Moral and Christian Misconceptions

Status
Not open for further replies.

theo_victis

New member
What if it is you who are wrong, instead of your friend?

enough with the hypotheticals.... What if your wrong Wiccan? jeesh...

I'm not saying that this is the case ... but I am saying that unless you are willing to consider your friend's side of the discussion with the exact same gravity and seriousness that you expect of your friend, then no matter what excellent arguments you bring to the table ... it will not matter.

I agree. But if you know you are right then how long should you seriously have to contemplate material that you know is false?
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
theo_victis said:
But if you know you are right then how long should you seriously have to contemplate material that you know is false?

: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.

you'd be totally correct if not for humility. Its easy to attribute all the work of a witness to pride when you arent seeing the big picture from the inside.

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?

Sure i have something to offer those around me: the knowledge i've obtained. its no different than watching a friend walk down a dirt path that you know leads to treacherous cliff and warning them prior.

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.

You don't tell them with an ego, attempting to lord your belief over them, you tell them for their own good in hopes that they'll change direction.

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?

Did I just smell an elephant?

Couldn't tell you. I don't spend much time sniffing elephants.

I've sacrficed normalcy to relinquish my long kept ignorance. It never goes past Christ. If it is your contention that the work of missionaries and evanglests is at least slightly for self satsifaction and personal reward I will have to let it be that; your contention. The work I do in witnessing, I do strictly for God. In fact often times i'm ignored which does nothing but tear down my ego. Isnt that counterproductive to an individual seeking to feed his own pride? The answer is yes. I am afraid you are wrong here.

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.

yes, you're correct. I agree fully, as I was short on time I couldnt give enough attention to that particular bit. I really meant it hypothetically. I have a bias against anything that opposes my belief so naturally I believe that his argument is wrong. Naive of me, yes, I can admit that. but hopefully I'll come across a more learned individual who can shed some light...which is why I started this in the first place.

There's nothing about god that you can be taught that you cannot learn on your own.

Exactly, you'll remain comfortable in the ignorance you surround yourself in. I dont think the question here would be "who does God love more", but who is being tempted away from God by untruth (Satan maybe..). I'd rather have a harsher outlook, based in reality than succumb to the "ignorance is bliss" modus operandi. But stay by that fire if you must.

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
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Justin (Wiccan) said:
I read your post, and see the sincerity ... I know that you care about your friend. But let me ask you this--what if the situation was simply one where a friend was making a decision that you thought was foolish or wrong.

What if it is you who are wrong, instead of your friend?

I'm not saying that this is the case ... but I am saying that unless you are willing to consider your friend's side of the discussion with the exact same gravity and seriousness that you expect of your friend, then no matter what excellent arguments you bring to the table ... it will not matter.

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
 

allsmiles

New member
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!

I'll take this to mean that our discussion is over.

You're welcome.

By the way
[/quote is how you quote, only with a bracket on the end of the final "/quote"

Read anything by Elaine Pagels.
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
allsmiles said:
I'll take this to mean that our discussion is over.

You're welcome.

By the way
[/quote is how you quote, only with a bracket on the end of the final "/quote"

Read anything by Elaine Pagels.


Nice chatting. I like it when people make me think. This site is like a bench press for my mind.

God Bless,
B
 

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.

the fact is that I've done my research and I don't believe he was God. I mean, if you look at the earliest written books in the New Testament, the 4 gospels, only the Gospel of John claims Jesus to be God himself.

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

Furthermore, John's Gospel was the last of the gospels to be written (estimated somewhere around 70 A.D., compared to the Gospel of Mark somehwere around the year 40). In Fact, John was writing this in opposition to to other members of his community who were worshipping John the Baptist as the Messiah, to make Jesus look more superior. Similarly, the divine birth found in the later gospels was a common trait among stories of great men of the time. The current Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar's mother was purported to have been impregnated by a snake who had made his way into her you-know-what while she was sleeping. Now again, I'm not trying to knock your beliefs, just pointing out that there's two sides to every story.

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.


Also, I wouldn't claim that truth doesn't exist. Merely, that people have argued since the dawn of civilization over what truth is. For one person to say they know the truth, without being able to prove it is a futile effort. I have an idea what the truth is, I can't prove it, but I have an idea. Since I can't prove it, I don't try to convince anyone of my beliefs.

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.

And finally, just for the record, even if your religion is true I really don't think any of us non-christians are going to Hell.

Point out New Testament verses that oppose this (See the book of Romans).

You see, the Jews (whose religion yours is based on) never even believed in Hell in the old days. Nor did they have stories of Satan. Hell was invented around the time of the prophet Daniel, somewhere around 500 B.C. during the Babylonian exile.

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.

Quick sidenote: when the Jews were freed by the Persian conqueror Cyrus after he defeated the Babylonians they believed that he was the Messiah for a few centuries. Not that it has anything to do with this convo, i just always thought that was interesting."

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:
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
theo_victis said:
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.


Thank you very much for your help! Great stuff. If you ever need a favor I'll do what I can.

God Bless,
B
 

beanieboy

New member
death2impeity said:
I always hear non-believers say that they think Jesus was a great person. I don't understand what it is about him that they find so great if they don't believe that he was the son of God. To a nonbeliever, Jesus can be nothing more than a lying, sneaky, insane individual. But maybe thats what they find so alluring :kookoo:

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
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.

Have you ever read the bible?
 

allsmiles

New member
I agree with BB's assessment, that jesus provides a better example of how to better yourself through benefiting your fellow man, rather than simply benefiting yourself.
 

theo_victis

New member
Beabie may be a tad closer to the truth than some here would like to accept ... especially considering how historically problematic the Bible is.

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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
theo_victis said:
If the Bible is so problematic than how can you accept BBs rendering?

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.

If the divine or supernatural elements of the NT are problematic or historically innaccurate then why wouldnt the rest be?

That's precisely why I have my doubts about the supernatural elements--because many of the conventional elements are anhistoric.

You guys cant just pick and choose what Jesus would have or could have said ...

Why in the world not? It's worked for the Church for almost 2000 years!

(no offense to anyone)

None taken, nor intended on my part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top