Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 832600

Shown: posts 23 to 47 of 78. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Jesus is Savior

Posted by Sigismund on June 4, 2008, at 20:12:36

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior IAMtheWalrus, posted by rayww on June 4, 2008, at 17:39:39

>Many times in the NT Jesus calls to his Father in Heaven, never as though He were speaking to himself. "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible.

Well yes. When was the Trinity thought up? The Council of Nicea?

 

Re: Jesus is Savior rayww

Posted by Sigismund on June 5, 2008, at 3:27:09

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior, posted by rayww on June 4, 2008, at 17:53:20

>I'm sorry, it makes no sense whatsoever

I hope you are interested because there is a bit to type.

"Contemporary atheism is a Christian heresy that differs from earlier heresies chiefly in its intellectual crudity. This is nowhere clearer than in its view of religion itself. Marx held to a reductive view in which religion was a by-product of repression; but he was clear that it expressed the deepest human aspirations - it was not only the opiate of the masses, but also 'the heart of a heartless world'. The French Positivists wanted to replace Christianity with a ridiculous Reigion of Humanity; but they understood that religion answered to universal human ends. Only a very creduluos philosopher could believe that showing religion to be an illusion could make it disappear. That assumes that the human mind is an organ attuned to truth - a quasi-Platonic conception that is closer to religion than science and inconsistent with Darwinism. Yet such seems to be the view of contemporary unbelievers.

The chief significance of evangelical atheism is in demonstrating the unreality of secularisation. Talk of secularism is meaningful when it refers to the weakness of traditional religious beliefor the lack of powers of churches and other religios bodies. That is what is meant when we say Britain is a more secular country than the United States, and in this sense secularism is an achievable condition. But if it means a type of society from which religion is absent, secularism is a kind of contradiction, for it is defines by what it excludes. Post-Christian secular societies are formed by the beliefs they reject, whereas a society that had truly left Christianity behind would lack the concepts that shaped secular thought.

Like other ideas secularism has a history. Pre-Christian Europe lacked the distinction between the secular and the sacred in much the same way as poytheistic cultures do. The world itself was sacred, and there could be no question of confining religion to a private sphere - the very idea of religion as a set of practices distinct from the rest of life was lacking. A domain seperate from the sacred was recognised only when Augustine distinguished between the City of Man and the City of God. In this sense secular thinking is a legacy of Christianity and has no meaning except in a context of monotheism. In East Asia, polytheism has lived side by side with mystical philosophies in much the same way that the two coexisted in pre-Christian Europe, and the clash between science and religion that has polarized western societies has not taken place. It is no accident that Darwinism has not triggered culture-war in China or Japan."

 

Re: Jesus is Savior Sigismund

Posted by rayww on June 5, 2008, at 22:15:24

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior rayww, posted by Sigismund on June 5, 2008, at 3:27:09

> I hope you are interested because there is a bit to type.

<<<
thank-you for taking the time. I had to find some quiet time just to read it, and surprisingly it did make sense. It explains the where and why and how of the origins of belief, religious or secular.

It appears the only way for man to sort this out is to have a visit from God himself.

Genealogists have discovered there is a point in research where one's direct ancestor count begins to narrow, rather than expand. We each have something like 735 9th great grand parents, and the number grows fast beyond that, but then it begins to decrease, hinting that we all have a common ancestor. Christians, Jews, perhaps some eastern religions believe that.

Has God ever visited the earth in person? YES. And he commanded that a record should be kept so that we all could know. (to some it is given to see, others to believe on their words) BUT: "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world".

God taught Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They spoke the language of God. The first man and woman could read and write. They were very intelligent. They knew more than we know about creation, the stars and heavens, plants and animals. But when that semi-mortal state ended at the time of the Fall, they were separated from God. They no longer walked and talked with God, but their foundation (religion) was sure. They were given the law of sacrifice, to remind them the day would come when God would be the sacrifice for man, and make it possible to return. Some of their kids rebelled and followed Satan rather than God. Cain was taught by Satan to kill and get gain, so he killed his brother Abel. From there they drifted all over the world, until the flood (earth's baptism), then the continents were divided, and so on.

Evolution prepared the earth to be able to house man, but our ancestors date back to one man and one woman, according to genealogists.

God has appeared, angels have appeared, voices have been heard, and we have witnesses and evidence of the events. The LORD has never done or said anything unless there was 2 or 3 witnesses at least.

What you wrote was interesting, but aren't we glad we don't have to sort through all of the philosophies of man to find religion?

I am.

 

Re: Jesus is Savior..pls read IAMtheWalrus

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 7:55:55

In reply to Jesus is Savior, posted by IAMtheWalrus on June 2, 2008, at 21:03:40

> Jesus is Savior, Lord and Creator, He gave His life for you and me.
>
> He was the promised son of Abraham, descendant of David in a foriegn land, Angels did tell of His glorious coming born in Bethlehem.
>
> He is the one hope of the nations, He is the Great I AM!
>
> -W


Don't forget, the point is Jesus died for you, for all of us, for sins, and endured suffering, injustice, pain, despair and doubt. Only by remembering and embracing this can we understand Jesus' and our place in the world. It is humbling, at least. Just because you realize his 'greatness' does not mean we are 'greatness'.
That is false glory. Jesus was born in a barn, with smelly animals, and straw and sh*t. Nothing wrong or bad about that, and nothing glorifying about that either.

Jay

 

Re: Jesus is Savior..pls read Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by IAMtheWalrus on June 24, 2008, at 10:15:19

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior..pls read IAMtheWalrus, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 7:55:55

> > Jesus is Savior, Lord and Creator, He gave His life for you and me.
> >
> > He was the promised son of Abraham, descendant of David in a foriegn land, Angels did tell of His glorious coming born in Bethlehem.
> >
> > He is the one hope of the nations, He is the Great I AM!
> >
> > -W
>
>
> Don't forget, the point is Jesus died for you, for all of us, for sins, and endured suffering, injustice, pain, despair and doubt. Only by remembering and embracing this can we understand Jesus' and our place in the world. It is humbling, at least. Just because you realize his 'greatness' does not mean we are 'greatness'.
> That is false glory. Jesus was born in a barn, with smelly animals, and straw and sh*t. Nothing wrong or bad about that, and nothing glorifying about that either.
>
> Jay
>
>
I know...the above are lyrics from a favorite song of mine.

-W

 

Lou's request for clarification-sumfundtns? Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2008, at 10:41:22

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior..pls read IAMtheWalrus, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 7:55:55

J_B_F_,
You wrote,[...for all of us...only by remembering and embracing (a foundation of Christianity)can we understand...our place in the world...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement in question here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity ro respond accordingly.
A.In,[...for {all} of >us<...], who are the {us} that you are referring to?
B. In,[...{only} by remembering and embracing (a foundation of Christianity)can >we< understand...>our< place in the world...],(1) who are the {we} that you are referring to? (2), who are the people in the {our} that you are referring to?(3)this has been redacted by respondent
Lou

 

Lou's request for clarification-zroastr IAMtheWalrus

Posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2008, at 17:46:11

In reply to Re: Jesus is Savior..pls read Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by IAMtheWalrus on June 24, 2008, at 10:15:19

I_A_t_W,
You wrote,[...Jesus was born in a barn, with smelly animals...].
Could you post here the authority, if you are wanting to mean that the statement is true, that you use to write that statement above? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr

Posted by Sigismund on June 24, 2008, at 18:18:19

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-zroastr IAMtheWalrus, posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2008, at 17:46:11

I was born into an "Onward Christian Soldiers' sort of Christianity which much later made me oversensitive to certain types of glory.

(I don't see how it is that much different to getting up in the morning and shouting out 'We are the greatest', three times before breakfast.)

That's my problem with Heaven actually...so much glory, the Sanctus from Bach's B minor Mass notwithstanding.

 

Salvation

Posted by Sigismund on June 24, 2008, at 18:24:26

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr, posted by Sigismund on June 24, 2008, at 18:18:19

Not all religions have this idea.
Not Buddhism nor Taoism at any rate.
It's just the monotheistic religions?
Would that be right?

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-sumfundtns? Lou Pilder

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 22:59:01

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-sumfundtns? Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Lou Pilder on June 24, 2008, at 10:41:22

> J_B_F_,
> You wrote,[...for all of us...only by remembering and embracing (a foundation of Christianity)can we understand...our place in the world...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the statement in question here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity ro respond accordingly.
> A.In,[...for {all} of >us<...], who are the {us} that you are referring to?
> B. In,[...{only} by remembering and embracing (a foundation of Christianity)can >we< understand...>our< place in the world...],(1) who are the {we} that you are referring to? (2), who are the people in the {our} that you are referring to?(3)this has been redacted by respondent
> Lou

Okay, I am a bit confused, to be honest Lou. I really want to discuss this with you, so I hope you will be patient with me if I miss something. :) Ummm..refering to us, I say every living being, and that will be argued by some that it is only exclusive to certain groups of people. I have my references, and will get them out if anyone wishes. I dont believe Jesus died and suffered for just Christians sins, but all of humanitys. The same applies to your other parts of the question. I dont believe in all of this self-righteous attitude where people brag about their being Christian and it being supreme. Martin Luther again talked a bit about that in the 16th century. That is a man-made egotistical Glory
attitude, made for ones ego. I am a very progressive Christian Lou, and try to be very tolerant and as graceful as possible, as the underlying theme of the Scriptures is Grace.

Hope that helps
Jay


 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 23:23:41

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr, posted by Sigismund on June 24, 2008, at 18:18:19

> I was born into an "Onward Christian Soldiers' sort of Christianity which much later made me oversensitive to certain types of glory.
>
> (I don't see how it is that much different to getting up in the morning and shouting out 'We are the greatest', three times before breakfast.)
>
> That's my problem with Heaven actually...so much glory, the Sanctus from Bach's B minor Mass notwithstanding.

What I was trying to get at in my post. Theology of the Cross takes us away from our own selfish attitudes, and self-righteousness of the bless-me clubs, and the Glory clubs. One interesting little fact. In the book Whats So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey, he notes that Jesus spent far more time with sinners and outcasts then saints. The sinners had no pretense and where honest, while the Saints put on airs, judged him, and sought to catch him in a moral trap.

The Glorified always tried to force a happy face, no matter what. According to the theology of the cross, who Jesus was and what he taught constitutes our most sure knowledge of God. True knowledge of God (and therefore hope) comes from knowing that in Christ God comes near to us in mercy and love. True knowledge of God, that is, then comes from knowing grace.

So, it follows, therefore, that the theological category that most makes sense of Christian hope is NOT optimism; it is Grace. Heaven's Gates may feel more like the deepest love you've ever known, not some typical setting of the Gates and trumpets and all.

Jay

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Sigismund on June 25, 2008, at 2:59:24

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 23:23:41

>What I was trying to get at in my post. Theology of the Cross takes us away from our own selfish attitudes, and self-righteousness of the bless-me clubs, and the Glory clubs.

Well yes, I understand what you are saying.

Am I right in thinking that the history of those countries with a Christian heritage has been uniquely awful?

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 25, 2008, at 8:58:19

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Sigismund on June 25, 2008, at 2:59:24

> >What I was trying to get at in my post. Theology of the Cross takes us away from our own selfish attitudes, and self-righteousness of the bless-me clubs, and the Glory clubs.
>
> Well yes, I understand what you are saying.
>
> Am I right in thinking that the history of those countries with a Christian heritage has been uniquely awful?
>
>

Well, every country and religion has it's challenges.
It bothers me somewhat that some people treat their religion like the way they treat taking their dog out for a walk. Many people just don't want to "get their hands dirty", and get to the heart of Scripture. Scripture is drama, poetry, verse, song. It still leaves many things open to interpretation. Even amongst different versions of the Bible, you can find things tilted in a different direction. So, I would say, it is the people, not the religion that has caused so many problems.

Jay :) IMHO...

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Sigismund on June 25, 2008, at 20:27:49

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 25, 2008, at 8:58:19

When I reflected on this I realised that the only terrible series of events committed by a nation without a Christian background that I knew anything about was the Japanese war in WWII.

 

Lou's request for clarification-sigmafndtns? Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 25, 2008, at 20:53:26

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 24, 2008, at 23:23:41

> > I was born into an "Onward Christian Soldiers' sort of Christianity which much later made me oversensitive to certain types of glory.
> >
> > (I don't see how it is that much different to getting up in the morning and shouting out 'We are the greatest', three times before breakfast.)
> >
> > That's my problem with Heaven actually...so much glory, the Sanctus from Bach's B minor Mass notwithstanding.
>
>
>
> What I was trying to get at in my post. Theology of the Cross takes us away from our own selfish attitudes, and self-righteousness of the bless-me clubs, and the Glory clubs. One interesting little fact. In the book Whats So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey, he notes that Jesus spent far more time with sinners and outcasts then saints. The sinners had no pretense and where honest, while the Saints put on airs, judged him, and sought to catch him in a moral trap.
>
> The Glorified always tried to force a happy face, no matter what. According to the theology of the cross, who Jesus was and what he taught constitutes our most sure knowledge of God. True knowledge of God (and therefore hope) comes from knowing that in Christ God comes near to us in mercy and love. True knowledge of God, that is, then comes from knowing grace.
>
> So, it follows, therefore, that the theological category that most makes sense of Christian hope is NOT optimism; it is Grace. Heaven's Gates may feel more like the deepest love you've ever known, not some typical setting of the Gates and trumpets and all.
>
> Jay
>
> Jay,
You wrote,[...Tyeology of the cross...According to the theology of the cross, who Jesus was and what he taught constitutes our {most sure} (a foundation of Christianity). True knowledge of God...comes from knowing that in (a foundation of Christianity)...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the following in the grammatical structure of your statement and if you could clarify this for me, and if you could identify or post an authority, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.Could you identify what is the {theology of the cross} that, I guess, describes who Jesus was and what he taught that constitutes our most (a foundation of Christianity}? And is the {our} the same as in a previous post here?
B.in,[...true knowledge of God comes from knowing that in Christ (a foundation of Christianity)...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by the above and if you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond acordingly.
This request for clarification in part B has been redacted by respondent.
Lou


 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-sigmafndtns? Lou PIlder

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 1:40:47

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-sigmafndtns? Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Lou PIlder on June 25, 2008, at 20:53:26

Lou, this webpage explains it a bit better then I do. Now it's a translated page from a PDF file, so it has weird colours all over it, but it's a good read. Let me know what you think. It's probably one of the foundations of the Lutheran church, even though I am not Lutheran,(I am Catholic if it matters) I find it pretty strong and logical stuff.
Here is the addy (I used tiny url for length):
http://tinyurl.com/5grktr

Jay

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 1:58:28

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Sigismund on June 25, 2008, at 20:27:49

> When I reflected on this I realised that the only terrible series of events committed by a nation without a Christian background that I knew anything about was the Japanese war in WWII.

Yea, I think you are onto something. I think the Christian faith has largely been hijacked by very rich and/or powerful individuals with their own agendas. And yep, they are usually white males.(Being one myself..lol.) A-bombs, Concentration camps, Vietnam, Iraq...etc. John McCain is saying he'd be happy and would have no problem if the Iraq invasion continued for another 100 years.

Yey.
Jay.

 

Lou's request for clarification-pshumphoundtns? Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 6:47:06

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-sigmafndtns? Lou PIlder, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 1:40:47

J_B_F,
In the post that I am responding to here, you offered a link. Clicking on the link and looking at (3), that starts out with [...Whereas the theologian of glory...], then looking at the 2end paragraph we find;
[...Only the (a foundation of many groups in Christianity) "who have been reduced to nothing are (a foundation of many groups of Christianity). All other roads(a foundation of many groups of Christianity).
I am unsure as to the following and if you could clarify/identify/or give an authority for, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.Do you agree with what the author purports in the statement in question here in your offered link as to be true?
B. If so, what could be the basis for you to agree that the statement is true?
C. If the statement in question is a belief of yours, what does that mean, in your theology, to those that are not members of the group of [...Only the (a foundation of many groups of Christianity)...] as to the road that they are following that is a different road from the one in the statement in question?
D. If you do not believe the statement in question here is true, could you post here that so that those that are on a different road than the one in the statement in question could think that their road is not closed?
E. this part has been redacted by the respondent
Lou

 

Finding the statment in question ithe offered link

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 7:02:58

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-pshumphoundtns? Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 6:47:06

> J_B_F,
> In the post that I am responding to here, you offered a link. Clicking on the link and looking at (3), that starts out with [...Whereas the theologian of glory...], then looking at the 2end paragraph we find;
> [...Only the (a foundation of many groups in Christianity) "who have been reduced to nothing are (a foundation of many groups of Christianity). All other roads(a foundation of many groups of Christianity).
> I am unsure as to the following and if you could clarify/identify/or give an authority for, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A.Do you agree with what the author purports in the statement in question here in your offered link as to be true?
> B. If so, what could be the basis for you to agree that the statement is true?
> C. If the statement in question is a belief of yours, what does that mean, in your theology, to those that are not members of the group of [...Only the (a foundation of many groups of Christianity)...] as to the road that they are following that is a different road from the one in the statement in question?
> D. If you do not believe the statement in question here is true, could you post here that so that those that are on a different road than the one in the statement in question could think that their road is not closed?
> E. this part has been redacted by the respondent
> Lou

Friends,
In finding the statement in question in the offered link in question here, the part where #3 could be found in in the part that starts out with [...Deus Absconditus...] separating sections about before the middle of the text. It starts out,[...Luther's theology of the...].
Lou

 

Re: Sorry about that Lou... Lou PIlder

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 8:47:44

In reply to Finding the statment in question ithe offered link, posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 7:02:58

I'm sorry...it was late and I should have pointed that out Lou. There is the the whole story and life of Martin Luther there. Thanks for pointing that out..:)

Jay

 

Lou's request for clarification-wknmybbybkhom Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 8:56:17

In reply to Re: Sorry about that Lou... Lou PIlder, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 8:47:44

> I'm sorry...it was late and I should have pointed that out Lou. There is the the whole story and life of Martin Luther there. Thanks for pointing that out..:)
>
> Jay

Jay,
You wrote,[...it was late and I should have pointed that out...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by the grammatical structure of your reply to me here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In [...{it} was late...],what was the {it} that was late and what are you wanting to mean by {late}?
B. In,[...I should have pointed {that} out...],what is the {that} that should have been pointed out and what are you wanting to mean that it {should have been} pointed out?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Sigismund on June 26, 2008, at 16:39:56

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 1:58:28

John McCain is by no means the worst of it though, although I'm pretty ignorant.

What about The Family?

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr

Posted by Sigismund on June 26, 2008, at 17:06:23

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Sigismund on June 26, 2008, at 16:39:56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29

I think they believe in the divine aspect of power.
Which kinda reminds me of this, for reasons that escape me.
It has something to do with faith.
But what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=555jxltr9Zo

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund

Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 20:15:18

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr, posted by Sigismund on June 26, 2008, at 17:06:23

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29
>
> I think they believe in the divine aspect of power.
> Which kinda reminds me of this, for reasons that escape me.
> It has something to do with faith.
> But what?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=555jxltr9Zo
>
>

Ummm...I don't think this is correct. The Lutheran Church is where you will find the information. It has nothing to do with these psuedo-religions.

Jay

 

Lou's request for clarification-psudoh Jay_Bravest_Face

Posted by Lou PIlder on June 26, 2008, at 20:42:34

In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-zroastr Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on June 26, 2008, at 20:15:18

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29
> >
> > I think they believe in the divine aspect of power.
> > Which kinda reminds me of this, for reasons that escape me.
> > It has something to do with faith.
> > But what?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=555jxltr9Zo
> >
> >
>
> Ummm...I don't think this is correct. The Lutheran Church is where you will find the information. It has nothing to do with these psuedo-religions.
>
> Jay

Jay ,
You wrote,[...these psuedo-religions...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could clarify the following, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.What is the criteria that you use to determine if a religion is a psuedo-religion or not?
B. What is the criteria that you use to determine if a religion is not a pseudo-religion?
C. This part has been redacted by the respondent
Lou


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.