Superiority Complex.

[razeontherock]

Is Mr leftright really our OP? Tons of substance here:

So, if you believe this and follow this, how does evangelism fit into your perspective?

Her posts clearly state Evangelism does NOT fit into her perspective; although the statement in question here really has nothing to do with that. I suspect it's purely a cultural thing, esp if she's only been in the Anglican Church.

This highlights the dilemma that is present in "religion". When I say religion I mean labelling and categorizing someone

This is a very curious definition, peculiar to yourself and no one else. No part of the Christian religion involves labelling or categorizing anybody other than yourself, and many don't even have enough Faith to have any clue about their own status. According to Mark, a whole Country doesn't have the Faith to believe G-d even hears their prayers.

This whole business of "fake" verses "true" Christians is really difficult to sort out and actually brings about a superiority complex of its own, ironically in this very discussion.

No it's not. As long as we stick to specific behavior as the Bible instructs, there are instances where it's crystal clear. E apologized once, and he'll do it again. I know exactly what he meant with his big red post, but C exquisitely exposed the fatal flaw in it; and the dividing line is behavior vs individual. Just like "hate the sin, love the sinner." Which really gets to the truth of this discussion! A Christian is no better, and bloody well better know it. Over and over again Jesus' own words tell us this. And over and over again, we forget.

Just for arguments sake, if I say Catherineanne is a "fake" Christian that implies that I am a "true" Christian and therefore "superior" to her. Its exactly the same situation as a Christian thinking they're superior to a Non-Christian. Except this time its interfaith.

So really, this thread is just brilliantly and ironically proving my point from my original post.

Actually, all you're doing is putting your foot in your mouth. I admire the honesty to broadcast what you truly don't know. I find it's the best way to learn, and this forum to be a good place for it.

C is correct, she's a "true" Christian. I pointed out one flaw in her posts, and whether she ever sees what I said, or corrects that flaw or not, she's a true Christian every bit as much as I am. Hopefully she can return the favor and give me opportunity to grow too. None of us is greater than the least of us, which is looking at the working definition of humility in this thread from another angle. I think C provided that, IIRC. "He that would be the greatest among you must make himself the least." That working definition of humility. There was further explanation in that same post, probably worth digging up for another look-see.

Also, to be a Christian DOES NOT mean to BE Christ-like. That would mean that NO ONE is a Christian because EVERYONE makes mistakes.

Hhhmm. MOST inter-faith disputes boil down to one person looking at the body or natural element of a truth, another looking solely at the Spiritual application of the same thing, a third seeing how it affects the soul, a fourth seeing some combination of the above, a fifth seeing a different combination, etc etc ad nauseum. That's IF everybody's even talking about the same thing to begin with

My point being that in this particular instance you (as a believer) are failing to account for your Faith that you have the incorruptible seed in you already, and that which is incorruptible will pass away. That started the moment you were first Saved BTW, nothing to wait for. Go ahead and dig in!

In fact, can't someone "strive to be Christ-like" in the way they live and act towards others without actually having FAITH in Christ?

I've made that point quite pointedly and often, using Mark as an example. I think it fits. If I told you the Scripture that pertains to this I bet it would surprise you. Christians need more of that element!

 

[razeontherock]

If you know, as Jesus taught, that the entire race was saved,

Keep seeking! You're on to something there. Not quite right yet, but there's something good within it. I remember when I first saw this particular aspect of the Gospel and find the reminder encouraging; thank you. (This is again the difference between Spiritual Truth and natural manifestation. In this case what's 100% accomplished Spiritually is awaiting it's entry into the physical realm, which is what makes Evangelism and the foolishness of preaching still paramount today. Even though Skavau doesn't realize it

 

[ephraimanesti]

Now that is very strange, I would have put money on you not writing that, I thought that even you would know better than to write that even though you might think it,

MY BROTHER,

What exactly did you think i was going to write in response to your leading question? Did you want the Truth, or were you expecting political correctness?

it just goes to show that being a Christian does not make you any brighter than you are, in fact I have a feeling that it drags you down a couple of pegs.

It must be, in with religion and out with common sense.

So the Truth is "dumb" and a denial of Reality is somehow "smart"? That's kind of twisted, don't ya think? i understand nihilism, but dang!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

What if another Christian claimed that YOU were one of these so called poseur, "fake" Christians and you thought that THEY were a fake Christian?

How could two Christians, drawing their inspiration from the same source, reconcile these two judgements? Who is the fake one and who is following God in the true way?

Its a pointless label to say someone is fake or not because you could be the fake and they could be the real. If you can't consider that as a possibility then you must have a superiority complex, right?

MY BROTHER,

Given that the criteria for being qualified to call oneself a Christian is to be found clearly spelled out in Scripture, it is rather easy to determine a person's status in the Lord by using Biblical criteria. For example, our Lord demands that Christians love their enemies (Luke 6:27), so, by definition, those who participated in torturing their enemies during the Inquisition were not "christians."

Secondly, the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a Christian's Heart makes it EXTREMELY easy for them to ascertain their own standing in the Kingdom because the Spirit is not at all shy about kickin butt from the inside out when a Christian does not live up to his Lord's expectations. i have gone through this several times, and let me assure you it is not at all enjoyable and it gets one back on track rather quickly.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is a very curious definition, peculiar to yourself and no one else. No part of the Christian religion involves labelling or categorizing anybody other than yourself, and many don't even have enough Faith to have any clue about their own status.

I make a distinction between Faith/Spirituality and Religion. Religion IS labelling, faith is spiritual journey. "No part of the Christian religion involves labelling or categorizing anybody other than yourself" is a sentence which doesn't even make sense according to my definition because if you're just labelling yourself then that is your PERSONAL FAITH. Religion is cultural and societal. You can't have a religion involving one person but one person can have faith in something. To me, the Christian RELIGION involves categorizing and labelling (hence the different sects etc) the Christian FAITH is personal and someone can call themselves whatever label they want and God may see their heart and deem them holy, Christ-like etc.

No it's not. AS LONG AS (read: IF) we stick to specific behavior as the Bible instructs, there are instances where it's crystal clear. E apologized once, and he'll do it again. I know exactly what he meant with his big red post, but C exquisitely exposed the fatal flaw in it; and the dividing line is behavior vs individual. Just like "hate the sin, love the sinner." Which really gets to the truth of this discussion! A Christian is no better, and bloody well better know it. Over and over again Jesus' own words tell us this. And over and over again, we forget.

AS LONG AS is the key part of that quote. AS LONG AS equals IF. IF we do X THEN the world is better. IF we do Y THEN there is no superiority complex. IF we do Z THEN every Christian knows he is no better. What I said in my previous post is that most people do not fulfill the IF portion, as you very well know, because humans make mistakes. So IF we all loved each other without judgement and had humility THEN there would be no superiority complex. But instead people label others as "fake" and "true" Christians.

I'm unsure if we're saying the same thing but in different words. Please clarify for me

C is correct, she's a "true" Christian. I pointed out one flaw in her posts, and whether she ever sees what I said, or corrects that flaw or not, she's a true Christian every bit as much as I am. Hopefully she can return the favor and give me opportunity to grow too. None of us is greater than the least of us, which is looking at the working definition of humility in this thread from another angle.

So you are a true Christian, C is a true Christian, E is a true Christian, and I am a true Christian. There was much allusion to "fake" Christians in many posts a few pages back. Where are they? How can you label them as such? How do you know if they are fake or true? And if you can't determine which are fake and true then why have the label at all?

I've made that point quite pointedly and often, using Mark as an example. I think it fits. If I told you the Scripture that pertains to this I bet it would surprise you. Christians need more of that element!

So Mark is Christ-like (potentially more Christ-like than people who call themselves Christians).

How do we know that Mark just labels himself as an Eudaimonist but in fact is more of a Christian in his heart than someone that labels themselves as a Christian?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

MY BROTHER,

Given that the criteria for being qualified to call oneself a Christian is to be found clearly spelled out in Scripture, it is rather easy to determine a person's status in the Lord by using Biblical criteria. For example, our Lord demands that Christians love their enemies (Luke 6:27), so, by definition, those who participated in torturing their enemies during the Inquisition were not "christians."

Secondly, the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a Christian's Heart makes it EXTREMELY easy for them to ascertain their own standing in the Kingdom because the Spirit is not at all shy about kickin butt from the inside out when a Christian does not live up to his Lord's expectations. i have gone through this several times, and let me assure you it is not at all enjoyable and it gets one back on track rather quickly.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

So you acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Christians that are not actually Christians in their heart? (aka "fake" Christians)

Could this phrase be reversed? Could there be people that do not call themselves Christians that are actually Christians in their heart?

I don't see why that phrase can't be reversed.

 

[razeontherock]

Many interesting points in this one post:

I make a distinction between Faith/Spirituality and Religion.

We use that word in the same way. I've gotten so conditioned to people here rebelling against that I just expected you didn't see the difference. We're in agreement on this.

Religion is cultural and societal.

I'm not sure if there's any difference between those two, but I'm not a social scientist. That's not the way I normally think of "religion," but there's an aspect of it where you're right. I usually think of it as our own actions that we do to try to somehow "reach to G-d." The proverbial sewing of fig leaves.

IF we do Y THEN there is no superiority complex. IF we do Z THEN every Christian knows he is no better. What I said in my previous post is that most people do not fulfill the IF portion, as you very well know, because humans make mistakes. So IF we all loved each other without judgement and had humility THEN there would be no superiority complex.

Well since you see this, and you claim to have started the thread, then it all makes sense. Good point! Yes we agree.

So you are a true Christian, C is a true Christian, E is a true Christian, and I am a true Christian. There was much allusion to "fake" Christians in many posts a few pages back. Where are they? How can you label them as such? How do you know if they are fake or true? And if you can't determine which are fake and true then why have the label at all?

Don't mean to invoke Godwin's law, but Crusaders and Hitler can clearly be shown to have been people that were not Christians, regardless of their profession. As E pointed out, certain traits go so completely against His will that a believer simply won't persist. As C pointed out, all of us have our rough spots and G-d is gentle and patient with us getting rid of them.

It is better to stay away from those labels, and simply stick to what can clearly be known which is behavior.

So Mark is Christ-like (potentially more Christ-like than people who call themselves Christians).

In some ways he's demonstrated that here, yes.

How do we know that Mark just labels himself as an Eudaimonist but in fact is more of a Christian in his heart than someone that labels themselves as a Christian?

His words. Clearly he's not a believer. Since we're totally OT now anyway let's explore this because there's a good point here:

what if Mark is good about "abiding in the light" that G-d shows him? What if that's synonymous with his "daimones?" What if each and every one of those are facets of the very same Spirit you and I know as Jesus? And what if he follows more diligently and obediently, out of a willing cheerfulness, than you or I? (Sorry Mark, don't mean to put you in the spotlight but it's a valid illustration of a very pertinent aspect of Scripture that too often gets overlooked)

 

[ephraimanesti]

So you acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Christians that are not actually Christians in their heart? (aka "fake" Christians)

Could this phrase be reversed? Could there be people that do not call themselves Christians that are actually Christians in their heart?

I don't see why that phrase can't be reversed.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Indeed it can! Before Christians were called "Christians", Christianity was know as "The Way", and i think probably still is in some locals. It does not matter what WE choose to call ourselves--it is what we are in God's eyes that counts. As you point out, it is a matter of the Heart, not the label.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Don't mean to invoke Godwin's law, but Crusaders and Hitler can clearly be shown to have been people that were not Christians, regardless of their profession. As E pointed out, certain traits go so completely against His will that a believer simply won't persist. As C pointed out, all of us have our rough spots and G-d is gentle and patient with us getting rid of them.

Agreed.

It is better to stay away from those labels, and simply stick to what can clearly be known which is behavior.

So what you're saying is that labels should be based on works and not faith. Seems to go against Christian philosophy.

what if Mark is good about "abiding in the light" that G-d shows him? What if that's synonymous with his "daimones?" What if each and every one of those are facets of the very same Spirit you and I know as Jesus? And what if he follows more diligently and obediently, out of a willing cheerfulness, than you or I?

If this is true then would it be logical to assume that he would also go to heaven?

If Mark (lets continue putting him on the spot ) can go to heaven that means that a non-Christian can go to heaven. (continue following the premises below)

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Indeed it can! Before Christians were called "Christians", Christianity was know as "The Way", and i think probably still is in some locals. It does not matter what WE choose to call ourselves--it is what we are in God's eyes that counts. As you point out, it is a matter of the Heart, not the label.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

If this is true then does that mean that someone that does not label themselves as Christian can go to heaven?

If this is true then it implies that a proclaimed non-Christian can go to heaven while a proclaimed Christian may not (if it is not true in their heart).

If this is true then it implies that a person of any label can go to heaven and a person of any label can go to hell.

And this would imply that "Christianity" (as an outward label) is a philosophical way of life, with no bearing on your destination in the afterlife.

Is that logically consistent?


(keep in mind the distinction between a proclaimed Christian and a Christian at heart)

 

[Gwenyfur]

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Indeed it can! Before Christians were called "Christians", Christianity was know as "The Way", and i think probably still is in some locals. It does not matter what WE choose to call ourselves--it is what we are in God's eyes that counts. As you point out, it is a matter of the Heart, not the label.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Actually...there is a group who refers to themselves as "The Way"
They also deny the trinitarian nature of God ... closed to "outsiders", and very strict in who is approached, invited, taught, discipleship is incredibly strict and controlled...

the word "cult" comes to mind reading and researching this group.

 

[razeontherock]

So what you're saying is that labels should be based on works and not faith. Seems to go against Christian philosophy.

The confusion here is failure to stay consistent within a specified framework. This is how almost all theological [wash my mouth I hate that word] arguments start.

I was talking about being able to know them by their fruits, which is actually a Biblical command. This has nothing to do with labels, and more to do with personal decisions. You then shifted that to apply it to whatever you may mean by "Christian philosophy," which in context I would think is the realm of the Spirit. See the problem?

If Mark (lets continue putting him on the spot ) can go to heaven that means that a non-Christian can go to heaven. (continue following the premises below)

If this is true then does that mean that someone that does not label themselves as Christian can go to heaven?

And this would imply that "Christianity" (as an outward label) is a philosophical way of life, with no bearing on your destination in the afterlife.

(keep in mind the distinction between a proclaimed Christian and a Christian at heart)

There are so many different problems here all occurring simultaneously! Sorting them out:

your final statement is the context, so Mark can't be considered as he doesn't claim any Christianity and finds it loathsome. I don't think I'm stretching his words at all by saying if Armageddon were tomorrow and he had to choose sides he'd lose, and make that choice knowing he'd lose. And consider that integrity.

Where it gets confusing is what if the only thing he rejects is false notions he's encountered? Our Lord might agree with his definition of integrity. I'm sure not willing to hazard a guess, particularly as I've got loved ones in pretty much the same boat. One calls herself a "lightworker" and I think she's right. Scratch that, I know she's right. And a very mature and refreshing Christian on this board has recently posted, emphasizing the importance of being lightworkers. And he's right about that.

Next up: discernment vs condemnation. Both concepts are translated into the one English word "judge" in the Bible. It's a VERY important distinction! We aren't given power of condemnation. Even if you find some strange reason to take the book of Revelation literally, before believers will have power under Christ to "rule with iron" there'll be a significant change. Most notably because a whole bunch of believers will come riding out of the sky following Jesus on his white horse. If we have any part in that condemnation still isn't a part of it!

Jesus is Lord, and all Judgment (condemnation) is given unto Him.

Still remaining is that pesky business of forgiveness and His atoning blood. I'm not about to advise Him about what to do re: those that reject it.

Ok so what else did I miss?

 

[razeontherock]

Actually...there is a group who refers to themselves as "The Way"
They also deny the trinitarian nature of God ... closed to "outsiders", and very strict in who is approached, invited, taught, discipleship is incredibly strict and controlled...

the word "cult" comes to mind reading and researching this group.

A close friend had a son caught up in that. They seemed to be more concerned with their window cleaning business, and using eucalytpus oil for everything; or rather, getting everybody else to do so.

That and angels with wings were BAD.

I'd love to make jokes about that but it's really not funny ...

I don't think they had quite enough money for 144,000 yet though

 

[sentipente]

Sentipente, is that how you see yourself? Drawn to Christianity but not yet having come to the saving knowledge of our Lord Christ Jesus? I think we need an icon for that, as it's distinct from an atheist or agnostic. Apparently on CF it's intended to signify a believer who hasn't found a home Church, so maybe the only thing you're really seeking is denominationalism or something. If I thought you were a believer I would never have written this post this way. (Which might pertain to a few older posts too)

Please forgive my oversight; clarify, and I'll abide accordingly.

I chose seeker because I no longer wish to identify myself in terms of an -ism.

 

[Riski]

What exactly did you think i was going to write in response to your leading question? Did you want the Truth, or were you expecting political correctness?

Yes I wanted the truth and the truth is that you think YOUR religion is the 'TRUE' religion, every one in the world believes the same thing that's why I asked which religion is the 'one true religion', I was expecting you to write something like, ALL religions are the 'one true religion' for the believers of those religions, but you didn't, you put your brain on hold and wrote that YOUR religion is the 'one true religion'.

So the Truth is "dumb" and a denial of Reality is somehow "smart"? That's kind of twisted, don't ya think? i understand nihilism, but dang!

The truth is not dumb just the fact that you think that you know the truth, Christianity is just one of hundreds of religions with each one claiming to be the 'one true religion', you just happen to believe in Christianity, depending on where you were born and what the main religion was in that country that could be the religion you now believe to be the 'one true religion', (had you been born in the middle east or Pakistan you would now be a Muslim)
I thought you were smarter than to write what you did, think it yes but write it no.

What has religion got to do with reality? what is real about a religion? they are all beliefs.

 

[ephraimanesti]

If this is true then would it be logical to assume that he would also go to heaven?

MY DEAR FRIEND,

God is not hung up on labels--that's our forte. God sees--and judges--the heart.

If Mark (lets continue putting him on the spot ) can go to heaven that means that a non-Christian can go to heaven. (continue following the premises below)

The criteria for Kingdom admission is: #1. Do you believe Jesus is Who He claims to be?; #2. Do you believe that he did for you all His Abba commissioned Him to do for all?; #3. Are you allowing yourself to be transformed into His image and likeness by your complete surrender to His indwelling Holy Spirit?

You can label that anything you want--as long as you fit the profile!

If this is true then does that mean that someone that does not label themselves as Christian can go to heaven?

Personally, the best label i can think of would be "Abba's Kid."

If this is true then it implies that a proclaimed non-Christian can go to heaven while a proclaimed Christian may not (if it is not true in their heart).

Depends if the "non-Christian" is merely rejecting the label--which changes NOTHING--or rejects Jesus as Lord and Savior, which changes EVERYTHING.

If this is true then it implies that a person of any label can go to heaven and a person of any label can go to hell.

Correct! Labels are of no interest to God--they only have meaning for us. For example, Paul writes: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. THERE IS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK, SLAVE NOR FREE, MALE NOR FEMALE, FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS." (Galatians 3:26-28)

And this would imply that "Christianity" (as an outward label) is a philosophical way of life, with no bearing on your destination in the afterlife.

No--it implies that "Christianity" is the label humans have chosen to delineate the Path which leads to the Father's Heart, as in, "You have made known to me the Path of Life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand." (Psalm 16:11)

Is that logically consistent?

Given that your questions have no real meaning, i would say it is as consistent as is possible under the circumstances--i.e., a difficulty thinking outside the box.

(keep in mind the distinction between a proclaimed Christian and a Christian at heart)

i will indeed do that. Thanks for the tip!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Eudaimonist]

The criteria for Kingdom admission is: #1. Do you believe Jesus is Who He claims to be?; #2. Do you believe that he did for you all His Abba commissioned Him to do for all?; #3. Are you allowing yourself to be transformed into His image and likeness by your complete surrender to His indwelling Holy Spirit?

Not to suggest that I believe that I am Christian, but why does #3 depend on #2 and #1, instead of #2 and #1 simply being a recommended method for reaching or preparing oneself for #3? Isn't #3 really the heart of it all, in the Christian view? If someone has achieved #3, but not #1 or #2, wouldn't that be all that is required for "Kingdom admission"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ephraimanesti]

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Yes I wanted the truth and the truth is that you think YOUR religion is the 'TRUE' religion,

Your are wrong! i most certainly do not THINK that my religion is the true religion--i KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the ultimate Truth.

I thought you were smarter than to write what you did, think it yes but write it no.

Sorry--life is too short to play silly hypocritical games. If you don't want to hear the answer--don't ask the question.

It strikes me that perhaps you are, as we speak, thinking silently to yourself that God is real and Jesus is indeed His Son but can't quite bring yourself to write down what you are thinking.

GET A GRIP, MAN--
GRAB YOUR KEYBOARD, SIT UP STRAIGHT IN YOUR CHAIR, AND
TYPE THE TRUTH, MAN--TYPE THE TRUTH!
YOU CAN DO THIS!​

What has religion got to do with reality? what is real about a religion? they are all beliefs.

TRUE RELIGION IS REALITY--THE ONLY REALITY!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Riski]

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Your are wrong! i most certainly do not THINK that my religion is the true religion--i KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the ultimate Truth.

Sorry--life is too short to play silly hypocritical games. If you don't want to hear the answer--don't ask the question.

It strikes me that perhaps you are, as we speak, thinking silently to yourself that God is real and Jesus is indeed His Son but can't quite bring yourself to write down what you are thinking.

GET A GRIP, MAN--
GRAB YOUR KEYBOARD, SIT UP STRAIGHT IN YOUR CHAIR, AND
TYPE THE TRUTH, MAN--TYPE THE TRUTH!
YOU CAN DO THIS!​

TRUE RELIGION IS REALITY--THE ONLY REALITY!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

If this is what the 'one true religion' does to a body then thanks but no thanks.
(I would say that you are a suitable case for treatment but I'm not allowed to)

 

[ephraimanesti]

Not to suggest that I believe that I am Christian, but why does #3 depend on #2 and #1, instead of #2 and #1 simply being a recommended method for reaching or preparing oneself for #3? Isn't #3 really the heart of it all, in the Christian view? If someone has achieved #3, but not #1 or #2, wouldn't that be all that is required for "Kingdom admission"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

MY BROTHER,

It is impossible to achieve #3 without #1 and #2 preceding the ultimate Goal. Kind of like the 12 Steps for drunks--you prayerfully take them in order.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

If this is what the 'one true religion' does to a body then thanks but no thanks.
(I would say that you are a suitable case for treatment but I'm not allowed to)

i take that as a great compliment! May God bless you as you have blessed me!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim