the right religion

[Muffled]

Well I guess fundamentalist, is the new fascist, which was the new Bolshevik. You can apparently just label someone out of a discussion if you cannot debate them.

I believe truth is exclusive.
I believe there are fundamental truths.
I believe traditional Christianity is founded on fundamental truths.

I must be a terrible person to hold that position that has done more for the humaneness of humanity than any other world view, including it's mistakes.

Since, only categorizing people instead of debate seems to be all I get from you then I will leave you to it.

I believe you mean in the sense that truth is excluded from being falshood. I don't believe that any group has an exclusive hold on the truth but I do believe that most groups would agree on some very basic fundamental truths. I don't believe that one thinking he has the truth can be categorized as a fundamentalist, since it is eminently possible. I believe I have the truth and do not consider myself a fundamentlist.

I believe this also and I am not a fundamentalist. I believe the appellation is sometimes used to refer to people locked into a particular doctrine. Perhaps it is that they believe their doctrine is irrefutable and therfore fundamentally true.

I believe i am an iconoclast so an appeal to tradition doesn't mean much to me. I believe a proof has to be there whether it is old doctrine or new doctrine.

I have not found that to be so. However I believe the question of whether you are a fundamentalist has not been answered. Perhaps it is because fundamentalism hasn't been defined well enough for you to identfy with it or deny it.

 

[1robin]

That is NOT correct!



*

I have always heard that. I checked it out. I had it exactly backwards. It was a joke anyway.

 

[1robin]

No - I've given you more then enough logical debate.


You are a Christian fundamentalist, and there is no point in trying to debate with you.


Your answer is always the same.


Your God can be a violent, whacko, murderer of babies, and other innocent people, and your answer is, that it is just honkey-dory, because he is God.


That is fundamentalism - not a debate.



*

And your reply is always fundamentally the same. Humans can take lives by the millions for convenience, but God (the author of all life) must check in with you first or he is evil. Now that we have it straight we can drop it but I don't think it will be.

 

[1robin]

I believe those words are not in Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

I believe Jesus does not speak to the chosen of Israel from Heaven but from Mount Zion on earth. Rev 14:1 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.

I believe, however it does not say that they were redeemed from earth to Heaven but that they follow Jesus. Rev 14: 4 These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.

There is no argument the number is not in Revelations (or did you just mean not in the 2nd verse?).

Twice in this book, mention is made of a group consisting of 144,000. In chapter 7:1ff John heard of 144,000 (12,000 each from twelve different Israelite tribes) servants of God who had been sealed on their foreheads. They were thus obviously redeemed people.

Again, in Revelation 14:1ff, John saw the Lamb on Mount Zion. With him were 144,000, sealed with the Father’s name upon their foreheads. This great multitude had been “purchased out of the earth,” and they were said to be the “firstfruits unto God and unto the Lamb.”
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/604-who-are-the-144-000-of-revelation-7-and-14

The only question is who these people are. I believe they are martyrs of the end times, but this is the only debatable point.

 

[1robin]

I believe you mean in the sense that truth is excluded from being falshood. I don't believe that any group has an exclusive hold on the truth but I do believe that most groups would agree on some very basic fundamental truths. I don't believe that one thinking he has the truth can be categorized as a fundamentalist, since it is eminently possible. I believe I have the truth and do not consider myself a fundamentlist.

I mean that in most cases truth excludes more than it includes. There is only one shape that is a circle. There is only one you, there is only one or less truths when two mutually exclusive claims are made. There is only one way to heaven. Truth is the most discriminating term ever devised except maybe nothing.

I believe this also and I am not a fundamentalist. I believe the appellation is sometimes used to refer to people locked into a particular doctrine. Perhaps it is that they believe their doctrine is irrefutable and therefore fundamentally true.

I was referring to, for example: unjustly taking life is forbidden for humans. It is not ok if it occurs in the womb. Or that objective morality exists in general. That certain things actually occurred regardless of whether we believe in them. There is good and bad. There is accountability. We are condemned until we accept our pardon. IOW I believe most of the important things are black and white. People who want to do whatever they wish love to make everything grey and ambiguous.

I believe i am an iconoclast so an appeal to tradition doesn't mean much to me. I believe a proof has to be there whether it is old doctrine or new doctrine.

That is not what I am saying. I am not saying things are true because they are traditional. I am saying things become traditional at times because they are true.

Let me illustrate this. I was born again outside of affiliation with any church. Just me, Christ, and the bible. My first thought was I needed to go to church, my second was which one. I decided to read the entire bible and then study the major doctrines and then compare them to denominations. To my surprise my conclusions were pretty much identical with orthodox Protestantism, and almost all of orthodox Catholicism. IOW my understanding of truth turns out to be what has been understood by most to be true for 2000 years. I selected Baptist as the most in line with my understanding but most denominations are consistent with most of my beliefs.

I have not found that to be so. However I believe the question of whether you are a fundamentalist has not been answered. Perhaps it is because fundamentalism hasn't been defined well enough for you to identfy with it or deny it.

I was just kidding. I was saying how terrible it is to hold to the most benevolent traditions in human history. That was to counter that in spite of virtually every moral statistic in the Us getting much worse since the secular revolution of the late 50's, that is called progress.



Fundamentalists is an ambiguous term. If your hold to fundamental truths it is good, if you hold to fundamental falsehoods it is not. However it has been associated in modern times with being stubbornly adherent to falsehoods. So it is now used as a categorical way of taking the moral high ground, even if the person doing so is in the moral basement. Sort of like fascist or bolshevist has been. The word is used as a tactic. I do hold that truth is fundamental and that is a very old and obvious fact. I will accept the label but will deny it's use as a tactic to lump me in with people who are stubbornly ignorant. It has gone so far that many liberal professors deny the entire category of truth these days, just as the bible said would happen, because as Dostoevsky said "If there is no God then all things are permissible" which means if right is not fixed on something objective then it can be whatever someone wishes it to be.

 

[Muffled]

There is no argument the number is not in Revelations (or did you just mean not in the 2nd verse?).

Twice in this book, mention is made of a group consisting of 144,000. In chapter 7:1ff John heard of 144,000 (12,000 each from twelve different Israelite tribes) servants of God who had been sealed on their foreheads. They were thus obviously redeemed people.

Again, in Revelation 14:1ff, John saw the Lamb on Mount Zion. With him were 144,000, sealed with the Father’s name upon their foreheads. This great multitude had been “purchased out of the earth,” and they were said to be the “firstfruits unto God and unto the Lamb.”
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/604-who-are-the-144-000-of-revelation-7-and-14

The only question is who these people are. I believe they are martyrs of the end times, but this is the only debatable point.

I believe they are Jews (as stated by naming the tribes) gathered to Jesus on Mt Zion. Since Mt Zion is in Israel it shouldnt' be too surprising tht they are Jews.

 

[Muffled]

Quote from 1Robin: There is only one way to heaven.

John 10:1 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

 

[1robin]

I believe they are Jews (as stated by naming the tribes) gathered to Jesus on Mt Zion. Since Mt Zion is in Israel it shouldnt' be too surprising tht they are Jews.

I believe they are Jews to but there culture or race is not the determining factor but I do not want to contend a firm position on the interpretation as I have none beyond the fact these are not the only people in heaven but a sub group and the number is in revelations.

 

[1robin]

Quote from 1Robin: There is only one way to heaven.

John 10:1 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

I use this verse to prove my point. There is only one door and all others who attempt to enter by another will be considered as unworthy and rejected. Christ is constantly referred to as this door. If not those who attempt to take what Jesus freely offers and will not be entitled to it, what could that verse mean? Were you agreeing with me or contending with me?

 

[metis]

Oh yes, the "my way or the highway" approach that has God supposedly condemning those in any other faith or non-faith no matter how moral they may try to be. That's what I call "rocking-chair religion"-- just have the politically correct belief and you will be saved regardless of what you might or might not do! Just have these nice little thoughts-- that's all that matters.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh yes, the "my way or the highway" approach that has God supposedly condemning those in any other faith or non-faith no matter how moral they may try to be. That's what I call "rocking-chair religion"-- just have the politically correct belief and you will be saved regardless of what you might or might not do! Just have these nice little thoughts-- that's all that matters.

This basically takes authority away from God and gives it to the religion.

Fortunately not all Christians support this kind of thinking and I certainly don't think it is what Jesus was about.

 

[1robin]

This basically takes authority away from God and gives it to the religion.

Fortunately not all Christians support this kind of thinking and I certainly don't think it is what Jesus was about.

Jesus is where Christianity gets it's claims. It was his comments that originally taught exclusivity, not a pope's. In fact the words attributed to Christ are among the most exclusive in the whole bible. Now if your wanting to be PC so much, that it determines your reality, please do so without inventing another Christ that disagrees with the biblical one.

 

[1robin]

Oh yes, the "my way or the highway" approach that has God supposedly condemning those in any other faith or non-faith no matter how moral they may try to be. That's what I call "rocking-chair religion"-- just have the politically correct belief and you will be saved regardless of what you might or might not do! Just have these nice little thoughts-- that's all that matters.

That is not evidence or even an argument. It is a personal objection, justified by nothing. Truth is exclusive, it is not politically correct.

 

[metis]

This basically takes authority away from God and gives it to the religion.

Fortunately not all Christians support this kind of thinking and I certainly don't think it is what Jesus was about.

I fully agree, and I do believe there's strong evidence for that.

If we take what the gospels have Jesus saying, what's quite obvious, if we stand back a bit and look what's being said, is that probably around 90% of Jesus' words deal not with politically-correct beliefs, but instead with what he expects his followers to do or not do. This especially comes out quite clearly in Matthew 25 with the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, whereas the goats believe about Jesus but not in what Jesus expects them to do. The same is true with the Sermon on the Mount whereas action, and not just politically-correct beliefs, are expected from his followers.

If Jesus taught that only faith in him would grant salvation, then I do believe the gospels would read very differently, with maybe 90% of the emphasis being on having the p.c. beliefs about him with relatively less emphasis on do's and don't. But that's not what we see.

Also, Jesus main attacks were on those whom he felt were wearing their religion for the purposes of status and privilege, and not that the Law was somehow intrinsically wrong. As you know, the Law deals mostly with behavior based on the belief in the One God, and this even comes out in the Decalogue, let alone the other 603 Commandments.

Therefore, why would God give us Commandments, mostly but not exclusively dealing with actions, and then supposedly turn 180 degrees and say that only having the correct belief about Jesus grants salvation? That's the position of the "goats", which Jesus himself denounces.

I believe Jesus' main message is one of compassion and justice, which is really what most of the Law is about. As Gandhi once lamented that too many Christians "forgot his message"-- iow they may believe about Jesus but not really in him. Mind you that I am not accusing you or 1robin of this. Jesus' message is a rather tough one, thus "the narrow path" reference, as it is so easy to ignore his message of non-violence, along with opposing materialism and hedonism.

I write the above to see if you agree, and to also respond to 1robin's post-- sorta killing two birds with one stone-- no pun intended .

 

[Amechania]

I believe Jesus' main message is one of compassion and justice, which is really what most of the Law is about. As Gandhi once lamented that too many Christians "forgot his message"-- iow they may believe about Jesus but not really in him. Mind you that I am not accusing you or 1robin of this. Jesus' message is a rather tough one, thus "the narrow path" reference, as it is so easy to ignore his message of non-violence, along with opposing materialism and hedonism.

I don't know that Jesus opposes anything so much as he advocates something: honesty. If you are honest with yourself then you will be honest with others, and if you are honest with others, then you glorify God. The Jesus of the Gospels despises falsehood, but not to the extent that it is his primary message. Above all he demonstrates a love of truth, however you understand it. Now truth might be something written down, but nothing written applies to all circumstance, so an attitude of understanding based on a recognition of our own limitations, and a desire to help and not hinder, seems to be what Jesus designs as truth. From truth, he reasons, emerges love. And love is equivalent to God.

 

[metis]

I don't know that Jesus opposes anything so much as he advocates something: honesty. If you are honest with yourself then you will be honest with others, and if you are honest with others, then you glorify God. The Jesus of the Gospels despises falsehood, but not to the extent that it is his primary message. Above all he demonstrates a love of truth, however you understand it. Now truth might be something written down, but nothing written applies to all circumstance, so an attitude of understanding based on a recognition of our own limitations, and a desire to help and not hinder, seems to be what Jesus designs as truth. From truth, he reasons, emerges love. And love is equivalent to God.

I tend to agree with you, and this reminds me of Gandhi often using "Love" and "Truth" as substitute names for God. Thanks for chiming in on this.

 

[1robin]

I don't know that Jesus opposes anything so much as he advocates something: honesty. If you are honest with yourself then you will be honest with others, and if you are honest with others, then you glorify God. The Jesus of the Gospels despises falsehood, but not to the extent that it is his primary message. Above all he demonstrates a love of truth, however you understand it. Now truth might be something written down, but nothing written applies to all circumstance, so an attitude of understanding based on a recognition of our own limitations, and a desire to help and not hinder, seems to be what Jesus designs as truth. From truth, he reasons, emerges love. And love is equivalent to God.

I guess you must have skipped over the endless instructions he gave about sin and the scorching condemnation concerning the scribes and Pharisees. Do you actually believe Christ's central purpose in coming to die was to indicate honesty is good? If Jesus is for honesty then by necessity he is against falsehoods. Do you believe there are more truths than lies, or do you agree with me that truth is exclusive and so anyone who taught truth would also exclude more than he would include?

 

[1robin]

I tend to agree with you, and this reminds me of Gandhi often using "Love" and "Truth" as substitute names for God. Thanks for chiming in on this.

I have never seen a more exclusive message twisted so much, in order to make it PC before. I guess it is a sign of the times. Please see my response above to what you responded to. Did Jesus say he came to bring a Teddy bear or a sword?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I have never seen a more exclusive message twisted so much, in order to make it PC before. I guess it is a sign of the times. Please see my response above to what you responded to. Did Jesus say he came to bring a Teddy bear or a sword?

Jesus also said that he would return in the apostle's lifetime... but...y'know... here we are... 2,000 years later.

 

[1robin]

Jesus also said that he would return in the apostle's lifetime... but...y'know... here we are... 2,000 years later.

That is anything but a certain prophecy conclusion. It is the only prophecy I know of where I find no satisfaction in any alternate interpretation so far but not one that allows the type of condemnation you claim. I have no idea at this time what interpretation is correct but the one you hold is the worst of them all. There are thousands of prophecies that are not as confusing and have clear fulfillment. However prophecy was not even the issue. What Christ taught was. It was what it was, not even whether it was good, bad, right, or wrong.