theo_victis
New member
enough with the hypotheticals.... What if your wrong Wiccan? jeesh...
I agree. But if you know you are right then how long should you seriously have to contemplate material that you know is false?
Moral and Christian Misconceptions
- Thread starter death2impiety
- Start date
- Status
enough with the hypotheticals.... What if your wrong Wiccan? jeesh...
I agree. But if you know you are right then how long should you seriously have to contemplate material that you know is false?
theo_victis
New member
I will help ya out. Just give me a few minutes.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
theo_victis said:
:shrug: I dunno ... I still contemplate the Bible. Does that count?
allsmiles
New member
Practice what you preach. Or don't... I suppose its up to you. God luck with your family.
Trying friend, and thanks for the blessing.
I know a little bit more about this than you think. Sorry, I'm kind of shady about my background. As for humility, there's nothing humble about telling people that if they keep doing what feels natural to them they'll go flying off of a cliff, especially when that assertion is made without evidential support and is based solely on your own individual perspective. People can't change they way they perceive reality. You don't like someone telling you that you're wrong, so where's the humility in telling others what you wouldn't like to hear yourself?
Except that there's no way to conclusiviely demonstrate the existence of the cliff itself. It's your word against reality. It's your word against testable, demonstrable knowledge and there's nothing humble about telling someone that their ability to perceive reality is fundamentally flawed, especially when you cannot see through their eyes or think their thoughts.
How can you not tell them with ego? You're attempting to show them the flaw of their path without being able to feel their spirit or see through their eyes or think with their mind. You tell them that you have something that they don't and without it their path, their thoughts and the state of their soul will doom them without evidential support. This is the antithesis of humility and I think you have a lot to learn about people friend. It might explain your failures in witnessing and how you've alienated people you considered friends. The alienation/failure is a fall, what comes before a fall?
Couldn't tell you. I don't spend much time sniffing elephants.
But it always comes back to the sacrifice you have made. Sacrifice nothing and you won't be a martyr and you won't be ignored and you won't have to rely on the rejection of others to purge yourself of your ego. That's your job, just as cleansing my ego is my job. I don't rely on anyone for the state of soul, just me.
But I could be wrong, you know the state of your own soul better than I.
There's nothing about god that you can be taught that you cannot learn on your own.
The problem with this is that I do not recognize satan as an entity, but as a metaphor. If you want us to relate to one another we have to find common ground, and satan is not common ground, it's you monopolizing the debate with unprovable objects, such as satan and hell that serve to do nothing more than save you from that which you cannot explain outside of what the bible tells you to think.
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
Bear with me, I still don't know how to quote...
"Trying friend, and thanks for the blessing."
Anytime!
"I know a little bit more about this than you think. Sorry, I'm kind of shady about my background. As for humility, there's nothing humble about telling people that if they keep doing what feels natural to them they'll go flying off of a cliff, especially when that assertion is made without evidential support and is based solely on your own individual perspective. People can't change they way they perceive reality. You don't like someone telling you that you're wrong, so where's the humility in telling others what you wouldn't like to hear yourself?"
okay, indeed I see your point. I think it could be sharpened...but I get what you mean.
-First thing, I do like it when people tell me that I'm wrong. How else do I learn?
-My hypothetical cliff, I know it exists, I've seen people fall, I've heard their screams but I've never actually seen them hit the ground...so when I warn that next person who appears to be walking blindfolded I'll give them my best idea as to where they'll end up based on the evidence that I've been presented with. You're saying that for all I know they could be screaming as they land gently, face first, in a pile of weight loss inducing cupcakes. It just seems unlikely to me...
If witnessing serves the ego in anyway psychologically than thats just fine. Does it boost a teachers ego when her students get an A? Great, maybe you should feel proud. But personally, for me, its way more stressful than it is uplifting and I find myself praying for the boldness to say what needs to be said.
-An individual can change the way they perceive reality. If not than the life of a missionary is futile and no one would do it.
-(if I knew how to quote this would be way more cogent)
If someone finds satisfaction in doing work for our creator that's fine by me anyway.
"Except that there's no way to conclusiviely demonstrate the existence of the cliff itself. It's your word against reality. It's your word against testable, demonstrable knowledge and there's nothing humble about telling someone that their ability to perceive reality is fundamentally flawed, especially when you cannot see through their eyes or think their thoughts."
-In the same way there is no conclusive way to demonstrate that the cliff does not exist. It isn't my word against reality, its my view of reality and the words that surface due to it.
-As Bob once said, there's nothing wrong with telling a fool, that they're a fool. I think this discussion is above the importance of humbleness...humble or not, telling an individual that the way they perceive reality is fundamentally flawed is correct. Sin has a way of distorting the truth. I don't expect you to make a concession here, its probably where we simply disagree...
"How can you not tell them with ego? You're attempting to show them the flaw of their path without being able to feel their spirit or see through their eyes or think with their mind. You tell them that you have something that they don't and without it their path, their thoughts and the state of their soul will doom them without evidential support. This is the antithesis of humility and I think you have a lot to learn about people friend. It might explain your failures in witnessing and how you've alienated people you considered friends. The alienation/failure is a fall, what comes before a fall?"
I like this, how much do you charge per hour?
"Couldn't tell you. I don't spend much time sniffing elephants."
It's a very rewarding experience.
"But it always comes back to the sacrifice you have made. Sacrifice nothing and you won't be a martyr and you won't be ignored and you won't have to rely on the rejection of others to purge yourself of your ego. That's your job, just as cleansing my ego is my job. I don't rely on anyone for the state of soul, just me.
But I could be wrong, you know the state of your own soul better than I."
This suffering is important though...picking up your cross daily. It just happens when you follow Christ. Peter wrote that we need to rejoice in participating in the suffering of Christ. But you may be on to something with the ego bit...I need to learn to approach the witness position from a more humble position. Thank you!
"There's nothing about god that you can be taught that you cannot learn on your own."
This is learning on my own. On my own I have requested guidance. How do we learn if we do not ask?
"The problem with this is that I do not recognize satan as an entity, but as a metaphor. If you want us to relate to one another we have to find common ground, and satan is not common ground, it's you monopolizing the debate with unprovable objects, such as satan and hell that serve to do nothing more than save you from that which you cannot explain outside of what the bible tells you to think."
I figured. Thats why I said "untruth" and maybe Satan.
When I refer to this untruth I am merely speaking of anything spirit, demon, belief or otherwise that a person accepts with the willingness to perceive the world in a false manner to make they're existance more comfortable. In my case the truth is that Satan will attempt to confuse you with instant comfort and gratification whilst confusing your perspective.
As far as I'm concerned this is more of a discussion than a debate. But call it what you will.
It seems that the ego can confuse a willing individual, which may be my flaw in witnessing. I'll have to pray for help with this. Thanks for the help. How much do I owe ya?
I'm still looking for someone with an idea about my friends objections to Christ!
B
"Trying friend, and thanks for the blessing."
Anytime!
"I know a little bit more about this than you think. Sorry, I'm kind of shady about my background. As for humility, there's nothing humble about telling people that if they keep doing what feels natural to them they'll go flying off of a cliff, especially when that assertion is made without evidential support and is based solely on your own individual perspective. People can't change they way they perceive reality. You don't like someone telling you that you're wrong, so where's the humility in telling others what you wouldn't like to hear yourself?"
okay, indeed I see your point. I think it could be sharpened...but I get what you mean.
-First thing, I do like it when people tell me that I'm wrong. How else do I learn?
-My hypothetical cliff, I know it exists, I've seen people fall, I've heard their screams but I've never actually seen them hit the ground...so when I warn that next person who appears to be walking blindfolded I'll give them my best idea as to where they'll end up based on the evidence that I've been presented with. You're saying that for all I know they could be screaming as they land gently, face first, in a pile of weight loss inducing cupcakes. It just seems unlikely to me...
If witnessing serves the ego in anyway psychologically than thats just fine. Does it boost a teachers ego when her students get an A? Great, maybe you should feel proud. But personally, for me, its way more stressful than it is uplifting and I find myself praying for the boldness to say what needs to be said.
-An individual can change the way they perceive reality. If not than the life of a missionary is futile and no one would do it.
-(if I knew how to quote this would be way more cogent)
If someone finds satisfaction in doing work for our creator that's fine by me anyway.
"Except that there's no way to conclusiviely demonstrate the existence of the cliff itself. It's your word against reality. It's your word against testable, demonstrable knowledge and there's nothing humble about telling someone that their ability to perceive reality is fundamentally flawed, especially when you cannot see through their eyes or think their thoughts."
-In the same way there is no conclusive way to demonstrate that the cliff does not exist. It isn't my word against reality, its my view of reality and the words that surface due to it.
-As Bob once said, there's nothing wrong with telling a fool, that they're a fool. I think this discussion is above the importance of humbleness...humble or not, telling an individual that the way they perceive reality is fundamentally flawed is correct. Sin has a way of distorting the truth. I don't expect you to make a concession here, its probably where we simply disagree...
"How can you not tell them with ego? You're attempting to show them the flaw of their path without being able to feel their spirit or see through their eyes or think with their mind. You tell them that you have something that they don't and without it their path, their thoughts and the state of their soul will doom them without evidential support. This is the antithesis of humility and I think you have a lot to learn about people friend. It might explain your failures in witnessing and how you've alienated people you considered friends. The alienation/failure is a fall, what comes before a fall?"
I like this, how much do you charge per hour?
"Couldn't tell you. I don't spend much time sniffing elephants."
It's a very rewarding experience.
"But it always comes back to the sacrifice you have made. Sacrifice nothing and you won't be a martyr and you won't be ignored and you won't have to rely on the rejection of others to purge yourself of your ego. That's your job, just as cleansing my ego is my job. I don't rely on anyone for the state of soul, just me.
But I could be wrong, you know the state of your own soul better than I."
This suffering is important though...picking up your cross daily. It just happens when you follow Christ. Peter wrote that we need to rejoice in participating in the suffering of Christ. But you may be on to something with the ego bit...I need to learn to approach the witness position from a more humble position. Thank you!
"There's nothing about god that you can be taught that you cannot learn on your own."
This is learning on my own. On my own I have requested guidance. How do we learn if we do not ask?
"The problem with this is that I do not recognize satan as an entity, but as a metaphor. If you want us to relate to one another we have to find common ground, and satan is not common ground, it's you monopolizing the debate with unprovable objects, such as satan and hell that serve to do nothing more than save you from that which you cannot explain outside of what the bible tells you to think."
I figured. Thats why I said "untruth" and maybe Satan.
When I refer to this untruth I am merely speaking of anything spirit, demon, belief or otherwise that a person accepts with the willingness to perceive the world in a false manner to make they're existance more comfortable. In my case the truth is that Satan will attempt to confuse you with instant comfort and gratification whilst confusing your perspective.
As far as I'm concerned this is more of a discussion than a debate. But call it what you will.
It seems that the ego can confuse a willing individual, which may be my flaw in witnessing. I'll have to pray for help with this. Thanks for the help. How much do I owe ya?
I'm still looking for someone with an idea about my friends objections to Christ!
B
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
Justin (Wiccan) said:
I quit smoking recently too! keep up the good work.
I don't know what to say to this question. My point is lost in a hypothetical "what if?". I believe I am right and I wouldn't be here asking for help if I thought I was wrong. Obviously, I have taken his postion seriously or I would have just blown off his argument as "preposterous".
B
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
allsmiles said:
theo_victis
New member
Ok, i initially forgot to respond to this even though i said i would so sorry about that. I am here now!!!!!
First off i would just break this guys argument down and respond to each point since there are inaccuracies within the structure of his argument.
First i would ask him why so many people believe in Christ? Are they all just merely stupid and misled? Surely one intelligent soul believes and have done there homework as well and came to opposite conclusions. I would say this to him because i want to point out that saying you have done "research" doesnt necessarily mean that you are "right".
Next, i would point out his error. He concludes that John is the only Gospel that claims Jesus' divinity. This is not so. Here are verses (there are more but i dont have time to type them all up). These verses demonstrate Jesus' truine divinity (since God is one in three).
Christ being worshiped:
Mat 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
Testimonies of others:
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" (see also Mark 15:39)
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Joh 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
Jesus' admitting to his divineship:
Luk 22:70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He (Jesus) replied, "You are right in saying I am."
Jesus’ duel state (man and God)
Joh 13:31 When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.
Next i would demonstrate Athanasius' argument for Christ's divineship. His argument involves divine intervention that is seen in the openning verses of John (the word became flesh....) Here is his argument:
1. No creature can redeem another Creature.
2. Only God can save (forgive).
3. Jesus Christ saves (see New testament)
4. Therefore Jesus Christ is God
This is sort of silly. He obviously isnt scholarly because he doesnt have dates even right. Contemporary scholarship dates the Gospel of John circa 85 A.D. - 90 A.D. It could not have been written much later because John would be around 100 years old which rarely ever occurred in Greco Roman times.
Second, John did not write his gospel with the sole purpose refuting John the Baptist's Messianic worshippers. The book was most likely written in Ephesus for a Gentile audience. If it was written to denounce John the Baptist's Messiahship then why would he write it to Gentile Greek speaking people? His argument is not academically found until he further demonstrates this from reputable sources.
If he further has a beef with this point out that in the openning chapter of Mark, John the Baptist is recorded to have denied being the Messiah. If he states there is a conspiracy or a collaboration of the same testimony demonstrate to him that John is considered unique to the rest of the Gospels.
Then i would tell this guy that Caeser Augustus' divineship is rooted in mythology and bears no eye witness testimonies that the Gospels are made of. It is a false comparison.
Ask him to define truth. Then ask him why he argues with you about Jesus' divinity if he cant prove it since its just a mere beleif of his.
Point out New Testament verses that oppose this (See the book of Romans).
Pharisees and Sadducees were divided, but the fact that they were divided goes to show that they had a conception of hell and where debating it. Tell him to prove that "hell" was invented.
He seems to enjoy posting unrelated elements into the debate in order to prove other people were thought to be messiahs and so Jesus was mistaken as well. It doesnt matter whether some Jews got misled, but it does matter whether Jesus is or not the Messiah.
Ok that seems to be what i can give you. If you need more help i will be glad to offer it.
:guitar:
First off i would just break this guys argument down and respond to each point since there are inaccuracies within the structure of his argument.
First i would ask him why so many people believe in Christ? Are they all just merely stupid and misled? Surely one intelligent soul believes and have done there homework as well and came to opposite conclusions. I would say this to him because i want to point out that saying you have done "research" doesnt necessarily mean that you are "right".
Next, i would point out his error. He concludes that John is the only Gospel that claims Jesus' divinity. This is not so. Here are verses (there are more but i dont have time to type them all up). These verses demonstrate Jesus' truine divinity (since God is one in three).
Christ being worshiped:
Mat 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
Testimonies of others:
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" (see also Mark 15:39)
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Joh 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
Jesus' admitting to his divineship:
Luk 22:70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He (Jesus) replied, "You are right in saying I am."
Jesus’ duel state (man and God)
Joh 13:31 When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.
Next i would demonstrate Athanasius' argument for Christ's divineship. His argument involves divine intervention that is seen in the openning verses of John (the word became flesh....) Here is his argument:
1. No creature can redeem another Creature.
2. Only God can save (forgive).
3. Jesus Christ saves (see New testament)
4. Therefore Jesus Christ is God
This is sort of silly. He obviously isnt scholarly because he doesnt have dates even right. Contemporary scholarship dates the Gospel of John circa 85 A.D. - 90 A.D. It could not have been written much later because John would be around 100 years old which rarely ever occurred in Greco Roman times.
Second, John did not write his gospel with the sole purpose refuting John the Baptist's Messianic worshippers. The book was most likely written in Ephesus for a Gentile audience. If it was written to denounce John the Baptist's Messiahship then why would he write it to Gentile Greek speaking people? His argument is not academically found until he further demonstrates this from reputable sources.
If he further has a beef with this point out that in the openning chapter of Mark, John the Baptist is recorded to have denied being the Messiah. If he states there is a conspiracy or a collaboration of the same testimony demonstrate to him that John is considered unique to the rest of the Gospels.
Then i would tell this guy that Caeser Augustus' divineship is rooted in mythology and bears no eye witness testimonies that the Gospels are made of. It is a false comparison.
Ask him to define truth. Then ask him why he argues with you about Jesus' divinity if he cant prove it since its just a mere beleif of his.
Point out New Testament verses that oppose this (See the book of Romans).
Pharisees and Sadducees were divided, but the fact that they were divided goes to show that they had a conception of hell and where debating it. Tell him to prove that "hell" was invented.
He seems to enjoy posting unrelated elements into the debate in order to prove other people were thought to be messiahs and so Jesus was mistaken as well. It doesnt matter whether some Jews got misled, but it does matter whether Jesus is or not the Messiah.
Ok that seems to be what i can give you. If you need more help i will be glad to offer it.
:guitar:
theo_victis
New member
d2i you can also just highlight everything you want to quote with your mouse then hit the quote button. That puts everything in quotes that you want.
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
theo_victis said:
Thank you very much for your help! Great stuff. If you ever need a favor I'll do what I can.
God Bless,
B
theo_victis
New member
no problem
death2impeity said:
I like Jesus because he talked to the prostitutes and tax collectors when no one else would humble themselves to them. He gave people hope - blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek. He was non-materialistic, and told people to store up treasure in heaven, and not on the earth. He stood up against the hypocrites who claimed to be leaders of the church, whom he said led people away from God, who put more burden on their followers than offered them freedom. He told people to follow him, but didn't spend time telling people they are going to hell.
The reason that it is so hard to understand for a believer is that the believer will sometimes demonize the poor, say that they are blessed with material wealth which they store on the earth, criticize the sinners, may even think themselves to holy to speak to some of us. They will talk of how terrible the world is getting, offer doom, and gloom, and say, "You're going to hell, and I'm not!," a strange boast, as if accomplished by their magic words, their pure heart, or whatever thing they did themselves.
The unbeliever often sees Jesus as someone to be admired, and very different than the believer.
I see the cruxt of what Jesus said to be to care for one another, and in so, you are one with God. Most Christians believe that the cruxt of Jesus was his death on the cross, the open admition that he died for your sins, and accepting him into you heart. So, I see Jesus as calling us to love one another and sacrifice yourself for others, while a Christian may see it as saving yourself.
theo_victis
New member
Have you ever read the bible?
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
theo_victis said:
Beabie may be a tad closer to the truth than some here would like to accept ... especially considering how historically problematic the Bible is.
theo_victis
New member
If the Bible is so problematic than how can you accept BBs rendering? If the divine or supernatural elements of the NT are problematic or historically innaccurate then why wouldnt the rest be? You guys cant just pick and choose what Jesus would have or could have said especially if you believe the whole Bible is problematic. Jesus as a divine being is more accurate then BBs humanist moral teacher understanding because it incorporates the whole NT and not just pick and choose what Jesus could have or probably had said. You guys need a lesson in interpretation jeesh! (no offense to anyone)
Either the Bible is historically accurate in its depiction of Jesus (not to the extreme like, the exact phraseology Jesus chose but rather what he said) and we should trust it
or
THe Bible is only partially historically accurate about Christ (it contains strait out lies and Jesus had never even came close to uttering some parts of it) and we should skeptically read it but not trust anything since there is no way of knowing what the historical truths and falsehoods are
or
The bible (lower case now) is historically inaccurate in everything it portrays about Jesus and we should just through it in the trash.
Make up your mind. If you pick 2 or 3 then you cannot make concrete statements about Jesus because you are agreeing in the first place that you dont know what he said and the source cant be trusted.
If you pick 1 then you cant just take a section of what Jesus said without viewing the entire picture.
Last edited:
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
theo_victis said:
Well, for one thing, Beanie's found a point of commonality between the canonical texts and the early non-canonical ones.
For another, altruism works where "conventional" Christiany doesn't necessarily function. To be sure, there is no single definition of "conventional" Christianity, but the varying "mainstream" definitions seen in America in the last 200 or so years can only be demonstrated by varying levels of dis-functionality.
Is it the "historically accurate Jesus?" Theo, I have my share of doubts that the Carpenter from Nazareth ever existed, so I'm not willing to give a definite yes-or-no on that question. But the "altruistic Jesus" has just as much claim to historicity as the "Dying and Risen Christ" ... which is to say, not bloody much.
That's precisely why I have my doubts about the supernatural elements--because many of the conventional elements are anhistoric.
Why in the world not? It's worked for the Church for almost 2000 years!
None taken, nor intended on my part.
- Status