Will The Real Christians Please Stand UP.

Dear bogomil,

I wanted to respond to your thread paragraph by paragraph, but I don't have the room and your discussion is interlocked and not easily seperable. Please allow me to make some comments in general as well as a paragraph response occasionally, I'll try to be responsive.

I'm grateful for your post, but to help protect your humility I won't go further than that. I, too, have trouble with "true/real Christian" because I don't have the authority to make that call, nor is my judgment sound enough to attempt it. Further I worry about temptation to the sins of pride or despair to all who are on the right, or wrong side of the line.

For my purposes, the "relating-to" portion is more difficult and important than "gathering-information-about." Science will, no doubt, keep churning out facts at a pace too quick to follow. Some of the facts will contradict earlier facts but the research machine will keep producing. My preference is to believe that these facts have some meaning and relate to other facts, but you're absolutely correct in doubting the existence of a superior information source.

For me, the question of meaning and relating is discussed outside of science and is the proper domain of logic and revelation. OK, putting logic and revelation in the same sentence is unusual, but logic has to have something to work on, it needs facts and axioms to move forward. Revelation is, for me, either a new fact or a new relationship. Revelation is not universal, but individual. The individual who receives one should remember that they are in a different position to the rest of the world, and that they will have to use worldly tools if they want to communicate that revelation.

Ideologues often don't realize that they are working from a different set of facts or axioms than their audience. "Of course, the Fed must be destroyed," "Dancing is sinful," "Aliens exist," or "We're controlled by Bilderbergers."

And that's not mentioning the problem of different 'absolutes' competing with each other, with each their own circular and self-contained claims of self-proclaimed 'truths'.

This, and mental illness, or evil, must surely be the cause of most of the world's conflict.

So I have two aims, joining such debates as this one. The first is to counteract the negative consequences of 'absolute' systems running amok (and the great noodle-master knows, that mankind's long and conflict-filled history to a major extent originates with 'absolute' systems manifesting as ideological fascism). My second aim is to present a functional alternative to both 'absolutism' and wishy-washy relativism.

I applaud your aims, but is your audience listening?

If we can't find 'ultimate truth/reality' and don't want the dysfuntionality of the truly wishy-washy relativism, we simply have to settle for 'lesser' truths, which in their own ground, in their specific contexts, are of great value.

Yes! Mighty truths from little agreements grow.

This (real) example can be used allegorically for any situation where the known and the unknown somehow are brought together. We do have the known to relate to (even if the known only represent a partial reality), and the unknown is (ofcourse) the unknown, and we can at any given time only speculate about it, or possibly slowly try to change it into known.

And this is the purpose and goal of our minds in both the known and unknown worlds.

The fanatic, the missionary, the prophet, the wanna-be messiah with 'absolute'-obssession not only ignore this request of demonstration, but is mostly ignorant of the differences between a demonstration and a self-contained, circular pushiness. And THAT is the real problem, which has created so much misery on this planet.

Yes, but fortunately or not, emotion plays a great role in our beliefs. Armies, religions, political parties, marriages, etc. etc. Sometimes a "Come to Jesus" call gets results that a syllogism can't, so it continues to be used.

There are no 'self-evident' and self-proclaimed 'truths' on the unknown.

If I understand you, I agree. But, I can also understand the response that Jesus was "known" and proclaimed truths about the "unknown." This makes Him a unique being, but Christians have been saying that all along.

It's entirely possible that this entire post is garbage, although I think I've written three worthwhile sentences. Let me just say that I appreciate you very much and you're a great (if I may use the word) blessing to my mind.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles,

You wrote:

["For me, the question of meaning and relating is discussed outside of science and is the proper domain of logic and revelation."]

Fair enough, especially as you follow it up with....

Quote: ["OK, putting logic and revelation in the same sentence is unusual, but logic has to have something to work on, it needs facts and axioms to move forward."]

As I wrote, logic/objectivity is not exclusive to science etc. E.g. are the claims from our resident bible-relating non-paulines of (imo almost absolute) compassion from an alleged primary source ALSO a quantifiable claim, which very well can gain as much logic/objective 'respectability' as any intellectual, deductive scientific claim. It's a question of creating a sound systematic methodology, similar to that used in science (ofcourse on parallel, not identical, premises).

Quote: ["Revelation is, for me, either a new fact or a new relationship. Revelation is not universal, but individual. The individual who receives one should remember that they are in a different position to the rest of the world, and that they will have to use worldly tools if they want to communicate that revelation."]

No objections whatsoever on my part.

Quote (on my anti-absolute attitudes): ["I applaud your aims, but is your audience listening?"]

No, mostly it grunts: "Me good, you bad" back to me.

Quote: ["Yes, but fortunately or not, emotion plays a great role in our beliefs. Armies, religions, political parties, marriages, etc. etc. Sometimes a "Come to Jesus" call gets results that a syllogism can't, so it continues to be used."]

Agreed for good or bad. Emotions are definitely the weak link in the chain of human existence. We can be both very smart and practical, but not good of knowing and 'using' emotions functionally.

Quote: ["But, I can also understand the response that Jesus was "known" and proclaimed truths about the "unknown." This makes Him a unique being, but Christians have been saying that all along."]

I have a great sympathy for the 'gentle Jesus'-version sometimes presented. However I object strongly to exclusiveness, general elitism and the conditional 'love' associated with other Jesus versions.

Quote: ["It's entirely possible that this entire post is garbage, although I think I've written three worthwhile sentences. Let me just say that I appreciate you very much and you're a great (if I may use the word) blessing to my mind."]

Your post is far from garbage to me, but just a word of caution: I have today been playing around and created quite a verbally provocative hullaballoo on this forum. Probably (and hopefully) resulting in my being banned soon. Anyone associating with me, may be considered 'tainted' later.

So I better add: Those contributors I relate to on friendly terms are innocent of my shortcomings and NOT part of a 'cabal' I'm trying to construct.

Dear bogomil,

May I get a little "fuzzy" for a moment? I'd like to offer a statement of belief proceeding from premises that not all accept. Please let me play with it for a moment.

I believe that God holds all of His creation in high regard, and that people hold a special place in His heart. I also believe that one of Jesus' purposes was to bring about a great good by His death and resurection. Since God has declared the worth of each individual to be more vast than I can comprehend, it's only right for me to try to adopt the same perspective.

My marching orders are to love every human because of God's example to us.

I have a great sympathy for the 'gentle Jesus'-version sometimes presented. However I object strongly to exclusiveness, general elitism and the conditional 'love' associated with other Jesus versions.

I can find no basis in Scrpture or logic built upon revelation, to believe that I am anything other than one of billions of people that God loves. I am someone who is to love everyone else as I am loved. I'm certainly not elite, as I fail even in this clear task, nor do I have permission to exclude anyone from that love.

I fail to love as I should, sometimes because I don't know how to, more often because I am fallen. But the failure to perform does not change the mission. The closer we come to God's commands to love Him and each other, the less we'll worry about peripheral issues.

Here on ATS I find many people that I don't like, sometimes it seems the most love I can show them is to walk away.

Is that what you're trying to do with getting yourself banned? Walk away from the grunters (without having to decide to walk away)?

It would be a shame to lose you, it seems to me that there is a great heart in your chest. Please let me know if there is some way to arrange things to be more palatable for you.

Oh, thanks for telling me about your provocative posts, I'll look them up. I can't imagine you being crude, but I can see you being forthright and neither asking for or giving any quarter. I look forward to being "tainted."

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You are as usual full of meaningless semantic excesses, hoping that your empty droning-on will reach someone at the same sub-standard level you operate from.

For a sane or average intelligent person, your preachings are total nonsense.

How so? What topics are you refering to? Care to provide a quote or some context? What you are saying is pure name calling and bias against me as a Christian.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Dear SuperiorEd,

I've got to agree with you, it's name calling and bias. You're absolutely right. My guess (and it's only a guess) comes from bogomil's post about 2/3 of the way down on page 6. Basically he says "I'm fed to the teeth, I can't take it any more, and I'm going to kick and yell and scream 'til I get banned.

Please consider him to be speaking from frustration, and not personal animosity, in this case.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You are as usual full of meaningless semantic excesses, hoping that your empty droning-on will reach someone at the same sub-standard level you operate from.

For a sane or average intelligent person, your preachings are total nonsense.

How so? What topics are you refering to? Care to provide a quote or some context? What you are saying is pure name calling and bias against me as a Christian.

He says he is doing this to get banned. Don't take it personal.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Dear SuperiorEd,

I've got to agree with you, it's name calling and bias. You're absolutely right. My guess (and it's only a guess) comes from bogomil's post about 2/3 of the way down on page 6. Basically he says "I'm fed to the teeth, I can't take it any more, and I'm going to kick and yell and scream 'til I get banned.

Please consider him to be speaking from frustration, and not personal animosity, in this case.

I ask myself this question: There are two bosses in a work environment. One screams and kicks to get his way. He takes dignity from his employees to make himself fell larger and above his servants. The second boss possesses dignity already and extends this to his employees with patience and guidance along the way.

Two questions: 1) Which boss is filled and which one is empty? 2) Which employee values his job more?

The point is that a need causes a person to constantly be filled by taking from others. Love is the only answer. Only love fills a person with what they are looking for in the first place.

There was a day when I would do the same. No longer. Anger and bias are no friend to the soul. Truth, however, is a mighty friend for producing peace in the soul. God works out our faith by experience. We produce good works from our faith, but not apart from it. If we deny God the opportunity, we can only seek it elsewhere in vain.

Dear SuperiorEd,

I thank you for your response, kindness, and truth.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The point is that a need causes a person to constantly be filled by taking from others. Love is the only answer. Only love fills a person with what they are looking for in the first place.

There was a day when I would do the same. No longer. Anger and bias are no friend to the soul. Truth, however, is a mighty friend for producing peace in the soul. God works out our faith by experience. We produce good works from our faith, but not apart from it. If we deny God the opportunity, we can only seek it elsewhere in vain.

All you say is true in my experience. The training one receives, the society they're in, even the fashions of the day, affect people's ability to see and progress. Thank you again for writing.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear SuperiorEd,

I thank you for your response, kindness, and truth.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The point is that a need causes a person to constantly be filled by taking from others. Love is the only answer. Only love fills a person with what they are looking for in the first place.

There was a day when I would do the same. No longer. Anger and bias are no friend to the soul. Truth, however, is a mighty friend for producing peace in the soul. God works out our faith by experience. We produce good works from our faith, but not apart from it. If we deny God the opportunity, we can only seek it elsewhere in vain.

All you say is true in my experience. The training one receives, the society they're in, even the fashions of the day, affect people's ability to see and progress. Thank you again for writing.

With respect,
Charles1952

Thank you. I have enjoyed reading your posts. You have a good spirit and this is evident in your words.

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Only a Real Christian will agree with ALL of the verses above. I just want to know who the Real Christians are on this forum.

edit on 23-10-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

Why does it matter who the real christians are on this sight? It is a conspiracy sight not a religious discussion sight. although religious conspiracy is OK discuss here.

The post was very obviously religious , so why did you come on this post ? The obvious answer is you HATE religion and have no tolerance . I am willing to bet that if someone started a post that was anti gay you would be on there preaching tolerance for them. I guess what I am. Getting at is the hypocrisy I see when it comes to religion on both sides of the fence. I suggest you just not click on these posts and the same to Christians that have no tolerance for others lifestyles.

reply to post by Noey777


As you probably know, there are all types of people on ATS and some of them hate God and religion, and some hate gays, jews, etc. There is no practical way to keep them from speaking out in any thread (unless there is a violation of T&C).

Some of them hate so much that no sense comes from them, but for most they have something we should hear. We don't have to accept what is said, but we should know that it's out there.

Besides, if we have any exchange with them at all, we do well to remember how Jesus commanded us to treat our neighbors.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

How so? What topics are you refering to? Care to provide a quote or some context? What you are saying is pure name calling and bias against me as a Christian.

What happened to all your lecturing about pride?
Seems to me that if you were not so concerned about your pride, posts like that would not bother you.
If you cared about truth, you would be presenting a defense of that instead of defending yourself.
Name calling, as you call it, is just a description of your writing. Instead of taking offense at criticism of your output, maybe you should work on the quality of it.
Your hiding behind the name, Christian, I find irksome. No one is attacking you for being a Christian and that is some sort of personal resort to taking the figure of the martyr which isn't working.
If I'm allowed to mention a competing forum, I suggest you go over to the jrandi forum for two weeks and promote your wares and see what sort of reception you get. You might get an attitude adjustment and think this place is heaven.

reply to post by bogomil


I read your post Bogomil and the first thing I see is a person who loves to hear himself speak. That being said what exactly would you expect of a Christian in answering your question , the ambiguity of it is nonsensical format leaves one scratching their head. The fact you specifically make mention to the OT. And Pauls epistles while abasing all christians leads me to believe that is what you are all about. So what exact knowledge or search of knowledge are you asking for with regards to the OT and Pauls epistles ?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

How so? What topics are you refering to? Care to provide a quote or some context? What you are saying is pure name calling and bias against me as a Christian.

What happened to all your lecturing about pride?
Seems to me that if you were not so concerned about your pride, posts like that would not bother you.
If you cared about truth, you would be presenting a defense of that instead of defending yourself.
Name calling, as you call it, is just a description of your writing. Instead of taking offense at criticism of your output, maybe you should work on the quality of it.
Your hiding behind the name, Christian, I find irksome. No one is attacking you for being a Christian and that is some sort of personal resort to taking the figure of the martyr which isn't working.
If I'm allowed to mention a competing forum, I suggest you go over to the jrandi forum for two weeks and promote your wares and see what sort of reception you get. You might get an attitude adjustment and think this place is heaven.

Pride in a job well done is vastly different than pride that elevates above another person by prejudice. There are two ways to express yourself on a topic. You can choose to speak to the subject, or you can step on the object delivering the subject. I choose to speak to the subject and have requested that you provide a context for your pronouncement of ill will toward me. As for the name calling, this only represents steeping on the object to find a perceived foothold for higher ground. I will continue to keep myself equal with truth. We all stand naked against God's own words in the Bible. It speaks for itself. Again, even with the Bible, context is key. If we choose to step on God, truth is right there pushing us back to equilibrium. I will not step on God or you. What I will do is continue to point out truth by context. I do not judge you. The subject might.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Pride in a job well done is vastly different than pride that elevates above another person by prejudice. There are two ways to express yourself on a topic. You can choose to speak to the subject, or you can step on the object delivering the subject. I choose to speak to the subject and have requested that you provide a context for your pronouncement of ill will toward me. As for the name calling, this only represents steeping on the object to find a perceived foothold for higher ground. I will continue to keep myself equal with truth. We all stand naked against God's own words in the Bible. It speaks for itself. Again, even with the Bible, context is key. If we choose to step on God, truth is right there pushing us back to equilibrium. I will not step on God or you. What I will do is continue to point out truth by context. I do not judge you. The subject might.

This sounds like a more elaborate version of a saying I learned when I was a kid, "If I am perfect, then I am not conceited."

reply to post by Noey777
Bogomil was not talking about Paul's epistles, he was talking about epistemology which is the study of determining what is true.What he wants is for people to do something like look up the word in Wikipedia, to start.
The other thing is people who believe they are Christians while living in an Old Testament mindset as if Jesus never happened or he was just another Jewish sacrifice and nothing more.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Pride in a job well done is vastly different than pride that elevates above another person by prejudice. There are two ways to express yourself on a topic. You can choose to speak to the subject, or you can step on the object delivering the subject. I choose to speak to the subject and have requested that you provide a context for your pronouncement of ill will toward me. As for the name calling, this only represents steeping on the object to find a perceived foothold for higher ground. I will continue to keep myself equal with truth. We all stand naked against God's own words in the Bible. It speaks for itself. Again, even with the Bible, context is key. If we choose to step on God, truth is right there pushing us back to equilibrium. I will not step on God or you. What I will do is continue to point out truth by context. I do not judge you. The subject might.

This sounds like a more elaborate version of a saying I learned when I was a kid, "If I am perfect, then I am not conceited."

I wrote an article not too long ago for my blog that talked about how we make choices in time. Again, I am only speaking here from my own context and life. Here is a quote from my blog. I reference this in relation to keeping equal with truth.

"How far can a person really look forward? Is it just easier looking back to examine the moments ahead with clarity? If I can learn anything concerning choices in the future, I choose to reflect my past forward to the future and watch it pass me by again. I repeat this process until the past is finally pleasing as it passes my way each moment. For now, I keep pushing ahead to a better past by drawing it forward to my future as lessons learned. At some point, the potential of the future will match the lessons learned from the past, at which point, the past and the future will fade into the present equally. This is my goal. Until my goal is fully reached, I ponder the past thoughts of others with new clarity."

We make choices that can sometimes be at odds with our spirit. We have the ability to look back at our past and throw a new choice forward into the future to create our new past. When the choice we make for the future equals the past in reflection, the choice made is equalized with truth. When we experience regret in our lives, this represents the past being at odds with what we are currently learning. Following the leading of God ensures that our future and past are equal. Duplicity--saying one thing and doing another--reflects out of balance with truth.

Emptiness comes from being out of balance. Seeking to fill this void with worldly wisdom, bias, prejudice and hatred for others only reveals what is missing. Take your shots at me. I'll keep sticking to the truth that I have been shown in life.

I am sure you have many good things to say. Stick to the subject and reveal the light inside. All of us have truths to share if God is working in our lives.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Jesus Christ and the catholic church have nothing in common.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What you are describing are the rites of the catholic religion which was basically created to oppose Jesus Christ.

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles,

as always a pleasure to communicate with you.

You wrote: ["May I get a little "fuzzy" for a moment? I'd like to offer a statement of belief proceeding from premises that not all accept. Please let me play with it for a moment."]

From my philosophical-scepticism-pragmatic-relativism position (sounds weird, doesn't it, but to my knowledge it has no official name), 'alleged', 'let's presume' or 'momentarily accepting these premises' are not beyond my scope.

Quote: ["I believe that God holds all of His creation in high regard, and that people hold a special place in His heart."]

Insofar human reasoning can be applied, this sounds sensible.

Quote: [" I also believe that one of Jesus' purposes was to bring about a great good by His death and resurection."]

There are some doctrinal points here, which I probably could disagree with. But knowing you aren't a monopolist, your choice on the matter (for you) is as valid as mine is (for me).

Quote: ["Since God has declared the worth of each individual to be more vast than I can comprehend, it's only right for me to try to adopt the same perspective."]

An argument which eventually could lead to 'free will' (amongst other 'eventually' options), and as I assume 'free will' to some extent to be an operational factor (as the alternatives are meaningless), no objections.

Quote: ["I fail to love as I should, sometimes because I don't know how to, more often because I am fallen."]

As I guess everybody admits to 'fail' on whatever premises they start with. If your premises are 'fallen', the buddhists' are 'caught in illusion', the atheists' 'lack of sufficient' knowledge (and self-knowledge)' is of no importance to me, as long as the premises are allowed to function egalitarian and on an individual choice-basis.

Quote: ["But the failure to perform does not change the mission. The closer we come to God's commands to love Him and each other, the less we'll worry about peripheral issues."]

If you can cut away the special abrahamic imperative of loving 'god' as a universal norm, the rest will (if we are talking about non-conditional love) be something universally acceptable, when the paraphernalia are stripped off.

Quote: [" Here on ATS I find many people that I don't like, sometimes it seems the most love I can show them is to walk away."]

That's a tough one, and especially as I'm in the midst of my own little present warpath. But WW II demonstrated the dysfunctionality of 'walking away' ~ Hitler initially having blind eyes turned his way(btw I'm a pacifist myself, to the extent of not blindly being enrolled as a soldier for a cause, I maybe don't want to support).

The closest I can get to a rational anwer to that is to be aware of what's a 'NO' to invasion as opposed to open or premature (preventive) invasion. Even the Jain religion, very keen on such questions, accepts self-defence as the last measure.

Quote: ["Is that what you're trying to do with getting yourself banned? Walk away from the grunters (without having to decide to walk away)?"]

I've seen what I consider a DEEP dysfuntionality on the religious subforums here, reaching to moderator-level. If I had the option of just cancelling my membership (officially being ackowledged as a non-member in the future) I would use that option and walk away without more ado (after all this is not WW II).

I have not found such a termination-of-membership option, consequently I'm unable to walk away on my own terms, which aren't that unreasonable: My account saying about Bogomil: Not a member.

Quote: ["It would be a shame to lose you, it seems to me that there is a great heart in your chest. Please let me know if there is some way to arrange things to be more palatable for you."]

Sincerely...this is a generous offer, which I very much appreciate, but it appears, that noise-making is my only option now.

But whatever the real situation is, there's something fishy going on. I have for the last 24 hours been granted 'amnesty' from practically all forum rules. Try as I do to make myself disagreeable, transgressing all rules of topic-relevance and decent behaviour ~ NOT A SOUND. Peculiar, isn't it?

Quote: ["Oh, thanks for telling me about your provocative posts, I'll look them up. I can't imagine you being crude, but I can see you being forthright and neither asking for or giving any quarter. I look forward to being "tainted."]

I'm not only crude, I'm very rude. But I must once again emphasize, that all my 'friends' here (disregarding whatever ideological differences I may have with them) in no way are implied in my presently uncivil and somewhat temperamental excesses.

You (all my 'friends') are as always sympathetic and respected persons, whom I enjoy communicating with and from whom I learn much.