes, love our fellow human beings, but to also understand the wickedness we all do as humans, or our sinful nature. So that means seeking to improve that condition and admitting and rebuking what we have done wrong. It's also about improving the condition of the world around us and spreading the message about God.

I agree that you don't discriminate in who you love, but wouldn't you say in your "humanism", you make that discrimination all the time? You want us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Does that mean blind acceptance? Does that mean we have to consider all views as equal to that message?

You and I both have already discriminated in the idea that loving others is a good idea. I just discriminate within the words of the Bible. Whereas most Christians, since they like that first idea, automatically assume that everything in the Bible should be trusted with the same authority. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

You are the final authority, aren't you?

 

[Targaryen]

You and I both have already discriminated in the idea that loving others is a good idea. I just discriminate within the words of the Bible. Whereas most Christians, since they like that first idea, automatically assume that everything in the Bible should be trusted with the same authority. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

You are the final authority, aren't you?

Am I the final authority? No, just No.

And as for most Christians trusting the bible with the same authority. That's a rather loaded statement.
All Christians should be trusting in the Bible, for us it's the inspired Word Of God. However,we must apply critical analysis to things in the Bible, reexamine the text over and over again. Find out things about how certain attitudes are in fact doing the opposite of what the Great Commandment teaches us and seek to correct that, again using the Bible as a guide.

I do have to somewhat agree that there are those Christians that seek to use the Bible as a hammer and a sword rather then a guide more often then not,that analyses they may have done tend to go against that ultimate directive. But, this is an example of why, in Christian thought, we as humans are flawed and prone to making mistakes with out god in our lives.

 

[radhead]

If you think you are not the final authority, then nothing you say could make sense. Are you saying that the Bible itself is the final authority? If so, then you had to give that authority from your own understanding at some point, didn't you? Who else can you trust buy yourself to determine if something is authoritative?

Personally, I don't think that you went line by line though the Bible and checked off each verse for your approval. I think that like most fundamentalists, you probably accepted the authority of the Bible from other people, before you ever read it.

 

[radhead]

(test)

 

[Targaryen]

If you think you are not the final authority, then nothing you say could make sense. Are you saying that the Bible itself is the final authority? If so, then you had to give that authority from your own understanding at some point, didn't you? Who else can you trust buy yourself to determine if something is authoritative?

Sorry, but you're giving humankind, in this case myself an authority that doesn't belong to us in this case. Not surprising for a humanist but again, why I personally find such logic faulty. Is the Bible the ultimate authority? No, while it is our guide, it doesn't take the place of God. For Christians, only God: Father Son and Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority.

Personally, I don't think that you went line by line though the Bible and checked off each verse for your approval. I think that like most fundamentalists, you probably accepted the authority of the Bible from other people, before you ever read it.

Oh? And you know this how? Have I used such Biblical cherry picking to prove my point? I did provide the Biblical references to the Great Commandment, but I don't recall using cherry picking texts in order to prove a point. As for the fundamentalist issue, which is a rather non-humanist type of judgement I think if we're all to be treated with respect. I accepted the authority of the Bible cause it made the most sense to me, could be easily applied to my daily life and what I want to see happen for th world in general. But this was not without reading other sources such as Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Quran, Wiccan grimoires and so on.

 

[radhead]

Sorry, but you're giving humankind, in this case myself an authority that doesn't belong to us in this case. Not surprising for a humanist but again, why I personally find such logic faulty. Is the Bible the ultimate authority? No, while it is our guide, it doesn't take the place of God. For Christians, only God: Father Son and Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority.



Oh? And you know this how? Have I used such Biblical cherry picking to prove my point? I did provide the Biblical references to the Great Commandment, but I don't recall using cherry picking texts in order to prove a point. As for the fundamentalist issue, which is a rather non-humanist type of judgement I think if we're all to be treated with respect. I accepted the authority of the Bible cause it made the most sense to me, could be easily applied to my daily life and what I want to see happen for th world in general. But this was not without reading other sources such as Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Quran, Wiccan grimoires and so on.

The Father, Son, Holy Spirit. These are just names like Zeus. Jupiter. Jehova. They are names that people are taught by people in their religion. Have you seriously never questioned these things? When you reference them they are meaningless terms. You can't even say what you believe in common language. Honestly I don't think the historical Jesus would have believed in such things.

Now you are grouping the Bible into ONE thing even though it was a compilation. And you are saying that it is Inerrant.

How did you choose this particular compilation as being authoritative?

You are also adding 20th century American fundamentalist doctrine on top of that compilation, because your doctrine does not come from it. Many Christian fundamentalists accept the doctrine before they ever hear or read a single verse, because they just want to be a part of the larger community.

 

[radhead]

(test)

 

[radhead]

(Sorry, I have to keep posting "test" because there is something wrong with this website every time I post a reply.)

 

[Targaryen]

The Father, Son, Holy Spirit. These are just names like Zeus. Jupiter. Jehova. They are names that people are taught by people in their religion. Have you seriously never questioned these things? When you reference them they are meaningless terms. You can't even say what you believe in common language. Honestly I don't think the historical Jesus would have believed in such things.

The historical Yeshua Ben-Meshiach was a 1st century Palestinian Jew that consistently butted heads with spiritual authorities in his own religious path. Unless the Pharisees and Sadducees were some how extraneous from the Jewish faith of the day. And taught things that were fufilments of Jewish prophecy and spiritual guiding that are easily found in Old Testament texts.

Zeus was a Greek god of a pantheon, Jupiter was the Roman name but still a pantheon. With a different set of beliefs and practices then Jewish monotheism, so no these aren't just names and no scholar or basically educated person would say to use your analogy that a cup of coffee is a glass of apple juice. Sure we both drink them, but it doesn't mean they are the same. What you suggesting is more in line with Universalism then it is actual Christianity.

As for the common language, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm speaking English and you understand English.

Now you are grouping the Bible into ONE thing even though it was a compilation. And you are saying that it is Inerrant.

I don't believe I ever said that an inspired word of God is the same as innerancy of the text. Are you jumping ten feet to a conclusion here?

How did you choose this particular compilation as being authoritative?

Trail and error practice, faith that was left unfulfilled.

You are also adding 20th century American fundamentalist doctrine on top of that compilation, because your doctrine does not come from it. Many Christian fundamentalists accept the doctrine before they ever hear or read a single verse, because they just want to be a part of the larger community.

Do you even understand what Christian fundamentalism means? I'm not sure you do, at least not the 21st century view of the term. So I find it rather offensive and rather closed minded that you use this an an excuse. I'm sorry, but no. There is a different in traditional, orthodox (small o used for a reason) Christian thought and practice and Christian fundamentalism. And I suggest you either do some homework on the term or you drop it altogether.

I happen to be of the school called Liberal Christianity, in case you were wondering. so that's another reason why I personally find such a use to be a rather veiled attempt to attack without seeming to. As thought you can't be bothered to debate points raised respectfully.

 

[Anguspure]

Anguspure, you are making the HUGE assumption that the Bible writers were literalist/fundamentalist believers like yourself. We could never agree on anything if that is your starting point.

As a student of Judaism I think I have a pretty good grasp of the authorship of the OT books and the literalist/fundamentalist label simply does not stick, as you say.
As a student of Christianity I would say the same of the NT.
So how does anything I have written fall into that category? It seems to me that you are merely trying to deflect the argument with meaningless name calling.

 

[Anguspure]

The historical Yeshua Ben-Meshiach was a 1st century Palestinian Jew that consistently butted heads with spiritual authorities in his own religious path. Unless the Pharisees and Sadducees were some how extraneous from the Jewish faith of the day. And taught things that were fufilments of Jewish prophecy and spiritual guiding that are easily found in Old Testament texts.

Zeus was a Greek god of a pantheon, Jupiter was the Roman name but still a pantheon. With a different set of beliefs and practices then Jewish monotheism, so no these aren't just names and no scholar or basically educated person would say to use your analogy that a cup of coffee is a glass of apple juice. Sure we both drink them, but it doesn't mean they are the same. What you suggesting is more in line with Universalism then it is actual Christianity.

As for the common language, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm speaking English and you understand English.



I don't believe I ever said that an inspired word of God is the same as innerancy of the text. Are you jumping ten feet to a conclusion here?



Trail and error practice, faith that was left unfulfilled.



Do you even understand what Christian fundamentalism means? I'm not sure you do, at least not the 21st century view of the term. So I find it rather offensive and rather closed minded that you use this an an excuse. I'm sorry, but no. There is a different in traditional, orthodox (small o used for a reason) Christian thought and practice and Christian fundamentalism. And I suggest you either do some homework on the term or you drop it altogether.

I happen to be of the school called Liberal Christianity, in case you were wondering. so that's another reason why I personally find such a use to be a rather veiled attempt to attack without seeming to. As thought you can't be bothered to debate points raised respectfully.

It appears that the problem is that @radhead only has one derogatory category for Christian people and he simply plasters the sticker on anyone he disagrees with.

 

[Targaryen]

It appears that the problem is that @radhead only has one derogatory category for Christian people and he simply plasters the sticker on anyone he disagrees with.

Which is in itself a tactic used by fundamentalists all the time.

 

[Anguspure]

Which is in itself a tactic used by fundamentalists all the time.

Except that I wouldn't call it a tactic, more of an admission of floundering in the discussion.
I also see the commonly used "I no spreko engrishi" rearing its head in order to avoid engagement with the conversation.