I hate Christians

Cool Skill,

Do you consider yourself a Christian?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

water,

what is confusing to me is the mixing up of the personal and objective.

a god-fearing individual maybe states "god is love and god rules your ass" (or whatever).

is this a statement of objective fact, or a personal assertion of opinion?

obviously it's an opinion, but when asserted as factual, it seems to me the "asshat" label applies.

i would not say the same for the converse statement "nobody knows about god" because it's in fact, objectively true.... as even those who claim such knowledge from experiences apparently "real" to them have still to question what is "real".

regardless, how to you differentiate between personal and objective statements?

I don't think there is a difference. The personal is the objective in that it is always "how one relates to the world". I suppose it's in the meaning the person intends to project... one might mean "this is the way it is regardless of what is said", which is more bold than "this is how I see it", as the latter only asserts inwardly. Since what is inward is though, a reflection of what is outside.... it's very confusing to me. Relativity becomes necessary as far as I see it, regardless of das ding en sich.

On a conndrum laden side-note: If relativity is necessary regardless of das ding en sich, is that not an unquestionable observation of das ding en sich?... a direct implication?

Bah.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For now, just this:


1. what is confusing to me is the mixing up of the personal and objective.
2. I don't think there is a difference.

Well, how can they be confused then, if there is no difference between the two?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is the confusion. Are they the same, or are they separate... and if they are separate, which is the intention of the speaker?

It seems to me that ultimately they are the same regardless of the assertion of the speaker, but then again... who am I to say?

 

Wes,

I could never quantify my relationship with God and present it to you. It's just something that is meant to be experienced, not communicated. And I contest that is the way it should be. It forces everyone to seek an answer for themselves, and to be accountable for their own life and destiny. So knowledge of God is only objective from a personal viewpoint.

That is not to say that I can't witness honestly and to the best of my ability regarding that relationship and what He's taught me. And that is not to say that those around me haven't been witness to the changes in me and in my life because of it.

Interacting with Him is always humbling. The more He teaches me, the more I realize just how much I don't know, and that I'm in no position to judge others. I'd be doing just fine to be accountable for myself.

 

Quote J:
“Jesus is the human expression of God, and none but God. He does not exist apart from God.”

* OK.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

* Pardon my lack of understanding, but does this imply that Jesus is the word? Does the Bible state that anywhere else? If it does then…

John:
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

* If the Word is god, then seeing (we beheld His glory) Jesus is seeing god. Yet the above verse contradicts that by saying, no one has seen god at “any time”.

So as the human expression of god his character is different to that of the god in the OT. All I am really trying to achieve is to reconcile this paradox:

OT
Character A: "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

And,

NT
Character B: Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

* Does this seem like the same character to you? So if Jesus is god, and as you state Jenyar “Jesus is the human expression of God, and none but God”, how do you explain this disparity as displayed above? Please do not use historical context in your explanation.

Allcare.

 

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.​

The Word, or "divine Logos", is Jesus as the personification of the Gospel (God's good news) - also called "the word of truth" (Col. 1:5). Elsewhere the Holy Spirit is also called "the word of God" (Eph. 6:17).

God's glory (sometimes referred to as his Presence or "Shekinah") is not God in His totality. Here's something for you from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

[Shekinah:] The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper.​

And to that extent - like through a veil - it is possible to see "the Father", and "the Son", but not "God". When you look at "the sun" (especially through a filter), you see only the light, not the core. You don't see it "as it is".

John 14:8-10
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.​

John also explains it:

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.​

But that doesn't mean Jesus was anything less than God (I'm sure you'll appreciate this one better now):

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.​

You've come to believe they are separate, and now you're picking out "evidence" for your belief from the Bible. But like I showed you before, you can find judgment and blessings from God expressed by Jesus just like you find them expressed throughout Israel's history. And haven't you read Revelation? It explains Jesus' work completing God's purpose. You complained about the plagues, but they're all in Revelation as well.

Rev. 6:15-17
Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

(or the rest from "the Word of God" in Rev. 19, which I quoted above...)
"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. 'He will rule them with an iron scepter.' He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."​

Otherwise, you might as well put the plagues of Egypt next to Israel's freedom and say they contradict each other. Jesus's gospel is also called the double-edged sword, just like the OT Law. But then about whom was David speaking when he said:

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me," and "My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life"?​

People like Abraham, Isaac and David definitely experienced God as Christians experience Jesus, so maybe the problem is that there is no comfort without God's Comforter, the Spirit. Or maybe those who don't believe in God's love and mercy can see only His punishment?

 

Then it might be useful and wise to re-assess the question and see it as a problem of general philosophy and cognition, not necessarily just specifically of religion.

Namely, the same problem appears in other fields of observation and cognition as well just like when you point at it, saying, "but then again... who am I to say?".

It is easy to think and to speak, but very hard to explain the processes involved.

 

It depends. Would you give Jesus complete athority over your life according to his word and shut the hell up? You probably would not considering you hate christians.
Therefore, you might consider being a fun loving atheist. An atheist would not because an atheist does not belive such a being exists. Much less the being described in the bible. You obviously hate anybody that is Christian. Perfect for the atheist religion.

 

Is he worse than I was?

 

Religion, n. - a. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. (Oxford English Dictionary -2nd ed. 1989)

Atheism is not, therefore, a religion but a set of beliefs based on that which is tenable or observable rather than beliefs on that which is supernatural.

 

DAMN ! !
Yah mean I am an atheist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I thought I fit more along the lines of an old infidel.
Hell, I wonder just where I do belong. I accept the bible and it's
message as stated. But I sure as hell ain't religious about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's the churches that turned a Kingship government into a religion,
those scoundrelest worshipers of demonocracy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you at it again?
Stop trying. Your flimsy selective definitions mean scrap. Try learning how to read, and provide the whole definition if you are going to quote. I guess you can only porvide half because that is the extent of your brain.

 

Remember:

Let ye whoeth hath not flamest casteth thine further instigations upon such heathenous trolls as those from which speweth forth insults of the most heated, vain and treacherous sort.

- book of equinedungal posseur, worst section, lines: second to worst to worst.

It's important because it is written... fancily even.

 

Of course, sorry for the ignorance, its just, well you know, im used to disscussions with normal, friendly and helpful people, so you see when i cum across a gross, bigotted, dipshit i just dont know what to expect....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

It depends? So you don't really consider yourself a Christian?

You know shit.

 

Yes. Much worse.

 

water, everybody, it was quite clear by the way he went off on one on Adstar that cool skill's only desire is to rile everybody up, regardless of race, colour or (more importantly) creed. Please don't feed the trolls. And, water, don't do that big red text thing again, as you can see it only encouraged more of the same in return. You told him that he knew shit, but you also reposted his big red diatribe exactly as-is, which was more than painful to have to look at ... twice.

 

stretched: yadayadayada the Bible has contradictions in it, big whoop. Jesus = God because the Holy Trinity is a doctrine of the vast majority of Christian sects. The doctrine is not based specifically on the Bible, it is based specifically on theological determinations made in the fourth century and adopted as doctrine. Those determinations may have been based on the Bible, but the Arian "heresy" (which denied that Christ was co-eval with God) was also presumably derived from Biblical readings. Trinitarianism won, Arianism lost. What difference does it really make?

 

Yes when I see it. It's you. Point?