Jesus said not peace but sword?

[ananda]

Then you make yourself the judge of the Creator of the universe.

I would suggest that I - along with everyone else - do judge any claimants to that title.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would fault any alleged deity for not making their message indisputably clear, without need for context or interpretation.

Incidentally I also wanted to add something that goes along with me saying that I'd have liked a nice encyclopedia of the faith - that God saw fit NOT to provide. I may see it as potentially solving difficulties for myself and for others. But the truth is that I myself don't know how such a thing would have affected Christianity through the ages or even just myself. Perhaps it would have served to cause more doubt, since anyone can write a cohesive manual. As for me, progressively growing in understanding and the means through which that has come about have been key factors in strengthening my faith. So while such a book might have saved me some effort in study, on the other hand it could have been the death of faith for myself or others.

God alone knows these "what-if's". And He will work things for our best good in the end, if we accept and cooperate. No one is forcing us to.

But my point is that - even though you fault God for the way things are, and even though I might like something easier for me - we may well both answer differently if we knew what God knows.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would suggest that I - along with everyone else - do judge any claimants to that title.

It IS wise to examine and judge for truth. I have spent much of my life doing that.

It is not our place to condemn God's wisdom though.

 

[ananda]

Incidentally I also wanted to add something that goes along with me saying that I'd have liked a nice encyclopedia of the faith - that God saw fit NOT to provide. I may see it as potentially solving difficulties for myself and for others. But the truth is that I myself don't know how such a thing would have affected Christianity through the ages or even just myself. Perhaps it would have served to cause more doubt, since anyone can write a cohesive manual. As for me, progressively growing in understanding and the means through which that has come about have been key factors in strengthening my faith. So while such a book might have saved me some effort in study, on the other hand it could have been the death of faith for myself or others.

God alone knows these "what-if's". And He will work things for our best good in the end, if we accept and cooperate. No one is forcing us to.

But my point is that - even though you fault God for the way things are, andveven though I might like something easier for me - we may well both answer differently if we knew what God knows.

I wouldn't say I'm looking for something "easier for me"; rather, I am focused on pinpointing the failures of allegedly omniscient deities.

 

[ananda]

It IS wise to examine and judge for truth. I have spent much of my life doing that.

It is not our place to condemn God's wisdom though.

Did you reject "God's wisdom" in the Koran, Vedas, etc.?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wouldn't say I'm looking for something "easier for me"; rather, I am focused on pinpointing the failures of allegedly omniscient deities.

Ah. Well if you've made it your vocation just to try to poke holes and attack, then I'm not the person to talk to you. I do not find arguments spiritually profitable. It seems there are some who take up that vocation.

Did you reject "God's wisdom" in the Koran, Vedas, etc.?

There are truths, by the way, to be found in other religions. If there was no truth at all, not many people would subscribe to them and they essentially wouldn't continue to exist.

But I do reject parts of them, yes. I have my reasons, which are deeply personal and I seldom share them in detail even with people I am intimate with. But the foundations are intertwined with many personal experiences for me and have confirmed the general path I am on. So no, I have not laid everything out and examined them comparatively through some means of logical inquiry. It would be a step backwards from what I already know to do so.

 

[ananda]

Ah. Well if you've made it your vocation just to try to poke holes and attack, then I'm not the person to talk to you. I do not find arguments spiritually profitable. It seems there are some who take up that vocation.

Not at all, I see myself engaging in a very careful examination and judging for truth.

There are truths, by the way, to be found in other religions. If there was no truth at all, not many people would subscribe to them and they essentially wouldn't continue to exist.

But I do reject parts of them, yes. I have my reasons, which are deeply personal and I seldom share them in detail even with people I am intimate with. But the foundations are intertwined with many personal experiences for me and have confirmed the general path I am on. So no, I have not laid everything out and examined them comparatively through some means of logical inquiry. It would be a step backwards from what I already know to do so.

I also likewise question and reject various paths, based on my own personal experiences, and through logical inquiry.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not at all, I see myself engaging in a very careful examination and judging for truth.

Please forgive me for misunderstanding in that case.

I also likewise question and reject various paths, based on my own personal experiences, and through logical inquiry.

Generally, people who are sincerely seeking have no other resources but these.

 

[ananda]

Please forgive me for misunderstanding in that case.

Generally, people who are sincerely seeking have no other resources but these.

It suppose it all boils down to personal experience, IMO.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It suppose it all boils down to personal experience, IMO.

That is usually a powerful feature that is difficult to deny.

The only problems come in when deception or delusion is a part of the experience.

(I'm implying nothing about you btw - just speaking in general terms.)

 

[ananda]

That is usually a powerful feature that is difficult to deny.

The only problems come in when deception or delusion is a part of the experience.

(I'm implying nothing about you btw - just speaking in general terms.)

Yes, and dispelling delusion with self-verified wisdom is the heart of Buddhism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, and dispelling delusion with self-verified wisdom is the heart of Buddhism.

That's good.

Though sometimes delusion itself can be a sort of confirmation - if it can be unmasked.

But there is danger there, so it is not a path to be recommended.

Sometimes though it turns out that way. (Which I must credit to the mercy of God.)

 

[com7fy8]

Would it be an expression of love if a king states: "Accept my reign, or be slain"?

I offered you an answer to this, in posts #50 and #53. In less detail >

Jesus is not threatening to slay people, but Jesus is saying what will be a necessary consequence if people do not want Him. Ones against Him crucified Jesus. So, they are not going to want to be with Jesus. And there is only one place which can handle such stubborn people. If they do not want Jesus and Heaven, there is hell.

When Satan was in Heaven itself, he was not interested in Heaven staying as good as it was, with Jesus. So, he was put out, since Jesus is not good enough for Satan. This is how conceited Satan is, and his evil spirit makes people so conceited that they, too, consider themselves to be too good for Jesus. So, they are worse than dead; killing them is less than what they do to their own selves. Plus, after evil people die, they will not really be dead, but they will have a place, without Jesus. And fire will manage them so they in their stubbornness do not do evil and spread their evil outside the fire wall.

 

[ananda]

That's good.

Though sometimes delusion itself can be a sort of confirmation - if it can be unmasked.

But there is danger there, so it is not a path to be recommended.

Sometimes though it turns out that way. (Which I must credit to the mercy of God.)

... and I, to the example of the Buddha.

 

[ananda]

I offered you an answer to this, in posts #50 and #53. In less detail >

Jesus is not threatening to slay people, but Jesus is saying what will be a necessary consequence if people do not want Him...

Yes, and the consequence is to have them slain before him.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, my focus is on the idea that "slay them before me" (as the verse states) clearly does not equal "leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves" (which many, including in this thread, have reinterpreted the verse to mean in their own minds).

That's not what you said, however.

 

[ananda]

That's not what you said, however.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

 

[HypnoToad]

My apologies for the confusion: I was referring more to Lk 19:27 with my metaphor comment.


Understood and agreed. However, parables are used to highlight lessons, and the lesson here in this verse is clearly that the king will order the death of those who refuse his reign. If the lesson should be "those who refuse his reign are killing themselves", then another parable should have been used.

They aren't "killing themselves". It's not about us killing anyone, it's about the final judgment.

 

[ananda]

They aren't "killing themselves". It's not about us killing anyone, it's about the final judgment.

Yes, and that was the point the OP made, that "Jesus is [supposedly] love" but then we have an act which is decidedly not loving.

 

[HypnoToad]

Yes, and that was the point the OP made, that "Jesus is [supposedly] love" but then we have an act which is decidedly not loving.

Why is it not loving, other than because you say so?