Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I love it. Brother D and Brother S. Brothers in arms of their religious cult.
But I am curious. Why did you tag me? I really am not interested in whatever either of them say. Yes, I can see they have reams of posts. But I am not interested in reading any of it whatsoever. You can enjoy your engagement with them. Until they apologise for their lying trolling and bullying, I refuse to engage with them. Neither of them has PMed me to even do so. Not that I expect them to.
Cheers and I waiting for your reply to my responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I totally agree that the Christian Bible, OT and NT needs to be interpreted and to be interpreted properly.
I come from a background where people say that they interpret the Bible literally. I personally think that they don't actually understand what they are saying. And it has become confusing in much conversation.
In Christian history, there initially was two primary streams of interpretation. One was the Eastern method which was allegorical. And in the West they preferred literalism. This however is very different to how most people use the word literal today.
Today, in many churches, the term literalism has become almost a distinct genre. And it is quite wooden in its approach. But experts in literature do not understand that literalism is a genre - rather a term used to distinguish from the allegorical approach.
In literature, it is a truism that poetry is literal. And so is historical narrative and so is prophetic language. And interestingly enough even in this form of understanding the language literal - we can have allegorical types of stories. Yet these allegorical stories ought not be confused with the Eastern allegorical interpretative method.
I take what is called a grammatical historical approach to interpretating scripture. Yes, it is literal, because I think words have meaning and can be understood. Yet in my view, the poetry, and the parables and the prophecies are to be understood as poetry and parables and prophecies. And the historical narratives are to be understood as historical narratives.
Some on this site use a literal methodology as their genre. This is simply reading a book wrongly. I have encouraged people to download and read a book - called "how to read a book", by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Daren. It is well worth reading, pardon the pun. They are not Christian authors. Yet the book is brilliant.
I take the view that 2 Peter 1:1 as referring to one person. I don't think literalism has anything to do with it. The connection and in the context seems to make perfect sense. I understand that some people choose not to see it that way. the JW would never see it as the same thing. Yet, the entire passage intentionally goes on in v. 3 and repeats it. and then talks in v. 4 of his divine power. The his there is clearly referring back to Jesus. there is also the other intriguing thing here. If Jesus is not God, why would Peter, elevate Jesus to the same level of authority as God, putting them both on the same level. That would - I imagine for the Jew a thing of abomination. For there is no one like GOD, no one besides him or on the same level.
I am not a fan of the KJV. I don't dislike it. I just don't think it is the only translation of the originals. It is valid. But it is not the only. 99% of the bible is considered known. There are a few little issues. But mostly every year, the science continues to improve and the Greek and Hebrew is becoming more and more known.
I also think that the variety of translations is one of the strengths of Christianity. IT is not a weakness. similar to denominations. I think strength.
Good post - and good topic. Keep it coming. It is good to have someone on here who is prepared to take it up to the trolls. I personally have blocked both of them at the moment. And will continue to do so - until they have a change of heart. So in other words, I reckon - NEVER.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
yes, I am content here in Australia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward,...I really don't want to talk about christianity because this is not the topic, but I can't help noticing the funny contradiction this christian person you are responding to has just exposed.He claims christianity seeks outward which is completely at odds with what Jesus the Christ taught to his disciples: "The kingdom of God is within you", Luke 17: 20-21.With all due respect, this dude is a farce.
A farce. LOL @ you. If you read my words to Critical -Tim, you might notice that I did not draw this same deep distinction as suggested. In fact I said christianity is about relationship. And this means both inward, outward, and upward are just as important as each other.
And the funniest thing is - you seem to lack any real sense of what Jesus was saying in Luke 17. For instance - the word, you in that context, was it singular or plural?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Christianity is not specifically about altruism. It is about loving God and then loving others. It means not thinking too highly of yourselves and treating others as better. It means recognising that all of us are sinners until we die. Yet for those who have trusted in Christ, then the resurrection will be glorious. It is sadly the fact that many people calling themselves Christian, do so for a variety of reasons. Some out of tradition. Some because they live in America. Some because they don't know any better. Others for money. But the truth is not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian, except in name. If we don't live like Christians, loving God and loving others, then it is evidence that we lack the Spirit of God. Like the Buddhists might say at times, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don't actually like that terminology, since Christianity is a religion - and it is a way of life. Yet, I would say it is more than that - it is a relationship with God. And when someone has a relationship with God, then they know God intimately. Some people can know about God, but knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. I think the difference is like the difference between the definition of a kiss. The pressing of lips on another set of lips. Compared with being kissed. You can know what a kiss is - and never ever be kissed. And yet a person who has been kissed will never not know. Christians are people I say, who have been kissed by God. They know it and their lives reflect it. Many others - know about God. And they can tell you all about what and who God is - holy, and love and kind and vengeful or whatever. But they don't know God. Hence, why I say Christianity is not specifically about being altruistic.I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward, yet the seeking of serenity on heaven or earth is the same; they seek peace.Buddhism is not for everyone, and many would dispute Christianity, I cannot determine this for other, but only myself.I'm not a devout Buddhist, and many would say I'm not a Christian either, as my perspectives of the world are nuanced. I simply seek to understand reality the best that one can.
I don't think it is entirely accurate that the distinction with Christianity is inward v outward. I actually quite emphatically indicated the difference was relationship. Christians have a living relationship with God. Not with the universe. Not with the creation but with the Creator. This is not the all or the ONE. It is the God who made the heavens and the earth. It is the God who himself gave his most precious possession, in order to demonstrate his love for his people.
While it is true that Buddhism teaches an inward path, Christians don't ignore the inward. We do believe that this relationship with God, who is external to us, requires our hearts to be renewed as evidence of this relationship being reconciled. In other words, we say our hearts have been damaged - our sinful nature. This needs to be rectified - in order for us to be able to enjoy a proper relationship with God. like most things Christian, it is not just one way. There is inward, and outward. But more than that - we talk of the vertical and the horizontal. Once our relationship with God is sorted, then our relationships with others ought to follow as a natural consequence. Of course, many people dispute Christianity. It requires a deep humility which most if not all can achieve. It's more than just denying your human pleasures. Or needs. It is as Jesus put it - being born again. Starting again. This is truly a humiliating point. I can't speak for your devoutness. I can add you are not Christian either. No disrespect meant either - just concluding from your own words. it is good to try and understand reality - I think we should all try to do so. The question of course is what will be our measuring stick for determining whether something is real or not. Or what is true or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.I think that losing someone we love is more suffering than the suffering avoided by failing to consider their emotions. In other words, one person might say we suffer for our loved ones, but I think a true loved one would be more suffering to lose.Ultimately, I see self-suffering for those we love as a path to a lesser suffering, which is at our self interest.
We all self-sacrifice at times out of love and concern. It is not a real sacrifice if it doesn't hurt. The suffering therein is done for love - not for ourselves.
I don't understand that last sentence. Can you try and rephrase it for me, please. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I guess my point is that although that might be Buddhism's understanding of the problem and solution of life, others have a different view. Communists for example believe the problem is - power - and the solution is wealth redistribution. I as a Christian think the problem is sin and that sin needs to be dealt with. for me, suffering is part of life. Possibly the result initially of sin, but not necessarily so. Getting rid of suffering in my opinion is really just a band-aid solution. Just go and have a drink. That's numb the pain. Just have a few more pills. It's almost escapism and doesn't actually address the real situation.I agree that band-aids do not fix the root of the issue, but I think it's important to note that not all Buddhists are communists. Buddhism and communism have some similarities, such as the rejection of a creator deity and the vision of universal egalitarianism, but they also have many differences, such as the views on materialism, violence, and individual freedom. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy that has existed for over 2500 years, while communism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 19th century. Buddhism has many branches and schools, while communism has various forms and interpretations. Buddhists and communists have coexisted in some Asian countries, but they have also clashed and conflicted in others. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that all Buddhists are communists or vice versa.
hmm. I think you have misunderstood me. I don't equate Buddhism with communism. I used communism above as an example of a worldview which suggests a problem to the world's problems and then a solution. Buddhism says it is about suffering. communism says it is about power. Christianity says sin is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.Ok. It seems pretty lame to me. No offence. But what you are calling constraints is ipso facto rigid. In other words, outside of the constraints, there is ABSOLUTELY no path to your Nirvana. All of the many paths MUST lie within the constraints. The lameness is not the idea, but the fact that you refuse to call a spade a spade.My choice of words were what I believed to best capture the essence of the idea that many paths lead to Nirvana and still many more lead elsewhere.If it be a spade, I shall call it that.How would you better say it and why?
I would just call it as it is. I would probably use the word covenant. It is the idea that - freedom or flexibility or preference if you prefer, exist within boundaries that are inflexible or rigid. The example I tend to use is the Garden of Eden. God gave humanity total freedom to eat from every tree in the garden except one. The one tree which he was forbidden to eat was the boundary. But it was an immovable boundary that had a real implication or consequence. But it had to be real boundary or else the concept of true freedom would have no definition. Sometimes, the modern mind wants to believe that freedom has no boundaries. They believe in the illusion of a "free mind". Yet, unless freedom has a boundary, freedom means absolutely nothing. It becomes a word or a feeling. It loses all meaning.
SO I would call a spade a spade. I would call your constraint an inflexible constraint that is rigid. Anything less than that actually diminishes your many true ways to Nirvana.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's possible if you want to. Sadly, you are content to be where you are, although the contentless is illusionary. That might of course be the result of booze or something else.
Still, nice chatting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.
Ok. It seems pretty lame to me. No offence. But what you are calling constraints is ipso facto rigid. In other words, outside of the constraints, there is ABSOLUTELY no path to your Nirvana. All of the many paths MUST lie within the constraints. The lameness is not the idea, but the fact that you refuse to call a spade a spade.
You had a dispute on enlightenment, the first thing to do would be:
- define enlightenment from the perspective of the religion
- then to respond to you dispute
- then to explain my personal thoughts if I have any disputes with the religion's definition.
What more could you have asked for?
I guess my point is that although that might be Buddhism's understanding of the problem and solution of life, others have a different view. Communists for example believe the problem is - power - and the solution is wealth redistribution. I as a Christian think the problem is sin and that sin needs to be dealt with. for me, suffering is part of life. Possibly the result initially of sin, but not necessarily so. Getting rid of suffering in my opinion is really just a band-aid solution. Just go and have a drink. That's numb the pain. Just have a few more pills. It's almost escapism and doesn't actually address the real situation.
Peace is the state or quality of being free from violence, conflict, or disturbance, both internally and externally.Being free from torture is a part of being at peace.
There are different meanings of peace. I know that often when I see people following other religions or worldviews this can create conflict in me for I am concerned for them. Violence of course is another word that has different definitions. Some violence is acceptable in my view. It is right to defend myself by violence or to defend my children from being raped. I don't agree that violence breeds violence. It can have an influence of course. But it is not logically a necessity. Define torture. Again there are levels of torture.
Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering.Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.Really. On what basis do you think that?As you said above...
I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.
I concur - I just don't know why this is any different for any person or for any worldview.
Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness. Curious really.I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.You could be right, but you have not shown why. What does altruism mean? and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism?Altruism is the quality or practice of caring for the well-being of others without expecting anything in return, even if it means sacrificing one’s own interests or happiness.I believe both religions show that being moral is at one's own self-interest.When asking for empirical evidence, remember this is a religious forum, so not everything is founded in rationality.
Christianity is not specifically about altruism. It is about loving God and then loving others. It means not thinking too highly of yourselves and treating others as better. It means recognising that all of us are sinners until we die. Yet for those who have trusted in Christ, then the resurrection will be glorious. It is sadly the fact that many people calling themselves Christian, do so for a variety of reasons. Some out of tradition. Some because they live in America. Some because they don't know any better. Others for money. But the truth is not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian, except in name. If we don't live like Christians, loving God and loving others, then it is evidence that we lack the Spirit of God. Like the Buddhists might say at times, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don't actually like that terminology, since Christianity is a religion - and it is a way of life. Yet, I would say it is more than that - it is a relationship with God. And when someone has a relationship with God, then they know God intimately. Some people can know about God, but knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. I think the difference is like the difference between the definition of a kiss. The pressing of lips on another set of lips. Compared with being kissed. You can know what a kiss is - and never ever be kissed. And yet a person who has been kissed will never not know. Christians are people I say, who have been kissed by God. They know it and their lives reflect it. Many others - know about God. And they can tell you all about what and who God is - holy, and love and kind and vengeful or whatever. But they don't know God. Hence, why I say Christianity is not specifically about being altruistic.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Interpretation, misinterpretation and reinterpretation Trade.All indicative of uncertainty rather than a definitive answer.So you need to prove something that you cannot prove.And I do not need to disprove something that cannot be proven.Status quo relative to alternatives.But always enjoyable to interact from time to time.
I see you avoided the question completely. I will take that as a concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm not sure how that helps in our discussion of free will. If someone is owned by someone else, it would seem implicit that they don't have the right and therefore the capacity to leave of their own free will.Legally, in specific places in the world and in specific time periods in history, you can be owned by another human being, but only legally.I am talking about something that surpasses legality. Think about it like this:A country can control its people, but people can still revolt and take over.Someone can own a slave, but that doesn't nessesarraly mean that the slave can fight back or run away.
If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to repent, I still have a choice to repent. But is my will free or under duress? Some would say yes. It's your choice to die or not. I think that a slave might have capacity to do something but if it's not legal, then it's not really free. I somehow think we are at cross hairs here.
No offence meant in that, but ownership must mean something. Including the right to transfer. Hence, North Korean people might have the ability to leave, and perhaps that is a sort of capacity, but is it legitimate? AND if its not legitimate, is it therefore free will?No offense taken.Ownership is a legal right to own something. Again the word legal is very important here.We don't even have to use the word legal though. I belive you could say that ownership is one's ability to keep an object or person in one's possession.And the law helps people with that ability to own that thing whatever it is.Also, if you can make any type of decisions by your own will to any extent, that is an example of free will.
I think people can make limited decisions. But is that limited will or free will? What does the free in your definition of free will actually mean?
Hmmm. that's a surprising response. Would you care to explain what you think the difference is between a person who is born in sin, and someone who was not born into sin? Your last question is intriguing. If someone is born into sin, it must mean something. What do think it means?There is no one person not born into sin.It's like going in a pool. You are placed into the water. Think of it like that.So every person that has ever lived has been born into sun, but only one didn't succumb to the sin. That man was Jesus Christ.Being born into sin means that you were born into a sinful world. A world full of sin.
Interesting explanation. I will think about it. But I am not sure I agree with it. The world is sinful. Or is it just humans that are sinful? You've indicated before now, that animals can't sin, since they don't have free will and operate on instinct. What part of the world is sinful that is not connected to humanity? I would suggest that fallen angels are sinful. The devil is sinful. Humans are sinful. I would suggest too that being born into sin is to say that we are born with human nature. A human nature that has been corrupted by the fall. Hence, I would say that all humans are corrupted and will die.
Evidence for this assertion please.Animals know what to do from birth. It's instinct. Animals live their lives off of instinct. Some animals don't even get parental guidance.Humans are very different though.Humans cannot just survive without heavy guidance. And it's not just survival skills that humans have to be guided through. It's morals as well.
Humans do survive though. Often without guidance. True, some die. But so do lots of animals. Lots survive though. Isn't that the point of the survival of the fittest? instinct. Instinct survives. Morals are a different thing. Morals are what we learn from our lives. From our parents, school, culture etc.
Says you? I think it is quite feasible to say rape is an instinct. It occurs within the animal realm all of the time. It is clearly due to the instinct to have sex and reproduce. What makes the animal instinct to rape - distinct from the human sense to rape for whatever reason?Animals have that instinct.Humans don't.
Yes, you've said this before. It would be nice if you could differentiate it more.
Because human emotion and human trauma is more heavy and complex than animals.
Maybe or maybe not. Sex is the instinct. The need to reproduce after yourself. Isn't that part of the image of God?
Rape isn't a human instinct.
I think it is probably true that for most people who rape others, they are animals. And they do what they do out of their own lack of self-control, because of their enormous desire to satisfy their own natural instincts. The moral dilemma is a side matter.
Again this is why free will is only a human trait.Animals will get the instinct to rape and do it.Humans will get that instinct and make the choice.
I think you are falling for a fallacy here. You assume free will in order to distinguish between animal and human acts. And you assume that because of a prior view they have free will. And a moral aspect to their being.
Now animals make that choice to, but it isn't based upon morals its based upon situation.
What do you mean by situation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.
Respectfully that is a terrible example. I'm not sure what to do with it. It doesn't help at all.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education. Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse.Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws.Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.
I'm not sure why you would think any of what you have said is helpful in our discussion. You seem to be going around in circles. Are you feeling stumped?
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples?I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.
I'm pretty sure that all people would agree with the view that torture is bad. But what does that have to do with inner peace?
Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering.Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.
Really. On what basis do you think that?
Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness. Curious really.I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.
you could be right, but you have not shown why. What does altruism mean? and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
They were created good, but sinned.So why did they sin?Because the were created thus.
Again non-sequitur.
A good creation can do bad. What you seem to be arguing, without any foundation, is that good creation can never do bad. You need to establish what you are saying or arguing.
I provided an example of a gun. Guns can do very bad things. But the purpose of a gun is to shoot projectiles. Yes, it can kill. It can save lives. But its purpose is neutral.
Humans have the capacity to do lots of things. good and evil. but that is not a design flaw. That is what you continue to content, but not yet with any argument behind it.
And then you go on to say that the weak fence was the fault of the designer.Which was exactly the point I was making.Week humans were the fault of the designer.
Seriously? You raised a fence in the midst of a serious storm. I suggested doing so was silly. Humanity as a creation is not the same at all. And is clearly distinguished.
There was no storm in the first place. And humanity only had to do one thing - obey God. It's not that hard. A fence trying to stand erect in the midst of a storm is quite a different picture.
Thought is an involuntary, in built design feature and process of the functioning organism.And sexuality is an in built and deliberate design feature of the organism.So Adam thought about sex, by design.As GOD intended.
The original sin had nothing to do with sex - except perhaps the male ought to have taken time to protect the female sex from predators. I don't agree that thought is involuntary. I think thought is entirely voluntary. Yes, thoughts can fly in without much provocation, but the self-controlled person is able to quickly despatch award thoughts quickly.
And sex is a good thing. Yet sex like everything else has a context. The question is what is the context? I suggest marriage is the context.
And let's just make it clear that in the last instance, I'm referring to GOD, and not God.Design or inevitable occurrence...Who knows.Nonetheless Trade...Cause and effect.
Okay and what is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Once Again, thanks for the responses.
Not trying to be difficult, but surely a slave is owned by another person and does not have the freedom to just up and leave. Let's take it to another level. Would you hold to the view that humans are born into the estate of sin or that they are born free?Well technically speaking people in North Korea are not free legally, but they have the free will to choose to leave.
I'm not sure how that helps in our discussion of free will. If someone is owned by someone else, it would seem implicit that they don't have the right and therefore the capacity to leave of their own free will. No offence meant in that, but ownership must mean something. Including the right to transfer. Hence, North Korean people might have the ability to leave, and perhaps that is a sort of capacity, but is it legitimate? AND if its not legitimate, is it therefore free will?
And for your second comment, according to the Bible, all people are born into sin. Now that doesn't mean that at the moment of birth a person is sinfull, but they are born into sin.I don't understand why you ask," or free". We are both born into sin and free to choose it or not.
Hmmm. that's a surprising response. Would you care to explain what you think the difference is between a person who is born in sin, and someone who was not born into sin? Your last question is intriguing. If someone is born into sin, it must mean something. What do think it means?
So free will is more than just having the capacity to act according to its own discretion? I'm not sure how thinking differently to humans, means they don't have free will. Why is comprehension of the ability to impact the world necessary for it to be free will? And again, would you please explain why self-centredness, sinful or not sinful is relevant to the idea of free will?I'll answer this sentence by sentence:Yes it is.
Okay. Please explain what you mean.
Humans can purposefully see the action they want to do, see the consequences, some clearer than others, and purposefully choose to do it. Animals instinct is all based on survival.
Evidence for this assertion please.
It's not self-centeredness, it's purposefully realization and choice of moral and immoral things.
Of course it is. You haven't yet distinguished enough between the two to make any sense.
So would you say that any instinct that a human takes is not an act of free will? the instinct to have sex for instance - which leads to raping some person. Is that instinct - as opposed to free will?Rape is not an instinct.The desire for sex is the instinct. Again the desire is the instinct not the action. It's called temptation.
Says you? I think it is quite feasible to say rape is an instinct. It occurs within the animal realm all of the time. It is clearly due to the instinct to have sex and reproduce. What makes the animal instinct to rape - distinct from the human sense to rape for whatever reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
In Buddhism, the path to Nirvana is not rigid, but there are constraints to which paths will lead there.The many paths that don't lead to Nirvana actually aligns with Christianity, "the path to heaven is a narrow road, and to stray will lead to hell."
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity? Surely the rigidness of Buddhism is evidenced by the constraints of the correct path? I take the view that the Christian path mentioned above is a prophecy. Hence, it is not rigid. For me, the purpose of prophecy is the main thing. It is the forth telling, not the fore telling. In other words, what is the ethical response to a prophecy? And the answer to that - may well change the outcome. For example, look at the story of Jonah. Why did Jonah not get stoned for being a false prophet? Because the purpose of his prophecy was to cause the people to respond ethically to it, not to just simply fore-tell the future. Christianity is also a covenant religion. This means it believes that freedom is defined by boundaries. Hence, its belief in the Trinity. The One and the Many. And why it holds to the view that the means is just as important as the ends.
How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are? And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway?The road with many paths seems to be constrained to the abstracted idea presented by the eight principles. I believe the point is to understand reality through enlightenment, enabling us to align ourselves with reality, leading to consciousness and mindfulness.This helps us live life with our eyes open.Once enlightend and now understanding, we can see unnecessary suffering coming a mile away, thus avoiding it. I believe that most suffering in life is self-inflicted through willful blindness.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education. Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse. I don't have an issue with us getting wisdom. I think wisdom is a good thing. Yet what is willful blindness to one person is wise advice for another. Hence, why subjectivity makes a joke of true wisdom.
Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness. But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him.I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples?
Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like. And also what is enlightenment?Jordan Peterson defines happiness as what brings positive feelings in the moment, but it is not worth living for. He says meaning is what will bring light to our times of darkness, and it is worth living for.Enlightenment is when we understand reality, and I define understanding reality as the ability to navigate through the uncharted seas of life. It is not just knowing what to do with what you have learned, but also knowing what to do when you are in a new environment.I believe the end goal of Buddhism is to avoid unnecessary suffering by understanding through enlightenment.
In Christianity, we are taught that suffering is a natural part of life, and will be this side of glory. In the Christian message, the God of the universe, suffered the most agonising death, to bring reconciliation between humanity and God. The Christian message would never be "Come to Jesus and you will never suffer again". For us, the reality of life - is to understand that suffering is real and part of life. Of course, this doesn't mean that we go looking for needless suffering or indeed suffering of any kind. Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God not to become happy or to avoid suffering. Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is an intentional wilful blindness. Curious really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Would you say that a slave has the discretion to leave slaveryYes. A slave meaning a person enslaved by another does have the individual choice to leave. Now it would be considerably hard depending on the circumstances, they they do have that free will.
Not trying to be difficult, but surely a slave is owned by another person and does not have the freedom to just up and leave. Let's take it to another level. Would you hold to the view that humans are born into the estate of sin or that they are born free?
Would you suggest that a dog has free will? It certainly is able to act at its own discretion. Or is it instinct?Dogs are different than humans. They think differently than we do, they dont have free will because even though what they do affects the universe around them, they cannot comprehend that fact. They are self centered, but not in a sinful way. Just an animal type of self centered.
So free will is more than just having the capacity to act according to its own discretion? I'm not sure how thinking differently to humans, means they don't have free will. Why is comprehension of the ability to impact the world necessary for it to be free will? And again, would you please explain why self-centredness, sinful or not sinful is relevant to the idea of free will?
And if instinct is different from free will, what part of the human ability to act is instinct and what part is not? For example, the flight or flee principle? The desire to survive principle? The desire to fit in principle? The desire to breed principle? The desire to feel part of something bigger principle?Instinct is actions you take, based on your situation. Not situations your purposefully create based on your purposeful actions.
So would you say that any instinct that a human takes is not an act of free will? the instinct to have sex for instance - which leads to raping some person. Is that instinct - as opposed to free will?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Get it right, Zed,
I stated all humans SINCE Adam and Eve are born sinners. Adam and Eve weren't.
They were created very good. No flaws.
So it is a non-sequitur, to say that God created humans with a flaw.
God gave Adam and Eve the capacity to think and the capacity to make decisions. Neither of those are flaws? Or do you think the ability to think and make decisions is a flaw?
God didn't create sin. Sin is an action - not something that is a thing. It is not a noun. It is something that is IMPOSSIBLE to be a creation. Yet it is an action.
If you created a fence that would fall down in the first gust of wind, that would not necessarily be a design fault. It might be a fault of the designer, in relation to how and where he put the fence.
But I think that a fence is not very helpful as an analogy in this situation. Adam fell at a hurdle. Was it the first one? We don't know. Yet it was one that was recorded. Adam prior to eating the fruit named animals. He named his wife. First, he fell in love with her. So I am not sure it was the first gust of wind. or hurdle.
But for me - it is about purpose in the first place. Adam was the champion of humanity. He was its number one figure. He was humanity at its very best. Hence, no design flaws. But he failed. And that's why we are in the estate of sin. And die. And that is bad news.
but the good news is Jesus, alone of all humanity succeeded. He didn't sin. Yes, he had an advantage. He was God's son. Yet it meant that rather than trusting in Adam, who failed, we can trust in Jesus who didn't. And that is good news. After all, not only did he die, even though he was innocent, he rose from the dead, proving his innocence and more than that - giving people who trust in him the opportunity to live forever.
Purpose is important.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think humanity is faulty. That is your conclusion based on what?
All I have said is that God created humanity very good. And that humanity had the capacity to make decisions, including bad ones.
Even in that humanity wasn't faulty. No design flaw. All non-sequitur arguments by you.
When someone made the first gun, it did not have a design flaw.
Just because it kills someone - isn't a design flaw. It has the capacity to kill if used wrongly by the person who fires it. But this doesn't make it a design flaw.
In fact some might suggest that this simply demonstrates how good it is.
God created humanity - but he did not create sin. In fact, he commanded humanity not to sin.
so why don't you tell us what the design flaw was? Is it the free will element? Is that what you are saying?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So which court are you going to take God to for faulty design?
Being born as sinners doesn't mean faulty design. That's a non-sequitur.
Adam and Eve were made very good. No design flaws. It was however a decision stolen by Adam and Eve that we inherited. We might have got their blessings, but instead, we get their debt. Giving people the capability to make decisions even bad ones, is not a faulty design.
And this debt needs to be paid. Bad decisions have natural consequences.
Adam and Eve had it all. But they wanted more. And to get more meant breaking the rules. A rule they were told not to break or it would have consequences. Like most people today, they thought God didn't mean it. They thought they would get away with it. Yet since God is not a liar, he kept his word.
Breaking the rule wasn't just eating some fruit, it was an act of treason. Even in our world, today, treason is considered one of the worst crimes.
We inherited the estate of sin. That is what we mean by being born sinners. It means we are born in debt. Not free. But we don't have enough money or wealth to pay the debtor. For the wages of sin is death. The estate of sin means ipso facto that everyone dies.
Hence - God is omni-sensible. He created humanity to look after the world. Humanity chose however not to look after the world, they wanted to steal it and make it their own. It is not foolish to delegate responsibility. He gave one rule. One rule only. And with that one consequence. That is not foolish. It is sensible. What would have been foolish is to not carry out his threat for their disobedience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not a madam.
And thanks for playing. And for the record, you too are dogmatic. Just in denial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
So it is rigid then?
Stay on the racetrack or face ultimate destruction.
And it's interesting that you actually make the point that there are MANY MORE paths that lead to ultimate destruction than to Nirvana.
How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are? And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway?
Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness. But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him.
Everyone struggles. In fact, I would suggest that those who reveal more peace tend to be the worst strugglers of all. There seems to be a total denial of what is inner peace and what is not. Surely, the entire purpose of religion - whether you believe in God or not, is to find peace between the creator or nature and yourself. This would then translate into peace with your neighbours.
Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like. And also what is enlightenment?
Thanks again for your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
So is a rigid general direction or is it omni-directional?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Jesus did show. 2000 years ago. He will show up when he is ready. You want it now. But you are not really ready for him to come back yet? Because when he comes back - it will be too late for you. So don't wish for something you really don't want.Yeah, all the sinners like us will burn in hell when Jesus the Christ show up in all of his glory to judge the world. Hahaha. But hey, Christians are not the arrogant sob that believe to hold the truth, right? 😁You know what, deep down what you're really saying when you utter these words is that you wish the evil on us because you cannot put up with the fact that we don’t accept your nonsense, this is how dogmatic people behave. And if you could, you would turn this society back to the medieval times when everyone should obey the fucking dogmas of the church. Right? Now you know why Christians have been persecuted all this time.
Christians in general believe the doctrine of Hell and Judgment. It is a teaching of the church derived from the Bible. Christians do hold this to be the truth. You seem to mock this. Fine. But what is your measure of truth? In other words, how can call something non-truth if you don't know what truth is?
I disagree with you. I don't wish any harm to anyone. However, I suspect that the words you utter here are the feelings you have deep down in your heart against God. I don't detest anyone in particular. I detest things and I detest evil. I suspect most people in this world detest injustice. And most people detest sexual predators. Personally, my desire is that EVERYONE is saved from the Wrath of God. And honestly, I would give up my spot in heaven for anyone else if it were possible. Not because I want to go to Hell. I don't. And not because I don't love God. Because I do. But because I value other people above myself.
I don't want to turn this country backwards. I am progressive in my views - in a libertarian sense. I reject conservatism. Christians are persecuted not because many are conservative but because their presence reminds people that God is real. And that this means judgment day is coming. People would prefer to put their heads in the sand and pretend God is not real. That way they can carry on in life without owning their sins. They bury their heads, in all sorts of things, drugs, alcohol, gaming sites, internet debate clubs, social agendas, work, attacking Christianity, you name it.
I want to see our country succeed. To become more just, fair and equitable. To be more productive. That's my ambition and goals. Yet, I don't see how this will succeed if we simply bury our heads in the sand and think everything just came into being all by itself without a creator. It's just dumb to ignore this truth. We can't pretend that God doesn't matter. He does. And the human race shows this every day as it becomes more corrupt and evil. It is very quickly killing itself. And it is doing this without the help of religion or God.
Am I dogmatic? Yes, I am. And I can admit it. On the other hand, you are too but you don't have the integrity or insight to recognise it. Like the so-called tolerance advocates, you speak one thing with your tongue but your actions demonstrate the opposite. Let's tolerate everyone - well except for those who we don't tolerate. Those who disagree with us. They have to tolerate us. that's our dogma. But we can't tolerate them. that's our dogma too. I see it for what it is. Evidence and utter proof beyond reasonable doubt that tolerance is simply propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Define free will?the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Would you say that a slave has the discretion to leave slavery?
Would you suggest that a dog has free will? It certainly is able to act at its own discretion. Or is it instinct?
And if instinct is different from free will, what part of the human ability to act is instinct and what part is not? For example, the flight or flee principle? The desire to survive principle? The desire to fit in principle? The desire to breed principle? The desire to feel part of something bigger principle?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
thanks for your response.
Of course for the Western Mindset, this flexibility and contextual approach is someone what a conundrum. For the Eastern mindset, not so much.
It is also true that as the West becomes more multicultural, as it moves away from the modern to the postmodern view many will embrace these ideas.
Yet isn't it true that the world contains ABSOLUTE TRUTH? After all, even for the Buddha, the only path to enlightenment was by this path. Or did he envisage that there may be other paths to Nirvana? And if so, why would he guide people to this path rather than let them pursue their own path?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trouble is Trade.Religion has always taken sides and sponsored wars.Simply because a religious person is no different to a non-religious person.
I'm really not sure how your post adds to anything. Christians TOTALLY agree that the religious and the non-religious are no different.
We are all born sinners. We all deserve to go to Hell. We have all rejected God as the king and master of the universe. No one deserves heaven.
Yet having said that - since our human nature is corrupted, and we have no method of changing that nature, we are able to acknowledge that fact. The rest of the world either ignores the fact that every person is sinful, doesn't care, or denies it.
Christians however, despite the fact that we all have fallen into the last three categories have by the grace of God, been enlightened by his Holy Spirit to recognise that we are sinners and worthy of Hell. This doesn't mean that suddenly we have been given some kind of clue to become Christians. Yet it does have the impact or effect of causing us to humbly reflect upon why this is the case.
In the NT, when people recognised that they were sinners, they cried out to the Apostles, what must we do to be saved? The response was - "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The response wasn't to give up all your money to your favourite charity. It wasn't go and do good work. It wasn't to get wet with water. It wasn't to be the right colour or the right nationality. It wasn't to become the right gender. Or follow all these rules. Nope. It was none of these things - because all of those things mean you have somehow found a clue. A right path to heaven. A magical superstitious method.
In Christian circles, there is a debate about whether belief in Jesus is a condition or not to become saved. This is generally but not always referred to as the Arminian Calvinistic distinction. Sometimes it is referred to as the Augustine Pelagius distinction. In non-religious philosophical terms, it is referred to as the deterministic free will distinction. I prefer to call it the Reformed non-Reformed distinction.
Basically, it comes down to whether God saves us or whether humans have some part in their destiny. The Arminian or Free-will person would suggest that humans can be saved if they believe in Jesus as a condition prior to salvation. Calvinists suggest that belief or faith is a gift from God that reflects that you have already been saved. Hence the former would see the belief aspect as a condition to be saved. The latter see belief as a fruit of salvation. I prefer the latter view since God doesn't play favourites. Whereas I would hold to the view that the former view - suggests that humanity plays some part in their salvation.
Hence, why I think the so-called Christian Nazis don't understand the concept of the gospel. I take the view that the Bible teaches that there is nothing about humanity that God looks down on and says - they deserve to live. This is the only manner in which everyone can be equal. If there is something about someone, then God MUST save people and that wrongly puts an obligation on God. Yet, in Christ, people can be equal.
So in response to your remarks, yes, religion takes sides. This is human nature and why non-religious worldviews also take sides. There is no such thing as true neutrality. Yes, religious people are no different to non-religious people as a general rule as well. Religion of course as a general rule is an ideology that subscribes to the view that the characteristics of a person - make them valid and worthy. Hence, I put non-religious views into that category, i.e. atheism. Christianity on the other hand, although it is technically a religion is also non-religion in that it says - there is nothing you can do to appease God. That's why Christians often say it is not a religion but a way of life. I am not a fan of that view. Yet, I understand where they are coming from. It is only Christianity, where God says - you can't do it, so I will do it for you. For me that makes it unique and preferable. And also reflects reality. Humanity has shown for the past several thousand years they don't have a clue.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Why would anyone want to be a Nazi? It seems to me that racism is outdated and barbaric and contradicts everything about religion and in particular Christianity.
Jesus came to break down the walls between Jews and Gentiles. Paul confirmed this in his writings.
The Church is people gathered from every race and tongue.
Therefore, to be a so-called Christian Nazi is a contradiction. In truth, I would suggest that if a person is a Nazi, then they have not understood the message of Christ. A message that is of reconciliation, not division. It's true Jesus talks about swords and dividing families. Yet it is in the context of bringing people together under a common banner, i.e. of Christ.
In other words, there is no other potential religion, worldview or social theory that actually has the capacity to unite people. Christianity acknowledges that position - which is why it says, die to yourself. And follow Jesus. Only in Christ is unity possible. And in fact, if unity is not occurring within communities that say they follow Jesus, then they are not following Jesus but something else. Hence, why so-called Christian Nazism is not in essence true Christianity. It is just a social philosophy that has adopted the name Christian for its own agenda, not the agenda of Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Hi Critical-Tim,
thanks for the topic.
In relation to your second point - dharma, you mention the eightfold path - eight steps which all are preceded by the adjective, right. Would you be able to articulate how someone knows for sure what "right" is? And is it possible that two different people - or indeed many different people might have a different view of "right" and must follow those contradicting paths?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Do you know any Christians? Any that live a life like Flanders?Yes, I do. Some of them are easygoing, but others are unbearable because they turn up as hypocrits and extremely bigots.If you say you didn't meet any Christian like Flanders, I guess these Christians like to party, for example. I also guess that those Christians don’t mind cursing in their conversations which has nothing wrong, right? What about a threesome, did they have such experience? Or maybe a swinging party, that's pretty wild, aint it? What about a divorce? 😁Life is experiencing and the way christianity keep you from experiencing the many things life is to offer is just as authoritarian as the people that preach such things. But, hey, you're free to choose.
That's just bollox and you know that. Life is experience that is true. And Christianity doesn't stop you from enjoying life. It enhances life. It enables you to enjoy it.
It's like a game for example. You can play the game according to the rules of the game or you can play just making up your own rules. Some people think the latter is the best way to enjoy life and for them - perhaps there is an element of truth to that. But try playing a game of chess, without sticking to the rules. Or try playing footy without sticking to the rules. Or trying playing a game of poker where someone says - let's do whatever we can. People don't like cheats. Cheats spoil the game for others. There are rules in this life. And some people make their own rules. They typically end up dead, at a young age, spend lots of time in prison, are so drugged out - that they don't even know what they are missing. Or catch some venereal disease.
Many people live as you suggest and become bored with it. Many wish that they had never wasted their life doing all these so-called fun things. Yeah, there are some who enjoy it, but not the vast majority. why is that so many people spend their time watching tv shows or drinking? or on drugs? TO forget about life. To escape. They hate life -
Christianity is a religion of rules anyway. Yeah some individuals make it a whole lot of rules. But that's not what it is about. It is liberating. It is freeing. It is being connected to the most information - possible.
Historically faith has not been at odds with reason. that is a modern view - put out by people who want to make that line. But it is not historical truth. And not everyone agrees with the modern view.LOL.You didn't have to come onto this page and put your two cents in. It was your choice. You could have turned the channel. But no - you chose to come here and put in your opinion - because you think you are right. You wanted to make sure you got to impose your views on others - and so you did. You don't like it when people reflect your hypocrisy back into your face. that's ok. but face it. You are as bad as any person you are worried about trying to impose their views on you. you are quite content to do it to everyone else - but the problem is - you have no integrity. that's it. simple.I'm not imposing anything. You might have noticed that I also have beliefs, but I always clarify that they are just beliefs and not an indisputable truth as you Christians shamelessly do.If I come in here is because you're claiming over and over again that christianity is the truth, so I can't help but argueing against it because as a libertarian I should fight against the enslaving ideoligies such as religions and some political movements (socialism, comunism, leftism).
Of course you have beliefs. You are entitled to that - as are Christians. You think you have the truth - otherwise you'd think something else. In fact I would suggest that you are militant in your beliefs - you are the fundamentalist. Yet without the integrity to realise what you are doing. you shove your views down people's throats and then get all upset when someone challenges you. Christians do think they have the truth - and they are not ashamed of it. And there is no reason why they ought to be ashamed of it. Yet, what you seem to fail to realise is that tied up in this truth they hold is a very inescapable fact. they know they can't change someone else's views. They can't manipulate to follow Christianity - and more than that - they don't want to. The end is not their justification. And since you fail to grasp this concept - you fail to understand where they are coming from - and hence why you think it is about rules. I doubt that you will understand this - but there you go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's one hypothesis Trade.
perhaps for you, not for millions of people in the world. It's bit like evolution, a hypothetical and some believe it and the rest of us - think that it's a fairy tale - and not even a good one.
The GOD of the OT and the God of the NT were previous hypotheticals.He is, because Men said so. Women did the foot washing.It is the unmade maker, which is counter-intuitive.
Of course, it is counter-intuitive. God is counterintuitive. You see, some people think God should be really simple and others say God should be really complex. I say the answer is both are correct. God existed before man was made. Interestingly, in biblical times, foot-washing was done by everyone, except the rich and wealthy. You haven't forgotten that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. And how counter-intuitive is that - the God of Heaven would condescend himself, become a man and come to earth, wash people's feet, and then be scorned and mocked and killed on a cross. Now that is counter-intuitive. Just like Jesus' ministry was counterintuitive. To tell people to love their enemies, to treat others as better than yourselves, to turn the other cheek. counter-intuitive - absolutely - God dying. What in the world is that about? How can dying on a cross - pay for the sins of any other person? How counterintuitive? To start a movement that was culturally incorrect at the time - making slaves, children, females, and gentiles to be equal with every other male Jew was incredibly counterintuitive. you can mock and you can scorn. And yet there it is. The Trinity. Jesus FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. Counterintuitive. The One and the Many. Counterintuitive. The means and the Ends. Counterintuitive. God saves humanity by himself dying. Counterintuitive.
BIG BOOM.Material evolution.Now.And the MAN-GOD still no show.
Jesus did show. 2000 years ago. He will show up when he is ready. You want it now. But you are not really ready for him to come back yet? Because when he comes back - it will be too late for you. So don't wish for something you really don't want.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is ordinary? And why should God make a determination to burn people in Hell on the delineation of ordinary?In this context, ordinary is anybody who is not a murderer, rapist, or similar.
I thought as much by your general statement. It doesn't actually mean much though, does it? After all, a murderer might have lived an impeccable life except for one minor moment of rage. Why would that make them extraordinary? And the same might apply to anyone else. For me, it seems like you just want to make an exception for yourself. To make yourself the victim. Rather than someone who is in rebellion against God. I think really that is the issue. God will burn people who are in rebellion against him. It's the kingly thing to do. Rebellion is an ACT of Treason. And if people want to live their own way in a place where God reigns, then ipso facto - they accept the consequences if caught.
I could say - God burns sinners in Hell or God does not burn sinners in Hell.If the first is true, then we are all in trouble except Jesus.If the second is true, then who does God burn in hell?If the first is true, then people who willingly worship God are bootlickers. If the 2nd is true, then worshipping God won’t save you from hell, so what’s the point?
Would you care to articulate what you mean by those who worship God are bootlickers in this scenario? After all, sinning isn't exactly a good thing, is it? You suggested in the previous answer that people like murderers and rapists ought to be burnt in hell, so - do you think people who don't kill people are bootlickers? Do you think that people who don't rape people are bootlickers?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
How is the Christian life boring?More or less like Flanders' life, you know, from the simpson. 😁Again, there might be people that like this life but most of us don't, we find it fucking boring and stupid at times.To end with this discussion that is getting boring, I just want to say that you can't consider a belief a truth because they're diametrically opposed, as well as you can't consider a faith not blind because faith is blind by nature. If you understand this simple concepts, you wouldn't be going around trying to convince people that christianity is the truth. The christianity can be a truth for you and for the zealots that attend your church, but not for the others, so that makes you not have the right to fucking bother us with your nonsense, otherwise we have all the right to argue against your nonsense with the only tool available for reasoning: the logic.
Do you know any Christians? Any that live a life like Flanders?
I have been in many churches in different denominations and I DONT KNOW any Christian who lives like Flanders does.
Faith is not blind by nature. That is simply wrong. When someone sits on a seat even though they haven't reasonably tested it, it is in faith. Yet, that doesn't mean that they haven't reasoned with their brain to determine whether it is likely to hold their weight or not. It's still faith.
Mysticism is a different kettle of fish. It says - I believe something because I believe something. It is faith without reason. Or without considered reason. Mormons for instance - pray to God to see if their book is from God or not. And if they receive an experience of peace they know in their mind that this is true. If they don't receive a peace, then they haven't prayed sincerely - so therefore they need to pray again - and again and again until they feel this peace. that's mysticism because they should have realise that praying to God for proof that something is the truth and obtaining a feeling of peace is not reasonable. And if they did believe this - and they didn't receive peace, then perhaps they ought to realise that it was God telling them it was not truth. but to suggest it has to do with sincerity - is blind faith. Like the emperor's new clothes.
christianity is not like this. and no mormonism is not christianity. There are sadly some elements in the christian church which do rely on blind faith. But not every part and not every person.
Historically faith has not been at odds with reason. that is a modern view - put out by people who want to make that line. But it is not historical truth. And not everyone agrees with the modern view.
You didn't have to come onto this page and put your two cents in. It was your choice. You could have turned the channel. But no - you chose to come here and put in your opinion - because you think you are right. You wanted to make sure you got to impose your views on others - and so you did. You don't like it when people reflect your hypocrisy back into your face. that's ok. but face it. You are as bad as any person you are worried about trying to impose their views on you. you are quite content to do it to everyone else - but the problem is - you have no integrity. that's it. simple.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Shinto Samurai.
thanks for the compliment.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The Christian life is not boring.Hahahahahaha.
Laughing at something doesn't make it true. How is the Christian life boring?
But what exactly are you talking about? I personally don't think Christians should impose their dogma on others. And yet, at the same time, others are always trying to impose their dogma on us.Maybe that is not your approach, good for you. I met a lot of religious people that respect other people's beliefs, which is cool, but there are some of them that don't respect other's beliefs and try by all means to prove we are all wrong about our lifes and that we need to know "the truth" (most of the times they mean Jesus the christ by that), and that this is the only way to "get our lifes together and be saved". Really, there is nothing more disgusting that a person that believes to have the right to point and judge because he is pretty sure of holding the truth. They are defenitely zealots, people that are blind by their religion, and they are quite dangerous for our liberty. Note that these kind of dogmatic people are not only in the religion but also in the politic.
There are zealots in every part of life, not just religious. My father-in-law was until he died a militant atheist. He was blinded by his own pride. He preached tolerance but he didn't practice it. He drove all of his children away from him, both the religious and non-religious. He died a sad and lonely old man. I think people should desire to know the truth. And if they happen to find it, then there is probably a duty to teach others. Truth is never DANGEROUS to liberty.
You see that is where you contradict yourself. By exposing others - you are imposing your own value system and dogma on others. At least admit what you are doing. I'm also a libertarian and yet I am a Christian and hold the view that it was Christian values which brought slavery to its knees. I also think that Christian thinking is more about reason and knowledge and truth than a non-christian worldview. And I think that non-Christian thinking is a form of slavery.In what way exposing religions' contradictions is imposing my own values? I don't even have to bring up my values to the discussion because the lies and contradictions of religions are exposed by means of pure logic.
Are you serious? Can you not see that by exposing anybody is to put your own values as the basis for what is right and wrong? it doesn't worry me too much that you do that - but at least have the integrity to admit what you are doing.
As to "the reason and the knowledge", they have nothing to do with christianity. Religions are the result of faith which is a blind belief, not reason let alone knowledge.
Christianity is not based on blind faith. Christianity is opposed to blind faith. You are simply preaching urban myths. It is not really helpful to the discussion. If you were to say - you believe it is based on blind faith, that is a matter for you, since you can have your own opinion. But Christianity is opposed to mysticism. Mysticism is not faith. Faith without reason is mysticism. If you have read the Bible, which maybe you have or you haven't, you would know it urges people to think and to use their minds, to learn, and to increase in knowledge.
After all, how do you know that they don't have the truth unless you think you are the holder of the truth?I've never said I hold the truth. What I say is that through the logic it's possible to know if something is true or not, and religions fail miserably in telling the truth.
Your last sentence is a self-contradiction. That's a logical conclusion based on your reasoning. Logic, says you, makes it possible to know if something is true or not. I don't disagree with that statement. Yet to preface that by suggesting you don't hold the truth is to say - "Don't believe a word I say", just take me on blind faith".
You don't even agree with yourself.
Hey thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Of course it's not. What it's bad is that some Christians pretend to impose their dogma and boring lifestyle on the rest of us that are not christians. I can tell you there are several of these annoying people trying to make us believe their nonsense, and I'm not talking precisely about Jehovah's witnesses.
The Christian life is not boring. But what exactly are you talking about? I personally don't think Christians should impose their dogma on others. And yet, at the same time, others are always trying to impose their dogma on us. After all, what is boring for you is not the same as for us and what you find exciting some of us find boring and valueless.
That's why you'll see me here exposing the countless contradictions of christianity as a way of alerting people about the risks that christianity represents for our freedom. I'm a libertarian and it's my duty to say that christianity is nothing more than slavery, because ignorance makes us slaves of a system, contrary to knowledge and openmindness that give us freedom to evolve as humanity.
You see that is where you contradict yourself. By exposing others - you are imposing your own value system and dogma on others. At least admit what you are doing. I'm also a libertarian and yet I am a Christian and hold the view that it was Christian values which brought slavery to its knees. I also think that Christian thinking is more about reason and knowledge and truth than a non-christian worldview. And I think that non-Christian thinking is a form of slavery.
I say all this by experience. I had to cut out whole relationships with family and friends because of that. You can't imagine how disgusting is to endure people that believe themselves to be the holder of truth. But the most disgusting to endure from these people is the shameless way they condemn you for the life you have, eventhough your life could be utterly average and far away from being bad. Honestly, fuck these people!!!
No one can deny your experience. But we can offer an alternative experience which is at odds with yours. I've seen family members cut off - by people were secular and atheistic. I also think it's kind of cute to accuse others of being the holder of truth. After all, how do you know that they don't have the truth unless you think you are the holder of the truth? You can't deny that they hold the truth unless you have something to measure that idea against. So although it pisses you off, and they disgust you, you should realise that - what most people see is you pointing your hand - with three fingers pointing back at you. And that doesn't help your cause.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are 2 possibilities: God burns ordinary people in hell [or] God does not burn ordinary people in hell.If the 1st is true, then Christains are bootlickers for worshipping a God that enacts cruel and unusual punishment, and I worship tyrants; the constitution is a better source of legal ideology than the bible and all constitutional conservatives agree with this.If the 2nd is true, I don't have to worship him because I'm not going to hell if I don't.
I think your assumptions are incorrect. And that is based on the definition of ordinary.
What is ordinary? And why should God make a determination to burn people in Hell on the delineation of ordinary?
I could say - God burns sinners in Hell or God does not burn sinners in Hell.
If the first is true, then we are all in trouble except Jesus.
If the second is true, then who does God burn in hell?
In other words, I reject your logic, since your presumption and definition are so vague that it makes your entire argument invalid. After all, who says that you are ordinary? What makes you ordinary? Is that your definition or someone else's? From most posts here I would say you were not ordinary.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It depends on how dogmatic the Christian is. If you feel like a zealot that doesn’t want to be "contaminated" and is really scared to go to hell (LOL), then isolate yourself from the whole secular world, nobody will miss you, but if not just enjoy the life as it is.
Thanks for the response. Zealots don't believe they are going to Hell even if they are contaminated. There is also a presumption in your words that by isolating from the secular world it's impossible to enjoy yourself. Many people who live in communes or don't mix with the secular world have immensely satisfying and fulfilled lives. And many people living in the secular world, have miserable and awful lives, many to the point of killing themselves. I accept that I might have read that presumption into your words, and probably you accept what I have articulated as well. Yet, Hell is a place to avoid like the plague. Worse even. It's not a fun place. Having said that, I don't believe that escaping from Hell is the best reason to believe in God. It certainly is a factor but not the most compelling one for me.
I mean, I'm not saying that being a zealot is wrong, there are people that were born to live like this. What is wrong and pitiful to me though is that a person gets a life that doesn’t want to live just because his religion tells him to do so. This is a very nasty way to spoil a person's life, seriously.
I think I did see your presumption. Living as a Christian is not a bad thing. In fact, even if God is a made-up myth, people who live as Christians generally have a better life and community. I guess it depends on what you think living is. Is living - living a life of debauchery? Or is it more than that? hey thanks for the thoughts.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
thanks for that. I think.
I don't think we need to overthink.
But the question remains. To what extent should Christians engage with the world and how should they engage?
Obviously, I am not talking about living as we mostly do. I am talking about - whether they should attempt to push their own particular view.
After all, everyone else does. People say - let people live as they want to - but at the end of the day - they still push their own barrows.
I think the Christian worldview is very mixed at this point in history. A lot like the world at large I reckon. the world doesn't seem to know who it is - anymore and the church is very much the same.
I sometimes think that the world really is just a wider portion of what the church is anyway.
The church has sadly joined the relative and post modern ranks of the world - it has left modernity behind and become even more fluffy, if that's possible.
But there are pockets of the church who have really good ideas - and plans for this world. Should they engage or just go back to their communes?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
We all know that you are really Shinto. Trying to get back at USA because they nuked your samurai land?
Hmm good guess.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I've just been referencing overthink in another forum.
Good for you.
Get up, defecate and urinate as necessary, ablute, eat, go to work perhaps, eat, defecate and urinate as necessary, work perhaps, return home, eat, defecate and urinate as necessary, do a bit of religion and/or some other hobby, watch T.V, defecate and urinate as necessary, go to bed, have sex or masturbate perhaps.
that's funny. Except that's not what I am asking.
Or do you mean a monastic existence.Similar to above, just add more praying and chanting to the mix and call it work.
Again not what I am asking.
Such is the religious personNot so remarkably different to the person.Variable overthink of course...Religion, football, other sports, gardening, etc etc etc.Got to pad out the day with something now that the supermarket has replaced hunter gathering.
hmm. perhaps I worded my question wrong. I am asking in respect of engaging as a Christian. Not just in respect of life.
As I said - be in the world, all those things you mentioned, but not of the world - what is the difference? And perhaps what is the world being defined as in the context?
Created:
-->
@Redpilled
I think you have nailed it immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
God does speak to us. The question is not does he, but how does he?
And this will depend upon which god or God is speaking to you.
After all, many people are atheists and since they don't believe in God, then the god they believe or don't believe in doesn't exist. Hence, he won't speak to them and they won't hear him. If they did hear his voice then they wouldn't be atheists anymore.
The question of course for you Hari, is why do you care? Since you are such an enlightened fellow, it shouldn't matter and nor should you be mocking others.
Of course, since you are a facade or fake on so many levels, it is difficult to take you seriously on any level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The NT is a commentary on the OT.
Created:
This is an intriguing dilemma that many in the church have discussed. What do you think?
Should the religious person be in the world but not of it? and what does that mean?
Should the religious person retreat into his or her or their own little worlds or communes?
Should they send their children to public schools or private schools or homeschool?
To what extend should they engage or choose not to engage? Is it simply a matter of preference?
Some might suggest that the mission of the church is to convert as many as possible. If this is an admirable goal, how do they do that and retreat from culture?
Should Christians - be separate - from the world and politics and life completely? Or should the engage in the public square?
And if so. - whose rules should they follow? The rules that suggested by the organisation they are trying to engage with or their own set of principles?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Perhaps or perhaps not.
In the earliest years of Christianity, pre-Constantine, Christians were known for their peacefulness. It's one of the reasons for its exponential growth and for Constantine's decision to make the empire Christian.
Of course - I concede that at other periods of time, so-called Christians have manifested gross errors of violence.
Hinduism has its own concerns. History, whatever, they have certainly demonstrated violence against persons and culture. They are not clean skins.
Created: