the right religion

[waitasec]

You ought to know you were posting at the same time. I think it was either this one or the bible infallability one.

ok
i thought you guys had something going on, on the side...

If you wish to choose another one that is fine, as my job will be even easier.

philippians 2:3

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves....

do you suppose "others" are fellow believers or everyone?

 

[1robin]

ok
i thought you guys had something going on, on the side...

It is the one where I said you were arguing by proxy.

philippians 2:3

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves....

do you suppose "others" are fellow believers or everyone?

Do you have a very large wheel with hundreds of verses on it that you spin every post and just state which ever one the wheel stops on? What is the context for this, our former discussion on who brothers are? Now are you asking who others are?

 

[Straw Dog]

Would the one true religion really be this difficult to discern? Why would a deity make things so ambiguous to begin with? A lot of these issues could be easily resolved simply by the deity revealing itself openly to the world and communicating directly and clearly rather than going through third parties thousands of years ago.

This assumes such an enity was personal in the manner described in Christianity for example. Being personal implies direct communication and intimacy. I know this is a requirement for my personal relationships at least. Commissioning others to speak and write on my behalf in order to tell people how I feel about them and making this the basis for my "personal" relationship with them seems like a very impersonal method.

 

[1robin]

Would the one true religion really be this difficult to discern? Why would a deity make things so ambiguous to begin with? A lot of these issues could be easily resolved simply by the deity revealing itself openly to the world and communicating directly and clearly rather than going through third parties thousands of years ago.

This assumes such an enity was personal in the manner described in Christianity for example. Being personal implies direct communication and intimacy. I know this is a requirement for my personal relationships at least. Commissioning others to speak and write on my behalf in order to tell people how I feel about them and making this the basis for my "personal" relationship with them seems like a very impersonal method.

If you accept Christ as savior whatever your definition of personal relationship will take on a new and greater meaning.

 

[Straw Dog]

If you accept Christ as savior whatever your definition of personal relationship will take on a new and greater meaning.

But how and why would I accept Christ as savior whenever I've never even met him or had any personal interactions to begin with? How would I decipher his existence or non-existence separate from just a figment of my imagination?

What is the new and greater meaning? And how is it different from my normal understanding of what a personal relationship entails?

 

[1robin]

But how and why would I accept Christ as savior whenever I've never even met him or had any personal interactions to begin with? How would I decipher his existence or non-existence separate from just a figment of my imagination?

Do you believe Ceasur, Xerxes, Plato, Socrates ever existed? There is far more evidence for Christ than all these others put together. Think of how many things you accept as factual in your own life like Love, astetic value, morality for which there is NO empiricle evidence. Jesus can been known better than many of the people who we believe in everyday. Human histories greatest expert in evidence presentation said the evidence concerning Jesus meets every demand of modern Jurice Prudence. He literally wrote THE book on evidence (Simon Greenleaf). Here is what even a non-Chrsitian scholar said:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.


Sounds like a person that can be known well by even non believers.

What is the new and greater meaning? And how is it different from my normal understanding of what a personal relationship entails?

The bible says it this way.

Proverbs 18:24 - A man that hath friends must show himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Scripture says there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. This friend is Jesus. When one considers the closeness of brothers, brothers biologically, brothers in combat, brothers in tragedy, a bond is realized that lasts for a lifetime. This is the bond that Jesus wants to have with each of us. He gave His life to do away with the separation between man and God, to close the chasm, if you will.
Closer Than A Brother | Words of Inspiration Blog

He also promised that once he comes into your heart (literally) when you are born again that he will never leave you nor forsake you. How many friends are missing from your life? How many loved you enough to suffer unimaginable horrors for you even though you didn't know them?


In my case he instantly removed the fear of death, many desires for bad habits I couldn't break, the pain and depression that my mother's death and other losses had left as well as the guilt associated with sin. I felt like a brand new person for many days after I was born again. No other person ever did or could do any of these things for me.

 

[waitasec]

It is the one where I said you were arguing by proxy.




Do you have a very large wheel with hundreds of verses on it that you spin every post and just state which ever one the wheel stops on? What is the context for this, our former discussion on who brothers are? Now are you asking who others are?

i am trying to figure out christian theology...
so answer the question?

does others in this context imply everyone or a fellow believer?

since you so freely exhibit hubris i am to assume you understand others to mean a fellow believer...am i correct?

 

[Straw Dog]

Sounds like a person that can be known well by even non believers.

There's a difference between some sources mentioning that there was a man named Jesus who led a Jewish sect and those sources somehow confirming that mainstream Christian doctrines are completely true and perfectly articulate what Jesus taught. This is actually besides the point I'm trying to make, however. For the time being, let's say that there is no consensus among scholars.

My understanding of a "personal" relationship involves direct interaction and intimacy. I'm being told that the Christian God is personal and yet I have to be almost wholly dependent upon what is written in the Bible in order to have any hope of understanding him. It just seems like a very inefficient and impersonal form of communication for a deity that is said to be all-knowing. So you see I have reason to doubt before I even approach the validity of the scriptures in question.

Wouldn't such an entity be more concerned with communicating in a much more direct and clear manner in real-time? Instead I'm told he only communicates through the Bible or through ambiguous signs that seem a lot like coincidences. What prevents him from addressing an entire congregation of followers with clear and concise communication? Is he unable to do this? Why?

How do you treat your loved ones? Did you commission some other people to write your thoughts down for you in a book conveying what you wanted to say and then cease communicating with them for the rest of their lives? Would your loved one consider this to be a personal relationship?

He also promised that once he comes into your heart (literally) when you are born again that he will never leave you nor forsake you. How many friends are missing from your life? How many loved you enough to suffer unimaginable horrors for you even though you didn't know them?

In my case he instantly removed the fear of death, many desires for bad habits I couldn't break, the pain and depression that my mother's death and other losses had left as well as the guilt associated with sin. I felt like a brand new person for many days after I was born again. No other person ever did or could do any of these things for me.

Interesting. I also felt like a brand new person whenever I started putting philosophical Taoism and Zen meditation into practice. My depression subsided and I was able to overcome addictions and attachments that were holding me back. My willpower has strengthened and I'm now able to resist some harmful habits as well. Maybe we're not so different after all.

 

[1robin]

i am trying to figure out christian theology...
so answer the question?

does others in this context imply everyone or a fellow believer?

since you so freely exhibit hubris i am to assume you understand others to mean a fellow believer...am i correct?

Let me see, others is actually allēlōn in Greek. It means:

1) one another, reciprocally, mutually
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

I does not seem to exclude anyone. What did I win?

This seems consistent with the commentators.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Probably there is no command of the Bible which would have a wider sweep than this, or would touch on more points of human conduct, it fairly applied.
Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

If you actually wanted answers and are not not here for a word fight then five minutes at these two site will give you very accurate and reliable answers (Greek, Definitions, commentary) to your questions. If not then by all means carry on.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

 

[waitasec]

Let me see, others is actually allēlōn in Greek. It means:

1) one another, reciprocally, mutually
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

I does not seem to exclude anyone. What did I win?

This seems consistent with the commentators.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Probably there is no command of the Bible which would have a wider sweep than this, or would touch on more points of human conduct, it fairly applied.
Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

If you actually wanted answers and are not not here for a word fight then five minutes at these two site will give you very accurate and reliable answers (Greek, Definitions, commentary) to your questions. If not then by all means carry on.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

so in relation to this passage are you considering me to be better than yourself?

 

[1robin]

There's a difference between some sources mentioning that there was a man named Jesus who led a Jewish sect and those sources somehow confirming that mainstream Christian doctrines are completely true and perfectly articulate what Jesus taught. This is actually besides the point I'm trying to make, however. For the time being, let's say that there is no consensus among scholars.

Is there ever? And yet we make countless decisions every day of faith on far far less evidence than the bible gives for Jesus.

My understanding of a "personal" relationship involves direct interaction and intimacy. I'm being told that the Christian God is personal and yet I have to be almost wholly dependent upon what is written in the Bible in order to have any hope of understanding him. It just seems like a very inefficient and impersonal form of communication for a deity that is said to be all-knowing. So you see I have reason to doubt before I even approach the validity of the scriptures in question.

You do so in order to reach him but after that direct revelation is available. All of us are born disconnected from God only after we have bridged the gap through Christ is there intimacy which is very important and real with Christ.

Wouldn't such an entity be more concerned with communicating in a much more direct and clear manner in real-time? Instead I'm told he only communicates through the Bible or through ambiguous signs that seem a lot like coincidences. What prevents him from addressing an entire congregation of followers with clear and concise communication? Is he unable to do this? Why?

I find that a finite mind with an infinately small percentage of available knowledge and very little access to God's purposes can't meaningfully comment on what an infinate mind with all knowledge (Past, present, and future) and a full understanding of purpose should or should not do. The fact that there have been billions of believers suggest that there is a suffeciency of evidence. I do not mean billions of people who have made a superficial commitment to an ideal or been forced to. I mean billions who claim to have been born again and know Christ personally. No other religion offers and even demands this two way street.

How do you treat your loved ones? Did you commission some other people to write your thoughts down for you in a book conveying what you wanted to say and then cease communicating with them for the rest of their lives? Would your loved one consider this to be a personal relationship?

I am not God. I have had many intimate relationships with people. Mine with Christ is far more real and meaningful. Remeber until you believe there is no personal relationship with him. Cart before horse.

Interesting. I also felt like a brand new person whenever I started putting philosophical Taoism and Zen meditation into practice. My depression subsided and I was able to overcome addictions and attachments that were holding me back. My willpower has strengthened and I'm now able to resist some harmful habits as well. Maybe we're not so different after all.

I have no access to your claims and can not offer meaningfull comments on them. Even if true your philosophy won't help when you die.

 

[waitasec]

Is there ever? And yet we make countless decisions every day of faith on far far less evidence than the bible gives for Jesus.

and what of those that did put their faith in jesus only to see that it was unfulfilling...did they get it all wrong...?
what am i saying, of course they did...
:sarcastic

 

[1robin]

so in relation to this passage are you considering me to be better than yourself?

I don't see outside of your mind how they are related. To humor you I would say yes (maybe more fortunate is more applicable) in a biblical sence but not necessarily in a moral sence. I don't know you well.

 

[waitasec]

I don't see outside of your mind how they are related. To humor you I would say yes (maybe more fortunate is more applicable) in a biblical sence but not necessarily in a moral sence. I don't know you well.

let me get this straight...
you are considering me to be more fortunate than you...why?
being that i am deceived by the devil and all.


edit:
curious, what is the difference between biblical sense and a moral sense?

 

[1robin]

let me get this straight...
you are considering me to be more fortunate than you...why?

What? I said in a biblical context that I could be considered more fortunate than you.

being that i am deceived by the devil and all.

No emotion does not play any role in your position.

curious, what is the difference between biblical sense and a moral sense?

IMO it is possible to be morally superior and still be unsaved and the other way around. Heaven isn't a reward for good behavior. It is the result of regret and admission of bad behavior. However a Christian should be moral so he is effective and properly represents Christ.

 

[waitasec]

What? I said in a biblical context that I could be considered more fortunate than you.

you misunderstood my question...

so in relation to this passage are you considering me to be better than yourself?

I don't see outside of your mind how they are related. To humor you I would say yes (maybe more fortunate is more applicable) in a biblical sence but not necessarily in a moral sence. I don't know you well.

so you are considering yourself to be more fortunate despite what philippians 2:3 says

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves....

where is the humility in that?

 

[1robin]

you misunderstood my question...

Who wouldn't

so you are considering yourself to be more fortunate despite what philippians 2:3 says

That verse has no connection to my statement.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves....

where is the humility in that?

You take a statement that commands people to be humble and then ask where is the humility. It must be getting late.

 

[waitasec]

Who wouldn't




That verse has no connection to my statement.

You take a statement that commands people to be humble and then ask where is the humility. It must be getting late.

i'll ask you once more

are you supposed to be considering others to be better than yourself in philippians 2:3?

if so, then why would you consider yourself to be more fortunate than me, biblically speaking?

 

[Straw Dog]

Is there ever? And yet we make countless decisions every day of faith on far far less evidence than the bible gives for Jesus.

I don't need to ask a scholar if I should drink water when I'm thirsty.

You do so in order to reach him but after that direct revelation is available. All of us are born disconnected from God only after we have bridged the gap through Christ is there intimacy which is very important and real with Christ.

What distinguishes a direct revelation from the workings of a powerful imagination?

I find that a finite mind with an infinately small percentage of available knowledge and very little access to God's purposes can't meaningfully comment on what an infinate mind with all knowledge (Past, present, and future) and a full understanding of purpose should or should not do. The fact that there have been billions of believers suggest that there is a suffeciency of evidence. I do not mean billions of people who have made a superficial commitment to an ideal or been forced to. I mean billions who claim to have been born again and know Christ personally. No other religion offers and even demands this two way street.

So we cannot possibly understand God's purposes with our finite minds? And yet I'm being told that you do understand God's purposes, or that the witnesses written about in the Bible were able to adequately comprehend an infinite mind somehow? So can we understand God's purposes or not? If we can to some degree, but our understanding is limited, then how can you be so sure of mainstream Christian dogma?

Appeal to popularity. It's equivalent to saying, "All your friends are believing it!" Since history shows that large groups of people can be dead wrong about their beliefs, I find such an appeal unconvincing. Billions of people believe in Islam, so does that grant a degree of validity to their beliefs?

All religions are unique in their own way advocating different solutions to different problems. Uniqueness does not imply truthfulness.

I am not God. I have had many intimate relationships with people. Mine with Christ is far more real and meaningful. Remeber until you believe there is no personal relationship with him. Cart before horse.

This is very telling. The fact that you have to believe it before it becomes real indicates that it may be unsubstantiated to begin with. There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but you have to believe there is before it becomes true.

I don't have to believe that my girlfriend exists in order for her existence to be substantiated. I had the chance to interact with her directly for a while and develop intimacy as we cultivated our personal relationship. You're saying that I just have to believe and love God before any actual intimate interaction may take place and even then these supposed interactions are ambiguous and abstract, as well as wholly dependent upon my believing that they even happen. It seems your God is dependent upon belief and would cease to exist without it.

You still haven't addressed why having a simple, clear, concise, and direct form of communication between man and God in real time in daily life isn't a much better method than relying on a two thousand year old book open to interpretation and written by flawed human beings.

Why doesn't God just openly address an entire congregation of his followers in an open communication? Can't you ask him why? Wouldn't he tell you since you guys supposedly know each other on a personal level?

Let me put it this way: Would a relationship with God be possible without the Bible? Why not? Why is God dependent upon the Bible and belief in order for his existence to be substantiated? Why not just let everyone experience him directly and communicate freely?

I appreciate you attempting to explain this to me, but I just don't get it.

 

[1robin]

I don't need to ask a scholar if I should drink water when I'm thirsty.

We are not dicsussing sich trivial matters.

What distinguishes a direct revelation from the workings of a powerful imagination?

Consistency with the other 750,000 words in the bible. Or many other things. Things like 25,000 historical corroberations, over 2000 fulfilled and detailed prophesies, scientific claims unknowable at the time etc.... make it pretty certain. I am burned out I will try the rest tomorrow.