Superiority Complex.

[razeontherock]

Actually, that's about the most loving thing a person can say if they're correct. Jesus said it, and it wasn't to insult them. I'm sure they took it as an insult, because they were, you know ... under the influence of satan.

I wish I had somebody around all the time to consistently point out to me everytime I began co-operating w/ satan. Oh wait a minute, I DO! So then I long to know Him more, to recognize His voice more clearly ...

I disagree. I think it was a clear insult and one that has caused much pain.

Your words I bolded betray the fact you're responding to a specific past experience, rather than me.

I think Mark's comment is obviously true. Re-phrased, such a helpful revelation as pointing out "you're under the influence of satan" belongs within the 'household of Faith,' and needs to be done with "meekness, considering ourselves, so we don't also get tempted."
Great wisdom, with broad application in that verse (Galations 6:1)

 

[b&wpac4]

Your words I bolded betray the fact you're responding to a specific past experience, rather than me.

No, seriously, I view "You are of your father the Devil" to be a grave insult uttered by Jesus to the Jewish people.

 

[razeontherock]

Except it wasn't uttered to the Jewish people. It was uttered to all of mankind throughout all time, to as many as would hear!

 

[b&wpac4]

Except it wasn't uttered to the Jewish people. It was uttered to all of mankind throughout all time, to as many as would hear!

The context of John 8, to me, shows a man becoming frustrated that he is not believed by people and lashes out emotionally because they won't listen. It's a very human chapter of the New Testament. It was directed at the Jews right in front of him, not all mankind.

 

[b&wpac4]

On a side note, I'm really curious where they found an entire group of Jews would would say "We have been slaves of nobody". What Jew, especially the religious, would say that they were never slaves?

Do you have any idea how many times God says "You were slaves in Egypt" in the Hebrew?

 

[b&wpac4]

Hehe. Is the reason why you haven't ever been in a fight over words because you don't actually physically know the people on CF?

Not really. I think there have been folks that I would have problems with because they would badger me, which is completely different than insulting.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Darwinism does not forsake this basic stance. Over the epochs, due to the decent of man, he has found himself searching for his creator. Though there are many belief systems, they originate from the incarnation of a master. No different than a sighted man being born for the first time in centuries, among a blind race. Records which have been passed down since the beginning often times become twisted at the ends and needs to be clarified. This is what has taken place. Then there is a system which comes along and tells you that you can build a human through chance. It is quick, its easy, its new, its hip, so people flock to it. More importantly, it finally grants one the ability to turn on all factions which seek the creator, while at the same time evading the backlash which stems from a shared stance. But like all fads it comes, it goes, some people adopt it, some people would pay as much attention to the creed of atheism as they would to those would throw rocks believing that they can build the great pyramid. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you.

You do realize that atheism has been around for about as long as theism, and definitely longer than Christianity. Many Greek philosophers were atheist. It ain't a "fad". And atheism does NOT equal Darwinism.

I don't think these qualify as insults. I am utterly flabbergasted that you are sitting here playing the victim. One of the most predominant scenarios you witness in a setting is an atheist giving insults and the theist taking. Your ability to post these "insults" without getting flagged is already an indication of disproportionate exchanges as I would love to tell you what we get bombarded with on a daily basis but will probably get mod hatted. There have been instances where there are those who can't take it anymore, concede for once, and retaliate. The response by the atheist is somewhere along the lines of "so much for being a christian" or "didnt Jesus tell you to turn the other cheek" or "very christian like behavior". So you leave, and they continue on somebody else.

I've also noticed that you guys are so, so, so, sensitive. How do you throw so many stones when you live in a glass house? Is it true then, that bullies are afraid of being bullied?

Most who turn atheists often times don't admit it, but the primary reason is because they grew up in an environment where they have never been insulted so badly in their lives. They get inside this safety bubble where the derision is heading in another direction then actually turn and start throwing out insults. How do you get offended by "don’t listen to reason, dwell in darkness,". These are purses and lipsticks, chief. Sweet talk, compared to the opposition. They are not even insults. When Jesus said that he will sow seeds but not all will grow. Some will fall on the path, and will be taken away. Are you offended by being a path? When he "they are blind in their hearts and do not see". Are you offended by being blind in your hearts? What if I say "don't be silly". Are you offended by being called "silly"? Wow. When a mother tells her child that he is too young to understand. Is he insulted for being told that he is "young"? There are things parents will tell their children which cannot be repeated here but you will be able to draw a clear distinction between the two. "Under the influence of Satan". That is an insult? :o

Wow. I disagree with almost everything you said. I was shocked when I read this post.

 

[JJWhite]

"...father the Devil"

It says that? Why is the devil being called a father? Metaphorically? Or does it have to do with the Nephilim idea I read about somewhere on these forums?

I just quoted you b&w, but I suppose a Christian would have to answer these questions.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You changed it up. Negation of "under". In addition, the foundations on which Christianity is founded as the opposing force, so I don't know how much of an insult that would be. I see the statement as no different than a teacher telling a parent that her kid is so hyper active these days. Im sure that parent could take it as an insult as a pie in the face of her competence in raising her child. The teacher may not see it as such and just say "this is the definition of hyperactive as we know it, this is how your child behaves, therefore I think that you child is hyper active. Hyperactive is not an insult." Another woman walks in the teacher says the same thing the woman replies in agreement even sharing and relating similar experiences at home. Two different people, one takes it as an insult one doesnt. Some may say, "This is the definition of the influence of Satan and material forces, this is how some people behave, whether within or outside of Christianity. Therefore I believe that these people are under the influence of Satan." You see it as an insult. I don't. Back in the school setting, if you were to tell me that my child as a piece of.... with *******$%$#@, that's over the line. Believe it or not, to some people, not yet so. You see under the influence of Satan as term which breaks into the derogatory realm which of course is a result of the intensity which you hold this statement under and the words you compare it with, in that setting and context. In the middle east it is an insult to show the underside of your foot. In some countries, a thumbs up is an insult. Where some come from, under the influence of satan, is far from being an insult. If it were to be stated it would only be seen as a statement indicating that that opposing force is taking precedence with an insulting to informative ratio no different that "hyperactive". But in a forum with different countries, different backgrounds, and different cultures, this is expected. There are many insulting words and phrases and even though there are universals, which are meant to be taken as an insult, there are those which are not, yet often are (the reason why "i did not mean to offend you" was invented) On that note, I do not see "under the influence of Satan" as an insult.

Are you trying to convince someone that this isn't an insult?

Because if so, then what you're writing is ironically proving that you can't convince someone that something is an insult. You're saying insults are subjective. If someone is insulted by something then it is an insult to them by definition and whoever did the insulting should apologize regardless how uninsulting they think it is.

If you tell me, "You look like a fluffy bunny." And I say, "Hey, don't insult me!" Then what you said is an insult.

 

[razeontherock]

JJ: this has nothing to do with the Nephilim. Jesus called St Peter satan, when he was trying to prevent Him from being crucified. The idea of satan as father is spiritual, as in satan is a liar, and the father of it.

On a side note, I'm really curious where they found an entire group of Jews would would say "We have been slaves of nobody". What Jew, especially the religious, would say that they were never slaves?

Do you have any idea how many times God says "You were slaves in Egypt" in the Hebrew?

Yes, this is one of the "keys" to understanding the context here, which is why I said it was spoken to all of mankind, as many as would hear. Considering yourself as "never having been a slave to anybody or anything" is a good way to line up to have this verse apply to you. It's much better to recognize our own slavery to sin, addictions, flaws, faults etc etc.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I spent quite a while today trying to find the old thread that those insults were cataloged from. I couldn't. It must have been removed. However, I can say that the insults were quite angry and frustrated in nature and certainly weren't part of a reasoned argument. It was page after page of how horrible atheists are. There was no sense of: well we're all under the influence of Satan at times and I humbly suggest that this seems to be the case concerning you right now, but let me know if tomorrow it is I...

I recall that I cried more than once as that thread unfolded, not because I felt I was being insulted (though I did feel that), but out of a sense of sorrow that Christianity was being represented in that way.

As I looked for that thread I found several other difficult discussions I was having at that time. In one in particular a person claiming to be a pastor responded to this comment from me:

I have believed that following Jesus' teachings puts one in the way of breaking the back of much of the human-caused misery in this world. Perhaps all of it. Perhaps there is a point of no return beyond which the back of all such misery would be broken forever. I don't know and am not in a position to know. But I have believed it enough to risk myself significantly on occassion. In that I cannot divide the man from the vision or the vision from the man, I have believed in him and I have believed that he is.

...by telling me that Jesus was threatening me with hell, anticipating my misery there, likening me to those who intended to stone Jesus and suggesting that I Google "oxymoron". This in the course of several posts all on the first page of the topic. Perhaps there are those here who feel he was justified in doing this or even obligated.

Reading it again has left me with this weird, smothering sense of dread, but not of hell.

Oh. And he quoted scripture too.

I won't link it here, but if you want to read the thread in full, PM me.

 

[b&wpac4]

Yes, this is one of the "keys" to understanding the context here, which is why I said it was spoken to all of mankind, as many as would hear. Considering yourself as "never having been a slave to anybody or anything" is a good way to line up to have this verse apply to you. It's much better to recognize our own slavery to sin, addictions, flaws, faults etc etc.

Sin crouches in the doorway, but I can overcome it!

 

[ephraimanesti]

I spent quite a while today trying to find the old thread that those insults were cataloged from. I couldn't. It must have been removed. However, I can say that the insults were quite angry and frustrated in nature and certainly weren't part of a reasoned argument. It was page after page of how horrible atheists are. There was no sense of: well we're all under the influence of Satan at times and I humbly suggest that this seems to be the case concerning you right now, but let me know if tomorrow it is I...

I recall that I cried more than once as that thread unfolded, not because I felt I was being insulted (though I did feel that), but out of a sense of sorrow that Christianity was being represented in that way.

As I looked for that thread I found several other difficult discussions I was having at that time. In one in particular a person claiming to be a pastor responded to this comment from me:

...by telling me that Jesus was threatening me with hell, anticipating my misery there, likening me to those who intended to stone Jesus and suggesting that I Google "oxymoron". This in the course of several posts all on the first page of the topic. Perhaps there are those here who feel he was justified in doing this or even obligated.

Reading it again has left me with this weird, smothering sense of dread, but not of hell.

Oh. And he quoted scripture too.

I won't link it here, but if you want to read the thread in full, PM me.

MY BROTHER,

Just remember that Christian means "Christ-like."

If you encounter words which Jesus would never speak or actions which He would never indulge in--these things are, BY DEFINITION, not "christian". (The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" does not apply to the designation "Christian." The definition is clear and chiseled in stone by the Finger of God, and the requirements absolute and eternal.")

W.W.J.D. is the best definition of what it means to be a "Christian" that i know.

If you are not clear as to what Jesus would do and say, read the Gospels--they were written for that very purpose.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just remember that Christian means "Christ-like."

The more usual meaning is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Glass*Soul]

When they say that this is a Christian website, what does that mean?

 

[Wicked Willow]

What's more, the Bible barely mentions the term "Christian", and never gives the definition ephraim presents here.

If only Christ-like people qualify as Christian, then I'd say that only a handful of people throughout recorded history could rightfully be called thus - and not all of them would necessarily profess belief in the tenets of Christianity. Even some of the most prominent and important figures would fall short of this definition:

Martin Luther? A glutton and a swearing choleric, as well as a Prince's pet.
Johannes Calvin? A murderous fanatic who didn't hesitate to kill as a form of radical censorship.
Henry VIII. as progenitor of the Anglican church? Don't even get me started!
King James I.? Oh boy...

Looks like we can pretty much bag the entire reformation if we adhere to ephraimanesti's definition!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No part of Christianity is about being perfect. But I don't think that's what E is saying. He is saying to be Christ-like. That is not equivalent to BEING Christ, it is equivalent to STRIVING to be like Christ.

If I told you to act like a dog, you might get down on all fours and bark and stick your tongue out. In no way would you BE a dog, but people would recognize that you are trying to be like a dog.

Same goes for trying to look like Christ. No one can do it, but ideally people would be able to recognize that you are trying to be like him.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Curiously enough, I've never been able to detect the slightest bit of difference between Christians and Non-Christians when it came to being compassionate, charitable, humane or even just perfectly decent human beings.

So, if you want to define "Christian" solely in terms of philanthropic fruits, chances are that you'll end up with plenty of Non-Christians being included under that label - and even more Christians being excluded.

There are few people who are not striving to be the best persons they can be. And those who don't cannot be found out by looking at their religious affiliation.

Or, even shorter: Christians do not have a monopoly on moral integrity.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I agree that many people are perhaps more Christ-like than people who say they are Christians. Also, there are many people that are perhaps more spiritually aware than someone who was raised Christian and never questioned it.

But this is where the counter-intuitive doctrine of "eternal life by faith not works" comes in. There are plenty of people striving to be Christ-like, even if they are doing it unknowingly and simply want to be the best person they can be, but if they don't have the faith part then the works are null. (In terms of getting to heaven...apparently, although who am I to judge who goes to heaven? I'm just passing on what is generally regarded as Christian ideology..even if I don't fully agree with it).

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I agree that many people are perhaps more Christ-like than people who say they are Christians. Also, there are many people that are perhaps more spiritually aware than someone who was raised Christian and never questioned it.

But this is where the counter-intuitive doctrine of "eternal life by faith not works" comes in. There are plenty of people striving to be Christ-like, even if they are doing it unknowingly and simply want to be the best person they can be, but if they don't have the faith part then the works are null. (In terms of getting to heaven...apparently, although who am I to judge who goes to heaven? I'm just passing on what is generally regarded as Christian ideology..even if I don't fully agree with it).

Hmmmm... I think we're tackling different definitions of "Christian" here.

WW was addressing the "Christian= [attempting to be] Christ-like"-definition.

You, OTOH, introduce the "Christian = anyone who has faith and is saved"-definition.

The two don't necessarily go together.
The first one implies that whoever wants to qualify as a REAL Christian needs to be as saintly as possible, aspiring to be an Albert Schweitzer or a Mother Theresa - and that whosoever does NOT meet this standard is very much "NOT A TRUE CHRISTIAN". ("By their fruits shall you know them.")

The second one implies that deeds (a.k.a. "filthy rags") mean squat. You don't need to be Mother Theresa, you don't even need to ASPIRE to be Mother Theresa - you just need to believe certain things, and your "fruits" are irrelevant.