Your argument against "many paths to God"

[Ed1wolf]

The Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God - Moses was an Hebrew. The 10 commandments did not come from Judeo-Christianity or even Judaism. It came from the Hebrews. Judaism is often used incorrectly in context the same way "apocalypse" often is.

Well yes, but the jews and Hebrews are basically the same groups.

yi: Many other religions teach principles of the 10 commandments, but do not believe it is required in order to be "saved," and that one does not have to do it. That includes many Christian denominations - especially ones that say we do not have to follow the Law of God except the ten commandments. And, even in those Christian denominations a select number of commandments are followed.

Well there are three categories of law in the OT, the civil law, the ceremonial law and the moral law. The moral law is still valid for both Christians and non-Christians. And we can learn civil law principles from the ancient Mosaic civil law. And we can learn some things from the ceremonial law but we are no longer bound to it.

yi: You talk about my alleged political and religious liberalism as if you know it for a fact, yet you cant even see the mess in your own religion. It is those who call themselves Christians - those who lead flock to the edge of a cliff - that have invalidated the religion of Christianity to many people. I am not politically, socially or spiritually liberal.

I didn't say you were, I said I have no idea of your views, why don't you expound on them?

Ed: Judaism is at least 4000 years old, I would hardly call that new. What are actual Christians?

yi: On an earth that is older than time, whose human history is thought to be anywhere from up to 10,000 years ago (even from a biblical perspective,) to 120,000 years if you believe in the theory of evolution. The Hebrews have been around for about 6000+ years according to their own calendar; compared to the religions of Cain and the antediluvian world the Hebrews are new. I said the Hebrews were relatively new. Context.

Ok, what are actual Christians?

ed: Not sure what you are saying here.

yi: I know.

Why don't you explain yourself?

ed: I DO agree that all ten commandments should be followed and that they are the only authority on law.

yi: I don't agree they are the authority on Law. The whole point of God giving us the law in the first place was because we were too lost and foolish to do the right thing on our own. We were so simple that we needed written guidelines.

Today, many say those guidelines are not applicable, or that we are not obligated to follow them because Christ came to fulfill the law. It was never not applicable.

We are still too lost to do the right thing on our own. Christ DID fulfill the ceremonial and civil law. And in a way He fulfilled the moral law too, but we are still bound by it.

yi: That is another religion that uses Judeo as a buzzword to draw upon the foundation without being a part of it. You are not a Christian if you breed mother and son, father and daughter for the purposes of making more strong slaves with preserved gene in the generations. You do not infect an entire population with what you call an STD in order to study the effects like animals.

​

The foundation of the Western world was build on this - literally. The same people they call lazy and savages in their countries are the same people whose ancestors build these nations as slaves - so that one could boast about the Western world s/he didn't build. I don't think you get this. Besides slave owners (who called themselves Puritans and other denominational Christian monikers) in America, the Catholic Church has a charming history on violent imperialism and subjugation.

Actually the northern hemisphere western societies did not use slavery that much. In the American south only the wealthy had slaves most people did not even own slaves and in Europe slavery never was that huge and was ended by the early 19th century. I think you are exaggerating how much was accomplished with it. It did last longer and was used more in Central and South America, so maybe you could make that argument there, but the reason it lasted longer there is because people were not allowed access to the bible by the RCC and that ignorance kept them from freeing the slaves sooner.

 

[Freodin]

Observations aren't going to get you anywhere when disconnected from reason. I'm talking about the ability to draw connections concerning observations at all--empiricism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Toss out the importance of that very ability to draw connections, and everything falls.

Excuse me? I have extreme difficulties to follow your thinking.
It already started at the last post. where you talked about the idea of "reason getting us nowhere" being opposed to science. You did it when we were talking about parents controling their children. And now you do it again, talking about "observations disconnected from reason".

I am not tossing out anything here (or previously). I am offering alternatives.

It isn't either "reason" or "observations". It's both. It isn't "reason getting us nowhere" or "reason getting us everywhere"... it is "reason getting us somewhere, but not somewhere else." It is not "Parents either love or control their children"... it is "Parents love AND control their children".

As this happened repeatedly now - you going black and white when I talk about grey - I wonder if that is a fundamental problem with your perspective.


Pure observations get us nowhere. We need reason to make connections. Pure reason gets us nowhere. We need something to reason about, which can only be provided by observations.

So when we are talking about something that we do not and cannot have any observations about, because it is beyond the scope of our ability to observe AND we have concluded by reason that we cannot reason further into this, because our ability to reason fails here... wouldn't that be the point to stop?

It is impossible to say that science works better this way when science doesn't work this way at all. As Paul Davies notes in this piece, we do not have a testable theory of everything, much less one in which the theory somehow explains itself. If that is even possible. I would personally expect a similar problem to arise as the one presented in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems--no system can be used to fully define and explain itself. If it doesn't work for mathematics, I can't imagine it working for something more complex.

That is an incorrect usage of Gödel. All that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems state is that you cannot prove or disprove all statements of a system within the system. This does not mean that a) you can prove all statements within a system from without the system or b) that all systems are "based" on something external to this system.

This would be going into the "who created God" territory again, or resort to special pleading.

And to top that: science does indeed work that way. One of the criticisms that many theists make about science is its limitations to "materialism". And that may be correct.
Nowhere in science you will find statements like "And here we don't know how or why it works, so we postulate some 'outside' mechanism that will give us the desired results. We don't know anything about this mechanism, and we cannot know anything about it. But we don't care, as long as it does what we think it does."
Science works perfectly well with the assumption "We don't know why this works. It could be inherent. And we will do our best to find out how it works."

I haven't seen a false conclusion. Differing philosophies of science, perhaps, as my sympathies lie with Neo-Aristotelianism, but it's a little bit premature to start accusing people of false conclusions just for disagreeing. We'd need to dig way deeper into the subject matter first.

No, sorry, it is a false conclusion. Very much in line with the rest of your "black and white" misrepresentations of my statements.

Could our observable system be based on something "outside", that is beyond our observation? Yes, this possibility exists.
Could our observable system be completely self-contained? That also is a possibility, even if you don't think it is correct.

Must our universe be completely self-contained? That would be a false conclusion... and so I won't make it.
Must our universe be based on something "outside", and will science "tumble and fall" if we don't accept that?
That would also be a false conclusion... and still it is the conclusion you make.

Not really. Biblically speaking, you're supposed to always be prepared to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), but you're also supposed to shake the dust off your feet if people don't want to listen (Matthew 10:14).

Which seems more than reasonable for everyone involved. Christians do more harm than good when they push people who don't want to be pushed.

I don't know if the black and white mindset is based on Christianity, or if Christianity is just so perfect for people with a black and white mindset. But the connection is there.

There was this statement from Dirk1540 in an earlier post: "...the ultimate gauge for 'Belief in Jesus' would be whether or not a person would desire, or would be repulsed by, living in a world where Jesus Christ was the king of that world."

There it is again. You either love it or you hate it. You either desire it or you are repulsed.
And now you: you either "want to listen", or hasta la vista baby.

An alternative for that, like apathy or incomprehension is not included.

Again, Christian like to compare their "teaching the gospel" with providing people with a warning about imminent danger.
And there they stop. (Well, the nice ones do. The nasty ones resort to coercion.)

I am not sure what you're referring to. Discrepancies between theology and reality or issues within Christian theology?

And there's the discrepancy. You know about this mortal (more than mortal!) danger that someone is in. You "warn" them. And if they don't heed your warning, you assume that they don't "want" to listen... and shake the dust of you feet. Not your responsibility. Not your job. You told them, if they don't listen, it's their fault.

The option that they could "want" to listen, do want to listen... and simply don't believe what you tell them, for good reasons... this option is not intented.
And instead of trying to question the fact why the "One True Path to God, backed by a loving, omnipotent deity who desires that everyone believes" is simply not capable of getting people to believe... Christianity shifts the blame. Unbelievers are without excuse. They are evil. They don't want to listen. They hate the light, the truth.

Is that reasonable?

I don't think any critique of Christianity that does not work from within the framework of Christian soteriology and eschatology is fair. If Christianity talks about a world to come, you can't really attack it for not transforming the current world. It never said it would. So I don't see why it matters that not everyone accepts Christianity as true--there was never any indication that that was going to happen.

Hm. "Every knee shall bow"? Christianity is not a consistent monolithic system. There are tons of conflicting ideas within it... simply because it was constructed by humans. This critique is justifed. But even more justified is the way Christianity in so many parts deals with this criticism.

But if you're specifically talking about how the promise of salvation fits in with the threat of damnation, that is certainly a different matter.

It's all part of the same matter.

Well, if you look really closely, you'll see that one of the major elements of Christianity is the perfect image of what it means to be human in pure storytelling form, so I would not say there is no definition.

If you look really really closely, you will see that all of Christianity's stories deal with how humans are and how humans should be in the context of how humans are.

If you get rid of that context - and as you said: Christianity is about "the world to come", not this world - the stories lose their meaning.

There is a shift involved, though, yes, but I wouldn't consider it a bad one. One aspect of it is that if you make God the central focus of your life, everything else will fall in place around that instead of being a chaotic bundle of competing priorities.

That isn't an exclusive feature of Christianity. It is not even an exclusive feature of religion. And, I would say, it isn't necessarily a good feature of anything.

 

[Silmarien]

That is an incorrect usage of Gödel. All that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems state is that you cannot prove or disprove all statements of a system within the system. This does not mean that a) you can prove all statements within a system from without the system or b) that all systems are "based" on something external to this system.

This would be going into the "who created God" territory again, or resort to special pleading.

I never said you could prove statements from outside of the system, though I think it very much worth mentioning that Gödel was a mathematical platonist, and I believe became more convinced of that position after developing the theorems. The fact that he was involved with the Vienna Circle tends to overshadow this particular twist, but I don't think it's something that should be overlooked.

Of course it is possible that Gödel wasn't correct about his own interpretation, but that doesn't mean pretending that said interpretation doesn't exist or automatically fails, nor is mathematical platonism special pleading. You're mischaracterizing all of these arguments by calling them special pleading--special pleading only applies when you don't justify the exception. The whole point of cosmological arguments is to justify why there must be an exception.

Nowhere in science you will find statements like "And here we don't know how or why it works, so we postulate some 'outside' mechanism that will give us the desired results. We don't know anything about this mechanism, and we cannot know anything about it. But we don't care, as long as it does what we think it does."

Indeed, science tends to ignore the problem altogether, which I do not think is unreasonable. There are plenty of questions for the philosophy of science, some of which are by their very nature outside of the purview of scientific study. I suspect this is one of them.

Must our universe be completely self-contained? That would be a false conclusion... and so I won't make it.
Must our universe be based on something "outside", and will science "tumble and fall" if we don't accept that?
That would also be a false conclusion... and still it is the conclusion you make.

It really depends on how you view "inside" and "outside." I think I've said at some point that I believe in immanent teleology (specifically because of the question of consciousness), which is a concept that by its very nature is both internal and yet would have certain ramifications. I'm sympathetic to at least a couple naturalistic approaches to the question, but I don't see how it's a false conclusion to think that theism works better. It's just a conclusion you don't share.

I don't know if the black and white mindset is based on Christianity, or if Christianity is just so perfect for people with a black and white mindset. But the connection is there.

There was this statement from Dirk1540 in an earlier post: "...the ultimate gauge for 'Belief in Jesus' would be whether or not a person would desire, or would be repulsed by, living in a world where Jesus Christ was the king of that world."

There it is again. You either love it or you hate it. You either desire it or you are repulsed.
And now you: you either "want to listen", or hasta la vista baby.

An alternative for that, like apathy or incomprehension is not included.

You are reading things into my comment that I never actually said and making personal accusations because of it.

Both @Dirk1540 and I have got very long, very complicated histories with this religion. I have been openly hostile towards it, I have been apathetic towards it, I have been confused by it and convinced it was so much nonsense. I am not making a value judgment when I say that Christians shouldn't push people who do not want to be pushed--I think it's a matter of respect. I've spent plenty of time simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by the religion, and a long lecture on the historicity of Christianity would have only done harm. And I don't think any of this is black and white--there are plenty of people out there, including a close friend of mine, who are incapable of listening because of coming from a fundamentalist background. I think they have the responsibility to not become embittered by the experience, but I don't see how harassing them with constant argumentation could possibly help. And I am actually an Inclusivist--I don't think it even makes sense to say that people are saved specifically because of the beliefs they hold.

I am not sure if it's obvious to the non-theists around here, but I'm really neither Christian nor non-Christian. I'm stuck somewhere in between, and I don't think it's the responsibility of any of the Christians here to try to fix that. I have no idea how they even could. That is squarely between me and the Christian God, if he exists. I am happy to talk about theology more broadly, but I am not sure why anyone would insist that I engage in Christian apologetics and then accuse the other side of black and white thinking.

The option that they could "want" to listen, do want to listen... and simply don't believe what you tell them, for good reasons... this option is not intented.
And instead of trying to question the fact why the "One True Path to God, backed by a loving, omnipotent deity who desires that everyone believes" is simply not capable of getting people to believe... Christianity shifts the blame. Unbelievers are without excuse. They are evil. They don't want to listen. They hate the light, the truth.

Is that reasonable?

My stance is that there's a significant case to be made for the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation specifically because of this issue. If God truly wishes for everyone to be saved, in the end, everyone will be saved.

The fact of the matter is that Christian theology has a lot to say about this particular topic, and while I would agree that a ton of it is unreasonable, there are approaches that I have found very compelling. I'd forward you to what Eastern Orthodox Father Kimel has to say on the matter: St Isaac the Syrian: Hell and the Scourge of Divine Love

No, sorry, it is a false conclusion. Very much in line with the rest of your "black and white" misrepresentations of my statements.

I haven't misrepresented any of what you've said. I don't actually have a problem with any of it. My own approach is just slightly different in just enough ways to lead to a vastly different outcome. I thought it was an interesting discussion, but if this is the direction it's headed in, we should probably call it quits for now.

 

[Dirk1540]

When I say that it all boils down to whether or not you would desire to live in a world where Jesus is king, more than anything that is me thinking out loud about what I believe to be the major factor, what I gather from reading the Gospels, and I was just throwing it out as my 2 cents on the main point of the Gospels as opposed to me throwing it out as a preaching line.

Because I get so wrapped up in the technical details so much that I have to stop myself sometimes to remind myself that I might be totally wasting my time if I don't even desire it. I could be like the scribes that Jesus rebuked. And I've definitely had many times in my life where I had confusion over whether or not I would desire to live in such a world.

I recently brought up The Tale of Two Wolves...you are what you feed!! If you feed love, kindness, etc. it grows stronger (and you still have free will), if you feed hate, revenge, etc, it grows stronger. I found that feeding the desire of living in a world with Jesus as king has made the desire stronger. Now, the whole spiritual body vs body of flesh which is weak towards temptation is one DEEP twist, I've tried to wrap my mind around that one.

The best analogies I can think of are those rare days where you are in a rare great mood for no apparent reason, you smile at and are kind to everyone (and you still have your free will)...VS...those days where you are completely miserable for no apparent reason, and God help the person who looks at you the wrong way (but you are still the same person as the person who was in that great mood). Maybe a spiritual body is somehow a version of yourself that is better than the best mood you've ever been in, and constant?? Yet you still have free will just like you still had it in your great mood. There's another can of worms!

So actually, I believe that I hated it in the past (the thought of a world where Jesus is king), but by trying to walk towards the light I've grown to desire it. But then as I said earlier, I'll get caught in long stretches where it's just a technical argument.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well yes, but the jews and Hebrews are basically the same groups.

Jews were originally the moniker given to JUDAH - but then became more like Christianity in that is has God's word mixed with mysticism. Hebrews represent the people, which is also a matter of conflict - as there are many people who are not Hebrews, and even more who are but do not know it. Israel is known for exiling ethnic "Jews" - including Africans and Asians.

Well there are three categories of law in the OT, the civil law, the ceremonial law and the moral law. The moral law is still valid for both Christians and non-Christians. And we can learn civil law principles from the ancient Mosaic civil law. And we can learn some things from the ceremonial law but we are no longer bound to it.

Law is Law. Humans categorized it into those things - not God. That is yet another instance where dogma has replaced the very simplistic word of God.

Show me one place in the bible or apocryphal library in which God or Christ declare that

1) any of the laws He/The Word of God spoke out are null for any period
2)the laws He spoke out are only for certain groups of people that want Him as a Father
3) christ's sacrifice was to absorb the law unto Himself, and deliver us from obedience to God (i.e. "grace," as it is understood by institutional modernity.)
4) those who want a relationship with God - who signed a contract with "binding terms on both sides" - do not have to adhere to them because the contract was dissolved of all said terms when Christ resurrected to Life.

*If you can show where God and/or Christ said any of these things - not man - then we can qualify His law, and what to follow. But, I haven't been told our Father that we can do whatever we want to do, and be ignorant of his Law. If my brothers or sisters suggested this, I would check it out with my Father first - before I do something silly.​

I didn't say you were, I said I have no idea of your views, why don't you expound on them?

I believe The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of gods. I believe His law is always good, and therefore should be followed (in entirety). I do not believe obedience justifies salvation - just like a son or daughter is the child whether or not s/he is obedient (e.g. prodigal son.)

We were never to be governed by a man, which is why the literal Word of God Himself was to be our King on earth. We sinned, and became ignorant of God - and out of that ignorance, we were allowed to have a man-king. This failed from the beginning, which paved the way for the Son of the God of gods to sacrifice Himself so that we could regain our lost titles as sons and daughters of God - forsaking our carnality for purity in spirituality. The Word of God is our living King to date.

But, Christ's sacrifice did not erase law, or the compulsion to be obedient. Faith in Christ and His sacrifice, His mission and His Father is what justifies your salvation. But, faith without works is dead - when we select law to follow we are putting faith into our respective modernity. It is saying that we know when God's law is applicable (e.g. we don't live in the "desert" anymore...")

I believe that Christ's sacrifice was proof that God's laws are not too hard for man, and He vindicated Himself to the entirety of creation in all permeability (not that He needed to.) This is especially true since Christ succeeded where Adam 1 failed - and Christ had a handicap (He was born a son of man with no living "spirit" of His own, susceptible to sin where Adam began with his own spirit "breathed" into Him by God Himself - and chose to sin.)

The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is consequential of what He is - perfection. By God's Universal Law, if you are perfect in your ways you deserve full life. Mortality is not a boundary for perfect beings - because they get immortality. This is what Man was supposed to be, and will be yet; no need for technology to induce transhumanism - just Faith in Christ, obedience to God, and full love for God and His Creation.

Ok, what are actual Christians?

Actual Christians are those who have full faith in Christ and His sacrifice, the Word of God, and its function and application in their lives for the best. These are ones that may be defiled in terms of sin, but are striving and heart-consciously making strides toward knowing their Father, and coming to obedience to Him and His laws. Even in ignorance, these are the ones who, when told something, will consult their Father in faith, correcting themselves in accordance to the Word of God.

That is far as I will go, which may already be too far.

We are still too lost to do the right thing on our own. Christ DID fulfill the ceremonial and civil law. And in a way He fulfilled the moral law too, but we are still bound by it.

We aren't too lost at all. We have more than the people under the old covenant had: e.g. an "on loan" Holy spirit that convicts us. Most people call this consciousness; the OT calls it wisdom. If we choose, we have Christ/God. Christ fulfilled every single law because He did exactly what God commanded of a human perfectly - it wasn't because of some mystical or spiritual absorption of the laws into his person. We are bound by all laws; please show me any place in the canon or apocryphal library where Christ/God says that we are only bound to certain laws and we can ignore others.

Actually the northern hemisphere western societies did not use slavery that much. In the American south only the wealthy had slaves most people did not even own slaves and in Europe slavery never was that huge and was ended by the early 19th century. I think you are exaggerating how much was accomplished with it. It did last longer and was used more in Central and South America, so maybe you could make that argument there, but the reason it lasted longer there is because people were not allowed access to the bible by the RCC and that ignorance kept them from freeing the slaves sooner.

Qualifications of frequency do not invalidate the egregious and grossly barbaric treatment of slaves by the West - especially in the name of gods, or justification thereof. Both the Northwestern and Southwestern hemisphere of the world was dramatically changed - not necessarily for the better - by imperialism and slavery. Their "modern" nations were physically built on free labor. The West tries to marginalize the affects of slavery to date, and that may be because to recognize this would mean one would also need to recognize that the "greatness" and "innovation" of the West is due in very large part to the exploitation of slavery and [religious] imperialism.

Brasil does not speak Portugeuse because that is the original language. Haitians don't speak French because that was the language they learned on a cruise trip - or in their native country.
Puertorriquenos y cubanos no hablan espanol porque era su lengua materna. Native Americans do not speak English because that was their native language.

North and South America are examples of exploitation of imperialism and slave trade - many through direct order of a "Holy Empire," where a monarch or governor is bedfellows with the Church of modernity.

 

[Silmarien]

When I say that it all boils down to whether or not you would desire to live in a world where Jesus is king, more than anything that is me thinking out loud about what I believe to be the major factor, what I gather from reading the Gospels, and I was just throwing it out as my 2 cents on the main point of the Gospels as opposed to me throwing it out as a preaching line.

Because I get so wrapped up in the technical details so much that I have to stop myself sometimes to remind myself that I might be totally wasting my time if I don't even desire it. I could be like the scribes that Jesus rebuked. And I've definitely had many times in my life where I had confusion over whether or not I would desire to live in such a world.

I recently brought up The Tale of Two Wolves...you are what you feed!! If you feed love, kindness, etc. it grows stronger (and you still have free will), if you feed hate, revenge, etc, it grows stronger. I found that feeding the desire of living in a world with Jesus as king has made the desire stronger. Now, the whole spiritual body vs body of flesh which is weak towards temptation is one DEEP twist, I've tried to wrap my mind around that one.

The best analogies I can think of are those rare days where you are in a rare great mood for no apparent reason, you smile at and are kind to everyone (and you still have your free will)...VS...those days where you are completely miserable for no apparent reason, and God help the person who looks at you the wrong way (but you are still the same person as the person who was in that great mood). Maybe a spiritual body is somehow a version of yourself that is better than the best mood you've ever been in, and constant?? Yet you still have free will just like you still had it in your great mood. There's another can of worms!

So actually, I believe that I hated it in the past (the thought of a world where Jesus is king), but by trying to walk towards the light I've grown to desire it. But then as I said earlier, I'll get caught in long stretches where it's just a technical argument.

Yes. I'm actually not sure I'd want to live in such a world, but I want to want it, and the fact that I don't says things about me I really don't like.

Though it doesn't say anything that Christian theology doesn't already stress. I hate a lot of the baggage that comes with the phrase "conviction of sin," but I think there's something to it, buried underneath all the legalistic interpretations.

I am well and truly mired in disbelief and uncertainty, and I'm sure I could have a fullblown encounter with the Risen Christ, and that would not change at all. I think it's a matter of my own orientation towards God, Being Itself, whatever, and that I've got a lot of commitment issues to untangle--or rather, to let be untangled, since I don't really believe that any of this is ultimately in my hands at all.

Anyway, that is some input from the bizarro-land of Christian agnosticism, where you can end up hearing and understanding the Gospel and get shoved straight into Pascalian territory, because rejecting something because it seems too good to be true is merely a form of despair, and like any good Kierkegaardian, I believe that despair is ultimately what sin is all about.

Do I hope Christianity is true? Yes, since I'd rather not be off on some grand adventure of self-delusion, but for me at least, rejecting it would be saying that I would not want to be a part of such a world, that I'm incapable of that sort of hope, and that would be a form of damnation regardless of whether or not any of it is true. So there's really only one choice.

Which is not the most pleasant place to be in relation to Christianity, but probably appropriate for me.

 

[Freodin]

When I say that it all boils down to whether or not you would desire to live in a world where Jesus is king, more than anything that is me thinking out loud about what I believe to be the major factor, what I gather from reading the Gospels, and I was just throwing it out as my 2 cents on the main point of the Gospels as opposed to me throwing it out as a preaching line.

What you believe is your prerogative. But you should be aware how your beliefs influence your behaviour towards others.

You might think that you once hated "to live in a world where Jesus is king", and now you desire it... and that these are the only existing options. So how do you react when you are confronted with someone whose reaction is neither hate nor desire, but just apathy? Confusion? Disbelief?

If you accept their position, you have to admit that your own belief is not valid for everyone, not valid as a general claim. If you don't accept it, you misrepresent other people's beliefs (and usually not for the better.)

The same is true if you don't present that as "my belief", but "the main point of the Gospels". Just as true, and even more important. When your personal belief aquires divine authority, it can shut down your personal conscience.

 

[Freodin]

Do I hope Christianity is true? Yes, since I'd rather not be off on some grand adventure of self-delusion, but for me at least, rejecting it would be saying that I would not want to be a part of such a world, that I'm incapable of that sort of hope, and that would be a form of damnation regardless of whether or not any of it is true. So there's really only one choice.

Which is not the most pleasant place to be in relation to Christianity, but probably appropriate for me.

Perhaps there is only one choice for you... a thought that makes me personally quite sad.

I would hope that there is more than one choice for everyone, for things to hope for, grander vistas to experience.

Do you reject that? By hoping for one thing, you are discarding all hope for other things. Do you not want to be part of these worlds? Are you incapable of that sort of hope? Isn't that a different form of damnation?

 

[Dirk1540]

Yes. I'm actually not sure I'd want to live in such a world, but I want to want it, and the fact that I don't says things about me I really don't like.

I still think that maybe we just don't comprehend enough to realize that it's not going to be like living in a straight jacket. Children laughed and ran up to Jesus, and were comfortable around him. So were a ton of adults, they actually followed him everywhere. There doesn't seem to be a vibe of "Oh no here comes Mr. Perfect" going on, but rather a vibe of comfort and good feelings.

There are things about me that I don't like. I don't help people like I should. I don't hurt people, but I don't have that impulse that some people have to go out of their way to help people. I don't like that about me.

I am well and truly mired in disbelief and uncertainty, and I'm sure I could have a fullblown encounter with the Risen Christ, and that would not change at all. I think it's a matter of my own orientation towards God, Being Itself, whatever, and that I've got a lot of commitment issues to untangle--or rather, to let be untangled, since I don't really believe that any of this is ultimately in my hands at all.

When I went through that stretch where I believed that Christianity was true (towards the end) yet I wanted nothing to do with it because it annoyed me, that was an interesting twist. I felt like I was Indiana Jones who spent many years trying to figure out if a certain artifact really existed, after I finally reached the point where I held the artifact in my hand (when I was finally intellectually sold), after I finally crossed the finish line...strangely I didn't celebrate. My reaction was "Hmm, I didn't realize this artifact was ugly, I don't like it!" But as I said I don't think I have much company being in that situation. I'd love to take a poll and find out how many people I can find who have actually been in a similar spot (intellectually convinced...yet a reaction of 'I'll pass'). So I definitely wonder about how many people who say 'If I only I had THIS evidence I would be a Christian' would actually become Christian if they did have that evidence.

Do I hope Christianity is true? Yes, since I'd rather not be off on some grand adventure of self-delusion,

Oh yeah I know that feeling. But my answer was very bipolar through the years myself, one day it was Yes, another day it was No, it was Yes again, then it was No...Lol.

What you believe is your prerogative. But you should be aware how your beliefs influence your behaviour towards others.

I wouldn't dispute that.

You might think that you once hated "to live in a world where Jesus is king", and now you desire it... and that these are the only existing options. So how do you react when you are confronted with someone whose reaction is neither hate nor desire, but just apathy? Confusion? Disbelief?

Without honing in on words such as hate or desire, I would totally expect a 'Yes' or a 'No' reply from each person. Apathy? I would question whether they understand Christianity. I would find it extremely rare to have a person give a 'Whatever' reply to whether they'd want to live in a world where Jesus was king. I'm not sure how confusion or disbelief would factor in because the question is about whether you want to be in a world under Jesus as your king. So when you say confusion or disbelief that sounds more like a different question, maybe a question of whether such a world is true. That's not what I was driving at, I was saying 'If Christianity is true' than how you answer this question would tell us if you are really a Christian at heart. The entire promise of Christianity is the coming world of Jesus the Messiah as king forever and ever.

If you accept their position, you have to admit that your own belief is not valid for everyone, not valid as a general claim. If you don't accept it, you misrepresent other people's beliefs (and usually not for the better.)

The same is true if you don't present that as "my belief", but "the main point of the Gospels". Just as true, and even more important. When your personal belief aquires divine authority, it can shut down your personal conscience.

I don't think I understand. I don't believe that my position matters (whether I'd like to live in that world or not). I'm not claiming divine authority.

 

[Freodin]

Just for convenience sake: would you mind not to quote different people in one post? It just makes it a little easier to respond back to it.

Without honing in on words such as hate or desire, I would totally expect a 'Yes' or a 'No' reply from each person. Apathy? I would question whether they understand Christianity. I would find it extremely rare to have a person give a 'Whatever' reply to whether they'd want to live in a world where Jesus was king.

I'm not sure how confusion or disbelief would factor in because the question is about whether you want to be in a world under Jesus as your king. So when you say confusion or disbelief that sounds more like a different question, maybe a question of whether such a world is true. That's not what I was driving at, I was saying 'If Christianity is true' than how you answer this question would tell us if you are really a Christian at heart. The entire promise of Christianity is the coming world of Jesus the Messiah as king forever and ever.

Really???

HELLO! I AM OVER HERE! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

So, ok, I don't understand Christianity. What is it about? What does that even mean "live in a world where Jesus was king"? How do you think such a world looks like? Is your idea of such a world feasable? Reasonable? Real?

Could it be that you cannot imagine people like me, because of the bubble you live in?

I don't think I understand. I don't believe that my position matters (whether I'd like to live in that world or not). I'm not claiming divine authority.

Every time you state "the Gospel says" as justification for your beliefs, you are claiming the backing of divine authority.

I acknowlegde that within the vastly different interpretations of Christianity, there exist people who might state "Paul believes this" and "John claims that"... but for the most part it is "The Word Of God clearly states...".

 

[Dirk1540]

Could it be that you cannot imagine people like me, because of the bubble you live in?

Every time you state "the Gospel says" as justification for your beliefs, you are claiming the backing of divine authority.

What are we even arguing here? I live in a bubble? Every time I state that the Gospel says...? I'm not even arguing with you that Christianity is true, I was giving my ultimate 'Cut to the chase' meaning of what would define a Christian. I already specified to you 'If you were to believe that Christianity were true' because I know you aren't a Christian.

That means that you, as a non-believer, can simply read the New Testament as if it were nothing more than a novel, and say to yourself "This main character called Jesus, and this future world that he speaks of, would I want to live in such a world?" And I was making a point that if the answer is no than a person might be wasting their time trying to technically prove Christianity as being true, and thinking that if they were able to do so that that would convert them into being a Christian (by itself).

I think you're lifting out pieces of what I'm saying to Silmarien and mixing it with me making arguments for Christianity being true. And I was kind of using the words 'Desire' and 'Hate' as the extremes that opinions would fall in between (but maybe didn't explain myself well).

 

[Silmarien]

Perhaps there is only one choice for you... a thought that makes me personally quite sad.

I would hope that there is more than one choice for everyone, for things to hope for, grander vistas to experience.

Do you reject that? By hoping for one thing, you are discarding all hope for other things. Do you not want to be part of these worlds? Are you incapable of that sort of hope? Isn't that a different form of damnation?

Not really. I'm pretty in line with C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and most especially George MacDonald. Christianity doesn't take away worlds; it transfigures them. I am with the mad sacramental aesthetes: a lot of the power in Western literature isn't there despite Christian belief. It exists because of it.

Thing is, every choice we make closes down alternative paths. I don't think freedom lies in keeping all options open--that's really just paralysis. There's nothing wrong in committing when you think you have to, even if it is kind of scary. And yeah, this one is pretty scary.

 

[Silmarien]

I still think that maybe we just don't comprehend enough to realize that it's not going to be like living in a straight jacket. Children laughed and ran up to Jesus, and were comfortable around him. So were a ton of adults, they actually followed him everywhere. There doesn't seem to be a vibe of "Oh no here comes Mr. Perfect" going on, but rather a vibe of comfort and good feelings.

Oh, I don't see it as a straight jacket. Quite the opposite, really.

I have a very Orthodox approach to concepts like salvation, damnation, and what it would mean for God to be all in all. A lot of what Saint Isaac of Syria has to say really resonates with me--that it is divine love itself which will appear as paradise for those who are prepared for it and hell for those who are not. And that is a very overwhelming picture of what it would mean for God to be love.

It's beautiful, it's intimidating, it's too good to be true, and yet if you glimpse a vision like that and turn away, I think that is ultimately a rejection of life itself. And the very definition of not being prepared for it.

(I really should not assume that people have the slightest idea what I'm talking about once theology comes up, though. I am all about Eastern Christianity.)

My reaction was "Hmm, I didn't realize this artifact was ugly, I don't like it!" But as I said I don't think I have much company being in that situation. I'd love to take a poll and find out how many people I can find who have actually been in a similar spot (intellectually convinced...yet a reaction of 'I'll pass'). So I definitely wonder about how many people who say 'If I only I had THIS evidence I would be a Christian' would actually become Christian if they did have that evidence.

Hahaha, same. Sometimes eternal life sounds like the threat and Annihilationism like the promise, to be honest.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Some of the conquered territories and countries (in the name of Imperialism/bringing the Word of God to savages) had their entire culture erased save a few elders - in the name of Christianity.

Either these people (and historians) need to stop calling themselves Christians, the rest of the Church needs to call them out as hypocrites and misleading wolves, or by apathy you are enable hypocrisy.

I don't deny that some missionaries especially in the past have done some bad things, but they have also done some very good things and improved the culture a great deal. Not all cultures are equal.

ed: Actually nowhere in the bible does it say you should burn a witch. And where it says they deserve the death penalty is only under the Old covenant, ie the old Hebrew theocracy. Jesus never commanded us to restore the old theocracy. The ancient Hebrews were held to a higher standard. However since the death penalty for murder was commanded prior to the theocracy, it applies universally to all societies and nations.

yi: I never said that Christ commanded us to burn witches. Again, it is the context: we were talking abut hypocrisy in the Western world - especially in the name of God. Several denominations of American and European Christians sought out and burned people who they thought were mages, witches and practitioners of craft. That was accepted Western theology at the time - and they allegedly used the same OT and NT to justify their actions.

But it was not actual Biblical theology. And that later impacted Christians to turn to correct theology and in fact in the Salem witch trials Cotton Mather admitted just a few months later that he and the others that killed the women were wrong and had sinned.

yi: There is no old theocracy because Christ is not dead. He never was dead, and God entertained "us" when we begged for a human king - and it has failed ever since.

But, you don't get to execute judgment as you want, because Christ is not dead.

Yes, the old Hebrew theocracy ended in 70 AD when God used the Romans to destroy the Temple and inaugurate the New Covenant. God uses human governments to punish evil doers, read the book of Romans. And according to God in Genesis 9:6 murder deserves the death penalty by the human government. But no other crime deserves the death penalty by a human government.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I don't deny that some missionaries especially in the past have done some bad things, but they have also done some very good things and improved the culture a great deal. Not all cultures are equal.

You are right that there are certainly exceptions to the rule. However, those exceptions were consequential of their ignorance of the orders and occultism within their own "religion." I wouldn't say they improved anyone's culture, however, because I am sure that the slaughtered, genocided native and enslaved people would rather have no technology and their people than skyscrapers, people stacked on each other, a brutal law enforcement and a system that does everything to erase history.

The West is only better off for those who benefit from its imperialism and past history of slavery, fantastic myths of their racial superiority and supreme exploitation.

You make a point about not all being bad, but when 99.7% is either ignorant/incredulous of the possibility of a veiled apostate and occult MYSTERY RELIGION, or complacent given the circumstances, it makes it hard to detach the MYSTERY from the people who identify with the mystery. There has to be a point where sophomoric scoffing, incredulity and downright ignorance becomes damaging to the soul. My Father is the Most High God, and His Son Christ is my Savior, but I cannot identify as a Christian, as it were.

But it was not actual Biblical theology. And that later impacted Christians to turn to correct theology and in fact in the Salem witch trials Cotton Mather admitted just a few months later that he and the others that killed the women were wrong and had sinned.

Excellent that after the fact people always come to their adult senses - their God-given righteousness that was always put in their heart per the New Covenant. No excuse. Absolutely no excuse. It says very clearly in the same bible canon that we are not to MURDER, that JUDGMENT is God's (in the OT and NT actually,) that Christ is our King, and therefore He is the one who judges.

These adults should have know and understood that if children in Sunday school understand this. They chose to murder people for political and hegemony gains. They chose to murder people who did not adhere to the canonical view of the Word of God. They justified these actions with vague bible verses in the same way the Church does today. Nothing is new under the sun.

Yes, the old Hebrew theocracy ended in 70 AD when God used the Romans to destroy the Temple and inaugurate the New Covenant. God uses human governments to punish evil doers, read the book of Romans. And according to God in Genesis 9:6 murder deserves the death penalty by the human government. But no other crime deserves the death penalty by a human government.

God can use other nations to judge nations; this is nothing new. He did this every time Israel broke her vows/covenant and chased after other gods. But, the law to stone someone to death for specific sins is still in effect. We just dont do it because Christ told us NOT TO.

He who is without sin cast the first stone...
You have heard forgive your brother 7x... forgive him 7x70 = 490 times (for ONE offense).

No one here to judge you woman? Then, Neither Will I.


Christ is alive right now, which means He is the judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who does His job without His order is commiting an offense against the Kingdom. None of the laws are void, or done away with. Neither Christ nor God ever said anything remotely close to it, and in fact stressed that not only is the Law still in effect, but it is never going away.

The one main purpose of the new covenant beside salvation: To have the law written on our hearts so that no one will will need to ask their neighbor, andno one will need a canonical text or church hierarchy to tell them what the Word of God is - because it will be written on our hearts.

New Covenant/Contract with God has nothing to do with us being exempt from His laws, and it has nothing to do with Christ absorbing "sin" on Himself so that we could forget about the laws that have always existed - but were for our convenience written by God Himself and through prophets.

Politically, economically, and spiritually: the West is, and never has been a beacon of true and genuine greatness, righteousness or goodness even. Just like every other mortal nation built on this planet, it is a nation that was built with slaves that perpetrates its magnificence as if it was a singularly-executed feat. In reality, the main Western Nation sits out like a queen that has never been a widow... And, that is a very big deal (with ancient spiritual connotations).

 

[Ed1wolf]

Excellent attempt to justify the abominable history of Western imperialism turned to Western exceptionalism. You reap the benefits, so you don't have to see what your country truly is, and what they do in the name of gods you think as the one you worship. God is a title; has the West ever identified their god by name in their pledges, anthems, or any other piece of nationalistic shows of allegiance? What about the god on the money; has that god been identified by name? The West has been swindled back into worshiping the Beast, Mammon, and idols - and much of it is done in the name of a god whom they don't know.

The USA has identified him in the Declaration of Independence. There is evidence that they were referring to the biblical God. It says the "laws of Nature and [the laws] natures God." The only other laws from God that the founders respected were the moral laws of the Biblical God. I am not necessarily saying it is the Christian God since Jefferson who wrote it denied the supernatural power of God. Many European countries have identified their God as the Christian God. It is true that the modern West has become extremely materialistic and that is one of the reasons why they are in a downward spiral.

ed: At present there is increasingly unprincipled capitalism but originally it was principled capitialism based on Christian principles. The bad form of capitalism started in the early 19th century with not Christians but rather the Social Darwinists. And we have been becoming more materialistic ever since. I never said imperialism was Christian. The US was not really imperialistic. I admit that not all churches have done a good job of spreading the Word, but many have. Not all aspects of imperialism are bad, it did allow pagans to learn about Christianity, such as the British ending widow burning in India.

yi: God did not make life to be competitive.

True but He does want us to work hard and be rewarded for our hard work and He does want those that are lazy to have to face the consequences of that laziness and capitalism does that better than any other system.

yi: God made life for unity. Capitalism is one of the most vile forms of economy - especially when fiat currency and centralized banking is involved. It makes people work as slaves for a legal contract giving them permission to use cotton and non-precious metals in exchanged for goods and livelihood. It doesn't matter if it is principled or not: the goal of capitalism is to get more capital.

Capitalism restrained by Christian morality produces more wealth for more people than any other economic system. See above about working hard. More capital can be good, moral wealthy people can spread the wealth around to the poor and help create jobs, contribute more to charities and etc.

yi: Ask the Indians who live in even worse squalor, and poverty after imperialism.

I am not defending imperialism but the reason Indians live in squalor is because of their religious beliefs not because of imperialism. They believe in the caste system and Hinduism that teaches that you can never move up in society until you die and are reincarnated to a higher level. This prevents upward mobility and destroys ambition to better oneself.

yi; You don't feel the affects of imperialism, which is why you think it isn't all bad. The U.S. is the definition of imperialistic: it is the military arm of another larger "horn." I am actually surprised to hear an apology for the vileness of imperialism - just so that one could continue to see the championship of the West.

The US was never really imperialistic. I am not defending imperialism, you are arguing a straw man.

yi: Darwin, by the way, believed that there needed to be a preservation of favored races; it wasn't just about the sciences. Those who called themselves Christians of that say took it and ran with it to justify their atrocities to other cultures and nations. So, it should be no surprise their descendants feel the same as they do.

Anyone that accepted Social Darwinism is probably not a Christian. Everything about it goes against Christian teaching and Gods law.

ed: Those are not Christian principles so that is a non sequitur. I don't deny that some churches do not always follow Christian principles unfortunately.

Yes, there has been some people that have tried to cover up the bad things western societies have done, but it usually comes out in the long run especially in a western society because they believe that the truth should be rooted out and revealed because that is a Christian principle.

yi: You keep marginalizing Western responsibility in the razing of nations and culture. It is actually quite annoying. You can't keep saying the end justifies the means when the means are pillaging, raping, breeding, burning and enslaving people - unless you are on the "winning" side of that.

The native americans also pillaged, raped, burned and enslaved people. There is evidence that they did it a higher rate than european Americans. I never said that the ends justify the means. Generally the American government did not condone such things except slavery and then that was ended by devout Christians during the civil war. Generally it was rogue generals and psychos who did most of the pillaging and raping and burning. The Government rarely condoned it and often punished the whites who did such things. But I am just saying that relative to the time in which they lived western nations treated people better than non-Judeo-Christian nations.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The USA has identified him in the Declaration of Independence. There is evidence that they were referring to the biblical God. It says the "laws of Nature and [the laws] natures God." The only other laws from God that the founders respected were the moral laws of the Biblical God. I am not necessarily saying it is the Christian God since Jefferson who wrote it denied the supernatural power of God. Many European countries have identified their God as the Christian God. It is true that the modern West has become extremely materialistic and that is one of the reasons why they are in a downward spiral.

Show me one time anywhere in the Declaration of Independence that the god that is worshipped is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - or identified by name.

The title "god" is used without specificity. You have no idea what "god" that is.

These "founding fathers" are the same ones who entertained the notion that slavery was a biblical right for the alleged chosen people. On a pedestrian level, even they didn't know what god they worshiped (although, the gnostic lot of them did..)

True but He does want us to work hard and be rewarded for our hard work and He does want those that are lazy to have to face the consequences of that laziness and capitalism does that better than any other system.

That is still nowhere near capitalism, or competition. You can be in unity, and be well-motivated to produce better just by virtue of the love of your fellow man. That is not the economy or philosophy of the West. Capital is king. No human on this planet is lazy, precisely because most all humans are slaves. Adam gave up dominion of this planet; his offspring are slaves to the god(s) that rule this world. Are you so certain your nation doesn't worship the same principalities? THEY go by many names and characteristics common to Western culture and philosophy. But, they beguiled the entire world.

Capitalism restrained by Christian morality produces more wealth for more people than any other economic system. See above about working hard. More capital can be good, moral wealthy people can spread the wealth around to the poor and help create jobs, contribute more to charities and etc.

What Christians that operate by Christian morality work at the Federal Reserve? Capitalism is anti-Christian; wasn't it Christ that told the man that if he wanted to be a part of the Kingdom in addition to following the commandments he would need to indulge in full charity?

Capitalism is about capital; all "good" results are just consequences of the mobility of the economy. The goal of capitalism is to acquire more capital. There is no spiritual or moral attachment to capitalism.

I am not defending imperialism but the reason Indians live in squalor is because of their religious beliefs not because of imperialism.

What about your country treating the descendants of slaves and nearly eradicated natives as if they are aliens and perpetual criminals/drunks? Before the West begins to analyze the culture of another nation thousands of miles away, they need to focus on how horribly they treat their own alleged citizens - and especially how they act like injustices don't exist (and try to convince others of this.) To say that Indians live in squalor because of their religion is completely ignorant of the religions in India. In addition, it is being ignorant of the East Indian Company's abominable 274 year influence on the country.

By ignorant, I don't mean stupid. I mean you have the means and inspiration to know but choose not to (for whatever reason.)

They believe in the caste system and Hinduism that teaches that you can never move up in society until you die and are reincarnated to a higher level. This prevents upward mobility and destroys ambition to better oneself.

In your opinion, it prevents upward mobility. To the hundreds of millions of Hindu people, not so much. In fact, it isn't religion that prevents upward mobility; history is full of theocracies that were far more advanced than any nation of today. What kills progress is politics, ignorance and disunity. Capitalism and imperialism - hallmarks of Western society - are the contract killers of true progress (unless you think of progress as slavery in exchange for security.)

The US was never really imperialistic. I am not defending imperialism, you are arguing a straw man.

The US not being imperialistic is, itself, a Strawman, and erroneous. Before the US was the US, the very entity known as the colonies was an imperialist operation. And, we won''t even mention the countries the States have imperialized/"absorbed" into their representation. The sun never sets on the States; they are the definition of militaristic imperialism.

The United States has never been out of a war for more than five years since 1942. Do you think they were spreading peace by bombing nations, setting up coups and puppet administrations?

Anyone that accepted Social Darwinism is probably not a Christian. Everything about it goes against Christian teaching and Gods law.

But, then it was the accepted canonical Christian norm. And, take a look at these forums: it is still prevalent in the "Christian" community. They still justify their actions despite the clear word of God. Even today, people accept social and biological Darwinism (for the purposes of preserving select races) despite the implications. It is out of ignorance. It is just a different day, but the morale and spirit is the same. If people can justify an entire "race" of people being stereotypes, and accept the blatant social substantiation - then that type of person is kidding his/herself in believing they know the difference between spirit and death - even if they claim to be devout. America (and the entire world) is full of hypocrites that don't know they are hypocrites. Be on the right side of history,so that in 50 years your grandchildren don't question your morality when you describe your actions in this present time.

The native americans also pillaged, raped, burned and enslaved people. There is evidence that they did it a higher rate than european Americans.

So that means the British/Columbians had to also rape, pillage, burn and enslave people?


I thought the "Europeans" were stewards and examples of light, and bringers of civilization and progress - especially to natives?

and I never said that the ends justify the means. Generally the American government did not condone such things except slavery and then that was ended by devout Christians during the civil war. Generally it was rogue generals and psychos who did most of the pillaging and raping and burning. The Government rarely condoned it and often punished the whites who did such things. But I am just saying that relative to the time in which they lived western nations treated people better than non-Judeo-Christian nations.

The American government tests on its own citizens. Pre-Antebellum America - including the North - had slaves. Slavery just wasn't as prevalent in the North as it was in the South because of the terrain. That is why the civil war happened - the South was too economically independent. It had nothing to do with freeing slaves out of the goodness/ethical righteousness of the leaders' hearts. It was about capital; the South was making too much money on a resource (slaves) the North couldn't exploit in mass amount.



Hmm...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not absurd, because Christianity has become absurd - double negatives and such. In modern Christianity, it is absurd for me to believe that we are supposed to be obedient to God even if it doesn't constitute our salvation. It is absurd for me to believe that all 10 commandments, laws and stipulations are terms and agreements we must choose to adhere to in order to be part of the contract/covenant with God - including the Sabbath. It is absurd for me to tell other people this.

I am nowhere near a religious liberal.

No, biblical Christianity teaches that you obey God out of love for Him not to earn salvation. Your last two statements are not Christian teaching. Christ said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Your statements above sound like a typical liberal misunderstanding of historic Christianity.

ed: I did not make a comment on your spiritual alignment, I was making a comment on your political alignment, many theologically liberal Christians want us to abandon our founding principles and deny that the US and the West was founded on biblical principles as well as many other religions. But I have no idea whether you are a liberal Christian or an atheist, or a pagan or a jew, or a Buddhist or etc. I have no idea. I would like to hear what your beliefs are, since you seem to use some Christian terminology, I am curious.

yi: You erroneously connected the context of my original statement with the growing apostate. That is commenting on spiritual alignment; you couldn't say that to Christ because you know He isn't any of that. Yet, you say it to me because you believe I can, and possibly am associated with the liberal/relativist demerits of religion.

See my statement above.

yi: You are still wrong about me politically; I am nowhere near liberal politically.

Ok.

yi: I am not a theologian, and I don't care about abandonment issues with respect. I am flat out saying that the West was built on the necks and ashes of people they destroyed in the name of a god they didn't know - usually associated with colloquial Christianity. Keep your principles, but don't mix them with Christianity - because a nation like the US is immediately disqualified as a godly nation, and much more qualified as a horn with a beast system and MYSTERY religion.

I don't deny that the West and the US have done bad things and sometimes in the name of Christianity. But it is a fact of history that the founding documents are based on Christian principles and many of our leaders have tried to meet those principles and standards, no nations outside of western ones have those objectively existing standards as their goal even when they don't always meet them or follow them. But our striving for them and judging others for falling short of them have caused us to become the greatest nations on earth and greatest forces for good on the earth. BTW, what is a horn with a beast system? You sound like a dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel.

yi: Everything I have said is my alignment with my Father and my Savior. If you don't know what I am - or what/who I believe in - then ask me. If you want to test my spirit, then ask me in faith what my alignment and beliefs are - and I will tell you truthfully.

Ok tell me.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, biblical Christianity teaches that you obey God out of love for Him not to earn salvation. Your last two statements are not Christian teaching. Christ said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Your statements above sound like a typical liberal misunderstanding of historic Christianity.

See my statement above.


Ok.

Passive Christianity teaches that you obey God because you love Him - yet they dont acknowledge or follow His law. Rather even, they themselves stipulate what is supposed to be followed and what isnt.

Show me one place in the bible where God or Christ says that we don't have to follow the rules he has set up despite the offer of Grace and Salvation.

Show me one place.


[/quote]I don't deny that the West and the US have done bad things and sometimes in the name of Christianity. But it is a fact of history that the founding documents are based on Christian principles and many of our leaders have tried to meet those principles and standards, no nations outside of western ones have those objectively existing standards as their goal even when they don't always meet them or follow them. But our striving for them and judging others for falling short of them have caused us to become the greatest nations on earth and greatest forces for good on the earth. BTW, what is a horn with a beast system? You sound like a dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel.[/quote]

You are not Christian if you use slaves to exploit labor - and your purposefully breed them with their relatives to produce stronger slaves, purposefully keep them from an education so they will never want for a better life, and penetrate the men for the purposes of breaking them, etc. That is not Christian; the foundation of Columbia is not Christian. And, that is just what America has done to one group of its citizens.


You have to ignore the majority horrific history of the West to claim with a straight face that anyone should take "good" from the forging of an empire without pointing to the reality of how that empire was built - and how the same tactics of denigration and dehumanization are being used.

Ok tell me.

You still need to show me one place where God or Christ said that we dont have to follow any of His laws (and list them.) I am not being funny.

Either people need to stop saying that 'we are under grace; we don't have to follow [insert God's Law here,]" or they need to show where God and/or Christ said this - not a man. The foundation of Christianity is God's word; how can you expect to love God if you don't follow His Laws? You don't adsorb righteousness by osmosis. Stop telling people the dangerous tale that they don't have to follow the laws of God, and that Christ saved them from being obedient. No one is saying obedience justifies salvation, but faith without works is dead.

I ask for one verse from the APOCRYPHA OR CANON that says God/Christ gave us permission to disregard ANY law of God previously set up, or to come.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Jews were originally the moniker given to JUDAH - but then became more like Christianity in that is has God's word mixed with mysticism.

What do you mean by mixed with mysticism?

yi: Hebrews represent the people, which is also a matter of conflict - as there are many people who are not Hebrews, and even more who are but do not know it. Israel is known for exiling ethnic "Jews" - including Africans and Asians.

Who are people who are Hebrews but do not know it?

yi: Law is Law. Humans categorized it into those things - not God. That is yet another instance where dogma has replaced the very simplistic word of God.

While the categories are not explicitly stated, careful analysis of the original Hebrew and context shows that there were subtle differences between the categories of law. For example, why do you think that only the Ten Commandments were written on stone? Everything God does is for a purpose.

yi: Show me one place in the bible or apocryphal library in which God or Christ declare that

1) any of the laws He/The Word of God spoke out are null for any period​

Again, while not explicit it is plainly implied throughout the New Covenant that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. Read Ephesians 2:15, Matt. 15:20, Mark 7:15-19, Acts 10:9-16, Hebrews 10:1-14, 13:9, 10.

yi: 2)the laws He spoke out are only for certain groups of people that want Him as a Father

See verses above why the ceremonial law no longer applies to anyone. And other verses such as Matt. 5:18 show that the moral law applies to everyone even those that that don't want to know Him as Father.

yi: 3) christ's sacrifice was to absorb the law unto Himself, and deliver us from obedience to God (i.e. "grace," as it is understood by institutional modernity.)

He didn't absorb the law, He obeyed it perfectly so His righteousness could be imputed upon those that accept it and thereby allow us to be considered righteous and thereby be saved. And one of the signs that that has happened is that we want to obey His moral law to show our love for Him.

yi: 4) those who want a relationship with God - who signed a contract with "binding terms on both sides" - do not have to adhere to them because the contract was dissolved of all said terms when Christ resurrected to Life.

No, we still had to adhere to them but God's second chosen representative (Adam being the first) Jesus, obeyed them perfectly and imputed His righteousness on to us so that now we obey the moral laws out of love for Him as a sign of whose we are and not as way to gain God's favor.

yi: *If you can show where God and/or Christ said any of these things - not man - then we can qualify His law, and what to follow. But, I haven't been told our Father that we can do whatever we want to do, and be ignorant of his Law. If my brothers or sisters suggested this, I would check it out with my Father first - before I do something silly.

See above where God and Christ plainly imply some of these things throughout the New Covenant.​