23 Nov 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCome on now, it's OP like joes (and others ) that make this forum great.
You're like one of those perpetual feeding machines, ain't cha? Every two to three weeks, you throw the same silly nothing into the water and watch the melee which ensues. You truly couldn't care any less than you do about the answer; you just like watching all the pretty fishes scurry about in response to your vacuous nothingness.
No bite!
I dont know what you christians think this forum should be, but it is definately not a christian forum, and atheists are quite well represented .
It is definately variety that makes the spice of life around here.
And since Dasa has retreated, it seems you need a new common enemy to attack and indoctrinate with the fear of hell, or whatever else silliness that silly book of yours seems to conjure up.
I swear, the bible is evil . It is evil because it has truth mixed with lies and that is dangerous (misinformation/disinformation) , because spiritual truth can really turn people on and introduce them to new ideas, activate different parts of their brain, which is quite exhilerating the first few times. The problem is the lies that are mixed with it. Truth need to be 100% otherwise "IT"* ill not work.
*the mind can be "turned on " and elevate itself to christ-conciousness with perfect truth.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelDon't forget that Jesus (Yahshua) was not only "fully man" but also
"Jesus was fully a man"?
I would like to think so. This was the case with the buddha as well-the point being that an ORDINARY MAN could become enlightened, (or in christian terminology- "christ-concious" ).
(I'm not sure you agree with me that Jesus was an ordinary man).
But I would like you to re-read my post about Mel Gibsons movie ("The passion ...[text shortened]... s commentary on the subject. Thnx jaywill in advance🙂
(1st page, 8th post down)
"fully God". THe problem many have, like the JWs, is that they can
only see Jesus as "man" or "God" or a being, such as an "angel". It
is my understanding that if we believe it to be true and accept that
Jesus takes our punishment for all the sins we commit, then we will be
saved from eternal torment by the request by Jesus that God forgive
us, for we know not what we do.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat of course raises the question as to whether 100% truth can exist. After all, we are not talking about truth itself, but rather the communication of that truth, and communication is a somewhat flawed process. This is one reason I have always claimed that the Bible is either not 100% truth, or the Bible cannot exist (or at least cannot be read and understood) - because reading is always subject to some amount of interpretation.
Truth need to be 100% otherwise "IT"* ill not work.
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Its funny how this topic which is probably the most important part of Christianity and its reason for being, is understood so differently by different Christians, and many Christians don't even want to talk about it. (probably because they are uncomfortable with their own understanding of it).
Its not quite as bad as when I bring up the topic of the soul (another absolutely essential component of Christianity (and most theism) that everyone has a different take on and most theists don't want to discuss).
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree that language alone can not present the complete 100% truth
That of course raises the question as to whether 100% truth can exist. After all, we are not talking about truth itself, but rather the communication of that truth, and communication is a somewhat flawed process. This is one reason I have always claimed that the Bible is either not 100% truth, or the Bible cannot exist (or at least cannot be read and understood) - because reading is always subject to some amount of interpretation.
to us. Each of us might have a slightly different idea of what the words
mean and so we may conjure up different ideas in our mind than
somebody else. That is why the Holy Bible is so difficult for people to
understand. When reading the scriptures we often require the Holy
Spirit to help us focus our attention so we can just get one meaning
from it. Then we may pick up additional meanings as we reread it at
other times. The Holy Bible is one book that can not be understood
with just one reading.
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut the result of what you say, is that the Holy Bible cannot honestly be said to contain the truth. The truth only exists after what is in the Bible is interpreted via the Holy Spirit (or by use of a secret decoder ring, which were quite popular on these forums in the past).
I agree that language alone can not present the complete 100% truth
to us. Each of us might have a slightly different idea of what the words
mean and so we may conjure up different ideas in our mind than
somebody else. That is why the Holy Bible is so difficult for people to
understand. When reading the scriptures we often require the Holy
Spirit to ...[text shortened]... at
other times. The Holy Bible is one book that can not be understood
with just one reading.
The problem then, is that this 'truth' that has only been obtained after interpretation, now only exists in your mind, and since you find difficulty in explaining it to us, and we cannot obtain it directly from the Bible, it is still inaccessible to those of us whom the Holy Spirit has denied special interpretation rights.
What is worse, is that there a whole lot of people claiming to how special interpretation rights, but whom very clearly have quite different and incompatible interpretations.
In this thread for example, you disagree quite dramatically with sumydid, yet both of you will probably claim to have obtained your knowledge after interpreting the Bible. So at most, only one of you was assisted by the Holy Spirit and we have no reliable way of knowing which.
But when you make claims like "the Holy Bible is 100% true" or "the Holy Bible has never been proven wrong" you are forgetting the whole issue of interpretation. After all, any book could make those claims on the condition that appropriate interpretation is required.
23 Nov 11
8 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczel
You certainly have a unique , and dare I say very unorthodox explanation/view on christ/spirituality.
It does sound very weird on the surface of it, and I dare say you are inferring that the reader knows more than he/she might. Dont get me wrong, I dont think there is anything wrong with your approach, if anything ,I find that an approach/explanation to know possibly more than she/he might?
(I could be wrong, I only read it once so far 🙂 )
You certainly have a unique , and dare I say very unorthodox explanation/view on christ/spirituality.
The entire matter of Jesus dying and being resurrected is crucial to God accomplishing His eternal purpose. And without Him applying the termination aspect of His death (and our cooperation) as well as the redemptive aspect of His death, He cannot fulfill His eternal purpose.
If I recall rightly, the term "orthodox" means something like "straight footed" or refering to the straightness of one's abilility to walk. Believing into Christ that we might be crucified with Him and raised with Him is as ORTHODOX a believe as is the symbol of BAPTISM.
May I suggest that you read tonight the 6th chatper of the basic book on Christian doctrine, Paul's epistle of Romans.
Please notice these quite orthodox passages as contemplate what I wrote:
Verse 4 - "Or are you ignorant that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death ? We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death ..."
Verse 5 again " For if we have grown together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be in the likeness of His resurrection."
Verse 6 - "Knowing this, that our old man has been CRUCIFIED with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves."
Verse 7 "For he who has died is justified from sin."
Verse 9 "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him."
Verse 11 "So also you, reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus."
These verses and many many more stress the importance of taking by faith that receiving Christ is also being crucified with Him and raised with Him.
I will grant you that these truths are neglected and should be taught more than they are. But they certainly are not unorthodox.
I would add that the basic FEAR that an unbeliever or atheist feels in his heart at the thought of believing in Jesus is GREATLY a fear injected into the mind by Satan. It is a FEAR of the TERMINATING aspect of the cross of Christ. And here is why.
The Devil knows that the TERMINATING aspect of Christ's salvation will STOP him. The human being passes through into resurrection. But Satan is STOPPED. Satan is PEELED OFF so to speak. Satan cannot pass through the terminating aspect of our co-crucifixion with Christ.
Because Satan, the spiritual enemy of God and man, knows this, he fears Christ's terminating aspect of salvation much more than Christ's forgiveness aspect of the blood of Jesus. The cross of Christ is our nuclear weapon provided by God to cause man to gain ascendency over the Devil.
I suggest the next time we draw back in dread at the thought of believing into Jesus we tell the Devil "No Satan. It is YOU who are afraid of me being crucified and raised with Christ. It is YOUR dread of me being co-crucified and buried in Christ's salvation and being raised with Him. That is YOUR dread."
It does sound very weird on the surface of it, and I dare say you are inferring that the reader knows more than he/she might. Dont get me wrong, I dont think there is anything wrong with your approach, if anything ,I find that an approach/explanation/spiritual view is ALWAYS "weird" when you first hear it.
But just one critique- Do you think that maybe you are expecting the reader to infer a bit too much? Either that , or to know possibly more than she/he might?
(I could be wrong, I only read it once so far
I do admit that I expect the reader to be interested enough to dust off their Bible and read more to see what in the world I am talking about. I recommended Romans chapter 6. But there are plenty of other places to explore these truths.
You see the Lord today is RECOVERING neglected truths from the revelation of the Bible. These are not new truths. But many of them are NEGLECTED by too many Christians and Christian teachers.
http://www.lordsrecovery.us/spread_of_the_recovery.htm
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so. But apparently the words I used to explain my partial agreement
But the result of what you say, is that the Holy Bible cannot honestly be said to contain the truth. The truth only exists after what is in the Bible is interpreted via the Holy Spirit (or by use of a secret decoder ring, which were quite popular on these forums in the past).
The problem then, is that this 'truth' that has only been obtained after interp ...[text shortened]... book could make those claims on the condition that appropriate interpretation is required.
with you were not true to you. So since you misunderstood me you are
calling me a liar. At least that is the way I interpret the words you wrote.
So apparently in our case, we seem to need some type of secret decoder
ring or maybe it is that our minds are not in sink because of our world
views.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell only a small part of what I said was a reflection of what I thought you said. Most of it was my own observations.
Not so. But apparently the words I used to explain my partial agreement
with you were not true to you. So since you misunderstood me you are
calling me a liar. At least that is the way I interpret the words you wrote.
So apparently in our case, we seem to need some type of secret decoder
ring or maybe it is that our minds are not in sink because of our world
views.
I did not intend to call you a liar, so I apologise if that is what you got out of it.
But is communication, or writing fundamentally flawed, or is it possible to write something in such a way that it can be understood by all? Is 2+2=4 a statement of truth, or is it too subject to interpretation?
23 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelconsider what ultimately caused Jesus to be crucified. It was the great battle between two kingdoms.
I find this explanation very fishy as it stands. You are a poster I generally respect, so could you possibly add or rephrase that comment so I can make better sense of it PLLLeeeaaassse?
The pharisees and the high priests in this case represent the Kingdom of Earth -- this is what happens when the central concern is acquiring wealth, power etc for their own sake. Jesus frequently spoke out against how the pharisees loved the greetings in the marketplace and the front row seats in the synagogues.
Jesus, on the other hand, represents the Kingdom of Heaven - this is what happens when the central concern is Love - in which things like peace, justice, compassion, wisdom, healing etc are what everyone is fundamentally seeking. In this Kingdom, the pharisees and high priests still have their power, wealth, and status - but their goals are now based on using these things to benefit everyone else in their society.
So in a world dominated by the Kingdom of Earth, how does the Kingdom of Heaven break through and ultimately triumph? The natural response is to want to ride into the battle with sword held high and vanquish all the evil-doers. This is what Peter did in the Garden of Gethsemane when he cut off someone's ear.
But Jesus wanted to make it clear that this approach doesn't work. If the goal is reconciliation, the only thing that works is love. And Jesus wanted to show that this wasn't a fuzzy Barney kind of love - it was a love that is willing to step into the fray, take even the worst blows and not flinch. Since Jesus was seeking to reconcile Man with God, this meant essentially absorbing Everything (in whatever way you want to define Everything).
My example of the two men fighting represents the Kingdom of the Earth. Even if the two men are fighting over high ideals, its clear that these two men will never find peace. One will eventually defeat the other - or perhaps they'll battle to a draw - but at best, they'll end up agreeing to avoid each other and end their friendship. But if there is to be reconciliation, one of the two men has to "be the hero" -- that is, be like Christ -- to stop fighting, make apologies, be willing to absorb some major blows to his ego, and do what is necessary to restore the friendship.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is a statement of truth to all only if all understand the ideas in the
Well only a small part of what I said was a reflection of what I thought you said. Most of it was my own observations.
I did not intend to call you a liar, so I apologise if that is what you got out of it.
But is communication, or writing fundamentally flawed, or is it possible to write something in such a way that it can be understood by all? Is 2+2=4 a statement of truth, or is it too subject to interpretation?
same manner, otherwise, it is subject to interpretation.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNear impossible for truth to be accepted by 2 (or more)parties)
That of course raises the question as to whether 100% truth can exist. After all, we are not talking about truth itself, but rather the communication of that truth, and communication is a somewhat flawed process. This is one reason I have always claimed that the Bible is either not 100% truth, or the Bible cannot exist (or at least cannot be read and understood) - because reading is always subject to some amount of interpretation.
However, you can be wholly truthful with yourself, which can "open doors" in a spiritually evolutionary way
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill"We draw back at the thought of believing into Jesus..." Is that the words you meant, ie did you not mean "...thought of believing Jesus"?
You certainly have a unique , and dare I say very unorthodox explanation/view on christ/spirituality.
The entire matter of Jesus dying and being resurrected is crucial to God accomplishing His eternal purpose. And without Him applying the termination aspect of His death (and our cooperation) as well as the redemptive aspect o n teachers.
http://www.lordsrecovery.us/spread_of_the_recovery.htm
Anyway, for me , there is no "drawing back" . I only draw back from christians that repeat what I have heard literally a hundred times. They say it like they were telling me for the first time-that it was the first time I had heard the "good news" .
I've heard it. I hear it. I really couldn't care less whether he died on the cross for our sins or not. Like I said, if it works for you or others, then fine, but I find it very arrogant for others to think that I have not heard the word of JC. (Mind you I am talking about people I meet in the streets and not posters on here).
23 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczel
"We draw back at the thought of believing into Jesus..." Is that the words you meant, ie did you not mean "...thought of believing Jesus"?
Anyway, for me , there is no "drawing back" . I only draw back from christians that repeat what I have heard literally a hundred times. They say it like they were telling me for the first time-that it was the firs C. (Mind you I am talking about people I meet in the streets and not posters on here).
"We draw back at the thought of believing into Jesus..." Is that the words you meant, ie did you not mean "...thought of believing Jesus"?
I purposely use the word into as "believing INTO Jesus". This is the idiom often used in the Gospel of John in the original language from what I have been taught.
Jesus Christ today is available and alive. He is a realm of life experience and a sphere of enjoyment. When you receive Him you are not simply believing Him. You are believing into a realm, believing into a relationship. It is an unusual relationship. But it is a intimate and personal relationship.
Beecause of the reality of the subjective relationship with Christ in His form as the Holy Spirit, that I use the expression "believe INTO Christ" .
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczel
"We draw back at the thought of believing into Jesus..." Is that the words you meant, ie did you not mean "...thought of believing Jesus"?
Anyway, for me , there is no "drawing back" . I only draw back from christians that repeat what I have heard literally a hundred times. They say it like they were telling me for the first time-that it was the firs ...[text shortened]... C. (Mind you I am talking about people I meet in the streets and not posters on here).
Anyway, for me , there is no "drawing back" . I only draw back from christians that repeat what I have heard literally a hundred times. They say it like they were telling me for the first time-that it was the first time I had heard the "good news" .
I've heard it. I hear it. I really couldn't care less whether he died on the cross for our sins or not. Like I said, if it works for you or others, then fine, but I find it very arrogant for others to think that I have not heard the word of JC. (Mind you I am talking about people I meet in the streets and not posters on here).
Alright, alright. You've got a life and you're not sitting on the edge of your chair waiting to see what some Christian will write next on the Spirituality Discussion.
I got it. LOL.