the right religion

[Nakosis]

That is not really an option and it certainly is not a relevant question. You can't suffer for me so I do not need to decide if I would be ok with it. Not that whether I am ok with something has anything to do with whether it is true or not anyway. Long before I existed mankind needed a solution to a problem it created, but had no way to rectify. God could have let it go there and remained just as much God as he is anyway. However Jesus said he would take our punishment for us and provide what we could never supply ourselves. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with anything and was only a diversionary attempt at a moral high ground trap. The issue is whether the evidence supports this occurring or not. I think it overwhelming does and my experiences of God have been based on the truth of it having occurred. Whether I like the planet mars or not has no effect on whether it exists or not. These are silly tactics not an argument.

This is not a tactic. It is a moral issue. Allowing someone else to pay the price for my transgression would be an immoral act for me. The immorality of this beliefs is one of the main thing that puts me at odds with Christianity. For me to accept the belief of Christianity would be an immoral act. The concept of God presented by this belief is immoral and therefore it would be immoral for me to support such a God.

Oh come off it. This is one of the least contested Christian doctrines in history. All major denominations for over a thousand years read the same bible you referred to and got the exact interpretation I supplied. It is part of official traditions, doctrines, and creeds. I know of no denomination or even cult that has adopted your interpretation.

Here are the clear verses on it.

New International Version
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

English Standard Version
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

(6-51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (6-54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. (6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. (6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.(6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

What are your thoughts on this?

To note I did read the remainder, however did not copy in order to shorten the post.

My thoughts on this are... many left Jesus because of this teaching and his own disciples could not understand. Yet you claim this understanding is clear. This is decided by a majority of acceptance? The truth is determined by a majority vote of confidence? I think not.

Unfortunately on the tree of knowledge a person cannot see the branches that are higher then the one they are sitting on. I can only say your "truth" is the result of a limited view.

It most certainly is if the messenger will face scrutiny and be responsible for expanding on or clarifying that message. If we have a Jesus of the bible this is no postman delivering a message but a being by which all things were created for and through him. Who was the very embodiment of divine knowledge. I have no idea why you would suggest otherwise to begin with but there is no evidence anywhere to suggest Christ did not understand what he taught.

What I am suggesting is that "Christianity" as a messenger of his teaching did not necessarily understand his message.

Every college class room on earth states as reliable history the words of men based on the recording of them by others. They even do so in most cases without even meaningful fraction of the textual integrity the bible has. Why are your standards for the bible completely different from the standards used in all of historical study in all other areas? You do not live your life by that standard. You must and do take second hand information as reliable daily. Why the double standard? Yes that is a rhetorical question.

Who says my standards are different? Whatever I accept as likely, I allow for the possibility of being wrong. I even allow for the possibility of you being completely right in your beliefs. I'm fine enough with the textual integrity of the Bible, but only because whatever research I have personally done has supported it well enough. What I question is the reliability of the authors. Not that I think they were necessarily lying but that they were as human as you and I and capable of making mistakes.

5th graders in Sunday school have al been taught the exact same thing about the bread and wine regardless of denomination that the earliest church fathers and scholars and experts ever since then have determined the blood and bread mean. It is not ambiguous, it is not unclear, it is simply and emphatically stated and it is not what you claimed. You are welcome to interpret the bible any way you wish, however if that interpretation flies in the face of 2000 years of virtually universal conclusions you can't expect it to be persuasive. I still cannot figure out why you would be that desperate to change the meaning of the bread and wine. What are you gaining by winging it so far out on the fringe?

I gain nothing really. I'm simply stating a truth that I see from the branch that I am sitting on. Ask me what color the sky is. If you cannot see the sky and have no reason to trust me, do I gain anything from stating that it is blue?

 

[metis]

He agrees with I claim. That God does not speak through Islam but may speak to Muslims. He does not speak through the Vedas but he does speak to Hindus.

And exactly how could you and he possibly know that? Please provide us with clear-cut evidence to support what you and he claim.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

He agrees with I claim. That God does not speak through Islam but may speak to Muslims. He does not speak through the Vedas but he does speak to Hindus.

How do you know he even speaks to anyone at all? Have you heard him speak before, other than in your own mind? If every time you hear God speak, it's in your own head, then how can you know that is God, and that it isn't just your brain conversing with itself?

 

[Nakosis]

Many Christians, and folks of other beliefs have experiences of "God" speaking to them. This experience is as real as gravity at least to the individual.

It could all be a trick of the brain, IDK. Yet if an experience seems real I think that person has to accept it as real. Otherwise what is one to do? Question every experience that has apparent reality?

And before you say we have to question any actual experience that is extraordinary, they don't feel God speaking to individuals is extraordinary. The belief is based on that being true.

No reason for you to trust any individual testimony but there is a lot of it.

 

[1robin]

This is not a tactic. It is a moral issue. Allowing someone else to pay the price for my transgression would be an immoral act for me. The immorality of this beliefs is one of the main thing that puts me at odds with Christianity. For me to accept the belief of Christianity would be an immoral act. The concept of God presented by this belief is immoral and therefore it would be immoral for me to support such a God.

That is completely wrong. If moral truths as you refer to exist then they must be established by God's nature not your reasoning power. Rights, meaning, human worth, and the sanctity of life have all been rooted in God even for secular governments because they cannot be rooted in man and mean anything. In your example God exists and if he exists then his nature has determined reality whether you agree or not, and he does not exist then moral truth does not exist. He determined it is not just right but holy to accept the provision he offered and labored to provide. Whether I, you, or anyone disagrees would not change the absolute fact that it would be true. The most apparent feature of man's history is his immorality. In what universe is what man (especially a random individual) thinks a rational basis for moral truth. In 5000 years we have had 300 of peace and currently in our omniscience have enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out all life known, and have on an industrial scale eliminated lives in the womb by the tens of millions. Why would that record suggest man is the arbiter of anything but moral insanity? Whether theologically, rationally, or technically your judgment of God and what he provides is irrelevant and invalid for anything beyond your self and if he exists you will be responsible to him for even that. Beyond this, mankind constantly and in every category requires others to pay for their mistakes. We cannot even know the ultimate level of damage that ripples from our mistakes. You borrow money when needed, you borrow items you need from time to time, and your actions cost others plenty. Taxes themselves are a requirement that others pay for others good or mistakes.

To note I did read the remainder, however did not copy in order to shorten the post.

I did not understand this. Maybe I have forgotten what your referring to.

My thoughts on this are... many left Jesus because of this teaching and his own disciples could not understand. Yet you claim this understanding is clear. This is decided by a majority of acceptance? The truth is determined by a majority vote of confidence? I think not.

They did not leave Christ based on any teachings about bread and wine. That teaching came primarily in the upper room. It contained only those that would fallow him for their entire lives except for Judas who had long before determined to betray him for money. So virtually every expert, creed, scholar, commentator, sermon, and lowly Christian arrives at an almost identical interpretation of the emphatic, clear, and concise words of Christ and it means nothing to you, and you know better than everyone even though you are not a Christian and do not have the Holy Spirit to help. That explains quite a lot.

Unfortunately on the tree of knowledge a person cannot see the branches that are higher then the one they are sitting on. I can only say your "truth" is the result of a limited view.

Yeah I am sure it is that the rest of informed humanity is a bunch of idiots and the interpretation that some random guy in a forum has who is not a Christian and who draws that exact opposite verdict as Christ's simple words illustrate has got it al figured out. If your this wise why are you here and not a Jedi or something?

What I am suggesting is that "Christianity" as a messenger of his teaching did not necessarily understand his message.

Christianity is not a messenger it is a group of people that follow Christ. We did not create the message. However the person who did said only through the holy spirit (and that by being a Christian) can you understand the scriptures completely. I have little patience for those who contend with conclusive scholarship from those who spent lives studying it. I would not make a habit out of this extremely arrogant practice.

Who says my standards are different? Whatever I accept as likely, I allow for the possibility of being wrong. I even allow for the possibility of you being completely right in your beliefs. I'm fine enough with the textual integrity of the Bible, but only because whatever research I have personally done has supported it well enough. What I question is the reliability of the authors. Not that I think they were necessarily lying but that they were as human as you and I and capable of making mistakes.

They are different. If 99 out of 100 specialists in cancer said you did not have it and 1 said you did I bet you would not get chemotherapy. 999 biblical specialists agree with me and Christ's clear and emphatic statements and you alone are right. Inconsistent.

I gain nothing really. I'm simply stating a truth that I see from the branch that I am sitting on. Ask me what color the sky is. If you cannot see the sky and have no reason to trust me, do I gain anything from stating that it is blue?

No you are not. Your stating an opinion virtually no one agrees with.

I really do not care what you believe. My responsibility is to the best of my ability present truth and in a debate format discussions are to take place on common ground. That ground is almost always scholarship. What the majority of those most well trained to know is supposed to be considered extremely relevant in a debate and formal debates take place in that arena. If the only ground you can debate on is what is bouncing around in your head and if I think it is absurdity then a debate is meaningless and unproductive.

 

[1robin]

How do you know he even speaks to anyone at all? Have you heard him speak before, other than in your own mind? If every time you hear God speak, it's in your own head, then how can you know that is God, and that it isn't just your brain conversing with itself?

Are suggesting it takes a auditory message to be authentic? In what way are my thoughts completely invalid to indicate truth and my ears which have withstood two years of the flight deck of a carrier the arbiters of reality? Which one of your 5 senses said you loved your family? I did not say God spoke through me. I said he spoke through Christianity because much of the bible cannot possibly be the production of mere humans. I myself have a few instances where I consider it POSSIBLE that God directly communicated to me. I subject those instances to as many tests as I can devise and they pass. Yet I remain semi-convinced. However it was not God's speaking to anyone like me that was the issue. It was his speaking to the authors of the bible and through personal interaction with Christians. While him speaking to me is open for debate I have had a few experiences where God is the only possible explanation. I have described my salvation experience a few times and it can easily be searched for. It has no natural explanation possible and was so overwhelming that mistaking it for something else is also impossible.

 

[wannabe]

The idea of the right religion seems rather dogmatic.
Nothing meaningful comes from dogma

 

[Nakosis]

That is completely wrong. If moral truths as you refer to exist then they must be established by God's nature not your reasoning power.

Actually neither. What you refer to as morals is actually ethics. Ethics is an external set of laws. Morals are internal. One's personal feelings about right and wrong. The bases for Christian ethics is the Bible and Gods laws. The basis for civil laws is agreement. These civil laws are the ethics of being a citizen. Ethics supersede morals because of enforcement. If God were to enforce his laws our personal morals would be irrelevant.

My morals come from a mixed bag. Some rationality, some ethics I've come to accept as moral, influences of culture and upbringing. What I personally feel is right and wrong. I can't necessarily identify the source of these feelings. Ethics, Religious or civil aren't necessarily going to change my morals, my feeling of what is right and wrong. The only real reason that I wouldn't act according to my morals is enforcement or fear of enforcement from an outside entity. In the case of Christian ethics, that would be your God.

I did not understand this. Maybe I have forgotten what your referring to.

Ok, if it was important it will come up again.

They did not leave Christ based on any teachings about bread and wine. That teaching came primarily in the upper room. It contained only those that would fallow him for their entire lives except for Judas who had long before determined to betray him for money. So virtually every expert, creed, scholar, commentator, sermon, and lowly Christian arrives at an almost identical interpretation of the emphatic, clear, and concise words of Christ and it means nothing to you, and you know better than everyone even though you are not a Christian and do not have the Holy Spirit to help. That explains quite a lot.

Ok, I'm just relying on what the Bible says. However you are a Christian and assume to have the help of the Holy Spirit for which there is no evidence of so we can only take your word on that.

Yeah I am sure it is that the rest of informed humanity is a bunch of idiots and the interpretation that some random guy in a forum has who is not a Christian and who draws that exact opposite verdict as Christ's simple words illustrate has got it al figured out. If your this wise why are you here and not a Jedi or something?

Actually I'm the idiot, but I've been through enough to realize there are branches above me with people sitting on them who's understanding I cannot grasp. However I've been on your branch so I can grasp the understanding but now also see the flaws. I'm certain there are many flaws in my current understanding but in time I believe I will come to understand them as well. I know you cannot see the flaws in your thinking. I've been there, done that. That is not a judgement, it is something we all go through.

Christianity is not a messenger it is a group of people that follow Christ. We did not create the message. However the person who did said only through the holy spirit (and that by being a Christian) can you understand the scriptures completely. I have little patience for those who contend with conclusive scholarship from those who spent lives studying it. I would not make a habit out of this extremely arrogant practice.

Yes, people who are certain of the truth of something do come across as being very arrogant don't they. I'd suggest learning a little patience. People cannot understand that which they are not ready for.

They are different. If 99 out of 100 specialists in cancer said you did not have it and 1 said you did I bet you would not get chemotherapy. 999 biblical specialists agree with me and Christ's clear and emphatic statements and you alone are right. Inconsistent.

Yeah, I'm not alone, but this is something you'd have to come to understand for yourself. Someone, sitting on a branch above, to whom I was willing to listen showed me. It took me several years to understand. I was actually pretty slow to understand. Fortunately they were patient and I was willing.

No you are not. Your stating an opinion virtually no one agrees with.

I'm stating something I've see for myself is true. I've no opinion on it.

I really do not care what you believe. My responsibility is to the best of my ability present truth and in a debate format discussions are to take place on common ground. That ground is almost always scholarship. What the majority of those most well trained to know is supposed to be considered extremely relevant in a debate and formal debates take place in that arena. If the only ground you can debate on is what is bouncing around in your head and if I think it is absurdity then a debate is meaningless and unproductive.

Debating about what is bouncing around in these other people's head is productive? Maybe entertaining but I'm doubtful of it being productive. However that you see this as a debate is kind of telling that you don't know.

I could tell you the sky is blue but probably couldn't explain why it is blue to your satisfaction. It's just something you'll have to see for yourself.

Lets accept this is something you don't know the truth of and move on.

 

[metis]

Actually neither. What you refer to as morals is actually ethics. Ethics is an external set of laws. Morals are internal. One's personal feelings about right and wrong. The bases for Christian ethics is the Bible and Gods laws. The basis for civil laws is agreement. These civil laws are the ethics of being a citizen. Ethics supersede morals because of enforcement. If God were to enforce his laws our personal morals would be irrelevant.

My morals come from a mixed bag. Some rationality, some ethics I've come to accept as moral, influences of culture and upbringing. What I personally feel is right and wrong. I can't necessarily identify the source of these feelings. Ethics, Religious or civil aren't necessarily going to change my morals, my feeling of what is right and wrong. The only real reason that I would act according to my morals is enforcement or fear of enforcement from an outside entity. In the case of Christian ethics, that would be your God.

Ok, if it was important it will come up again.

Ok, I'm just relying on what the Bible says. However you are a Christian and assume to have the help of the Holy Spirit for which there is no evidence of so we can only take your word on that.

Actually I'm the idiot, but I've been through enough to realize there are branches above me with people sitting on them who's understanding I cannot grasp. However I've been on your branch so I can grasp the understanding but now also see the flaws. I'm certain there are many flaws in my current understanding but in time I believe I will come to understand them as well. I know you cannot see the flaws in your thinking. I've been there, done that. That is not a judgement, it is something we all go through.

Yes, people who are certain of the truth of something do come across as being very arrogant don't they. I'd suggest learning a little patience. People cannot understand that which they are not ready for.

Yeah, I'm not alone, but this is something you'd have to come to understand for yourself. Someone, sitting on a branch above, to whom I was willing to listen showed me. It took me several years to understand. I was actually pretty slow to understand. Fortunately they were patient and I was willing.

I'm stating something I've see for myself is true. I've no opinion on it.

Debating about what is bouncing around in these other people's head is productive? Maybe entertaining but I'm doubtful of it being productive. However that you see this as a debate is kind of telling that you don't know.

I could tell you the sky is blue but probably couldn't explain why it is blue to your satisfaction. It's just something you'll have to see for yourself.

Lets accept this is something you don't know the truth of and move on.

Let me just say that the above post, and your posts in general that I have read, are very thoughtful and clearly based on what I think to be good logic.

 

[Nakosis]

Your right, but in this case that works against you. I was raised in church but my Christian mother was slowly killed by cancer. The sicker she got the more I hated God if he did exist. I joined the military and commenced to trying any other faith, philosophy, drug, and meditation type of methodology I could find. I finally gave every theologically associated teaching the boot as man made garbage. I did not believe a God existed but just in case he did I hated him. That was my mind set the month before a good friend gave me a book about the bible and it's doctrines. Out of respect to him I read it as fast as I could just to get through with what I thought was complete garbage. However before I got very far some strange and non-natural stuff began to occur. Eventually I found a bible and started reading it's core teachings. Somehow I simply knew it was telling me the exact truth. It was so overwhelmingly convincing I asked Christ to save me without any expectation or knowledge of anything noticeable being given in return. I was stunned to find I was in God's direct presence. Instantly I lost all desires for chemical habits I had no will power to break. I instantly knew the truth of and experienced central doctrines of Christ. I lost all desire to curse instantly. I experienced more love than the entire totality of my entire life in one moment. I experienced more contentment than I had ever thought possible. My entire character was immediately changed. I had never been to a church that had an alter call. I had never seen anyone saved. I had no expectations (in fact al expectations were against a response from God), no anticipation, I did not even know the teachings on salvation. I however walked around in a daze for three days. The only terms I could describe the way I felt in were as if I had been reborn. I had never even heard the term born again prior to this but that is exactly the words I chose. people kept asking me what was different, had I gotten a hair cut, inherited some money, or fell in love. I literally could not describe what had occurred in human language that would do any justice. I thought what next. I thought a dreaded church must be selected, the next thought I had is that I had no idea which one. I spent an entire year reading without any influence from anyone of any kind. I was in no group, discussed it with no one, and made my interpretations with influence. I then compared them to creeds. I found Baptists were identical, but my doctrines formed without influence were almost identical in every way to orthodox Protestantism and almost identical to Catholic creeds. My only influence was a couple of decades of disbelief and/or resentment towards God and no formal training in any doctrine of any kind. Sorry for the length, I was too lazy to quit.

Just for your information, I believe this. I also grant that this experience gave you many insights to the words of Jesus.

I hope you'll grant this spiritual experience is not exclusive to Christians. Being that you yourself were not a Christian at the time.

Say a person was saved after this fashion. Do you believe this person could act in such a way to cause God to take back this gift of salvation?

You would not be if you were actually trying to stab one.

I'm willing to stab. I have taken stabs at it and usually just find the cardboard. I'm actually hoping to find something more substantial.

I agree with your definitions but two of these are not justifiable possibilities. That is the issue not what we label them. Pluralism is impossible and Inclusivism is irrational.

Not to you armed with your truth.

It is a fact he taught the most exclusive message imaginable. The issue is whether he was right or not. I was not trying to say his core truths cannot be found regardless of background. For example I do not believe Mormon doctrine is Christian but there are many Christians in Mormonism, etc..... Other faiths can arrive at truth and even saving faith but they do so in spite of their doctrines not through them. Christ nor God IMO speaks through Islam, but I imagine he speaks to Muslims that are wiling to listen.

Well... right. However I find Christianity holds no place of special honor among religious belief. You had some knowledge of Christianity so you were able to see the truth at it's core. A Muslim may have a similar experience and recognize some core truths in Islam only because that is the belief that he had knowledge of. They surrender their self to Allah with as much conviction as you have.

You had a flash of insight. That's awesome but it doesn't stop you from being human. It's the beginning of a journey, not the end. The Holy Spirit does not make a person infallible.

I don't believe any of us are in a position to judge the faith and belief of another. A person's relationship with God is between them and God. I'm happy to let God take care of that relationship.

 

[1robin]

And exactly how could you and he possibly know that? Please provide us with clear-cut evidence to support what you and he claim.

The God that both Muslims and Christians worship is the biblical God. That means the Bible is his word. Now if that word is contradicted and it's stories are mangled in the Quran (which by the way plagiarized almost word for word from gnostic and heretical texts then it can't possibly be from the same God. Even Muhammad said to use the bible to judge the Quran. It has and has condemned it. I know God exists but as an indulgence I have to compensate for the fact that you do not. I found that God using the Gospels and the Gospels are condemned in the Quran. The Quran is not from God. It is not even from a coherent rational source of any kind. It even gets biblical stories so mangled up they are no longer recognizable. The bible is God's original revelation (The Christian and Muslim God) and it said that if anyone denied that Jesus is the messiah they are condemned in their sins.

 

[1robin]

Actually neither. What you refer to as morals is actually ethics. Ethics is an external set of laws. Morals are internal. One's personal feelings about right and wrong. The bases for Christian ethics is the Bible and Gods laws. The basis for civil laws is agreement. These civil laws are the ethics of being a citizen. Ethics supersede morals because of enforcement. If God were to enforce his laws our personal morals would be irrelevant.

Ethics are what the Romans called Mallum prohibitum and are only rules against social morays. Morals are what they called mallum in se' and wrong in themselves. Ethics are social contrivances. Morals are objective requirements. Morals may be inside us but come from an external source. The fundamental principle of legality is morality not ethics even if it betray that foundation regularly. If the basis for law was agreement then that would have condemned Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King. Not a very good system, thank God it is not what is used.. 80% of those in Texas do not want same sex marriage, one judge forced it on them all and that has been repeated countless times. If laws are simply majority opinion then murdering a thousand people is no worse than acting unfashionably. Thank God your wrong.

My morals come from a mixed bag. Some rationality, some ethics I've come to accept as moral, influences of culture and upbringing. What I personally feel is right and wrong. I can't necessarily identify the source of these feelings. Ethics, Religious or civil aren't necessarily going to change my morals, my feeling of what is right and wrong. The only real reason that I wouldn't act according to my morals is enforcement or fear of enforcement from an outside entity. In the case of Christian ethics, that would be your God.

The issue is not where you get you morality but what morality in general is founded upon. As even Jefferson knew rights and law only can come from our creator or they are free to float around based on opinion. In your view had Hitler won the war and eliminated all opposition then genocide would have been legal and good. Nice system, maybe you can see why Christians fear your side so much.

Ok, if it was important it will come up again.

Very well.

Ok, I'm just relying on what the Bible says. However you are a Christian and assume to have the help of the Holy Spirit for which there is no evidence of so we can only take your word on that.

You are not relying on the bible, the bible emphatically states exactly what I said about the bread and wine. I have no idea where you get your one of a kind interpretation. I needed no spiritual help to simply read the clear words about the bread and wine.

Actually I'm the idiot, but I've been through enough to realize there are branches above me with people sitting on them who's understanding I cannot grasp. However I've been on your branch so I can grasp the understanding but now also see the flaws. I'm certain there are many flaws in my current understanding but in time I believe I will come to understand them as well. I know you cannot see the flaws in your thinking. I've been there, done that. That is not a judgment, it is something we all go through.

There exists few biblical issues as clear as the bread and wines meaning. If you can't abandon your view and adopt what the verses simply say then I am not sure what branch your own. Virtually every scholar on the top branches, people fairly well educated among the middle branches, and even noob Christian on the bottom branches have the same interpretation as I do and the bible makes clear. I think anyone that disagrees with it without volumes of scholarly evidence is hugging the trunk.

Yes, people who are certain of the truth of something do come across as being very arrogant don't they. I'd suggest learning a little patience. People cannot understand that which they are not ready for.

There are not many people who have more patience with admitted ignorance or less with ignorance shrouded in arrogance. The only people who Christ lit up with the most scorching words possible were those who thought they knew but would not admit they didn't even to the teacher of what they knew. Ignorance I have infinite patience for. ignorance camouflaged in arrogance I do not.

Yeah, I'm not alone, but this is something you'd have to come to understand for yourself. Someone, sitting on a branch above, to whom I was willing to listen showed me. It took me several years to understand. I was actually pretty slow to understand. Fortunately they were patient and I was willing.

If you were sitting on a low branch asking higher branches what those versus on bread and wine meant I would have been as kind and patient as possible. When your down there yelling that all the branches above you are wrong I have little patience left.

I'm stating something I've see for myself is true. I've no opinion on it.

You cannot experience the intent of an analogy, especially this one.

Debating about what is bouncing around in these other people's head is productive? Maybe entertaining but I'm doubtful of it being productive. However that you see this as a debate is kind of telling that you don't know.

Good lord, re-read the bolded parts. Anything can be unproductive if the person is wrong and stubbornly so, even arrogantly so.

I could tell you the sky is blue but probably couldn't explain why it is blue to your satisfaction. It's just something you'll have to see for yourself.

You could have said certain gases reflect back all frequencies of light except blue. That would make sense even if I was blind. However your interpretation of the bread and wine would be life claiming there is a giant blue plastic lens around the planet and you do not care if every scholar on earth disagrees and space ships have even went through your imaginary lens. Ignorance is one thing. The stubborn refusal to change your mind if the face of logic, reason, Christ's words themselves and universal scholarship is just stubbornness and a little weird.

Lets accept this is something you don't know the truth of and move on.

I prefer to take it as something your vanity will not admit your wrong about and move on. Preferably way on.

 

[1robin]

Let me just say that the above post, and your posts in general that I have read, are very thoughtful and clearly based on what I think to be good logic.

So you are agreeing with their interpretation of what the bread and wine mean even though virtually every scholar disagrees with it and Christ was emphatic and specific in his explanation, and the counter explanation is not even theologically coherent. I can't believe there are two of you.

 

[1robin]

Just for your information, I believe this. I also grant that this experience gave you many insights to the words of Jesus.

That is a start I guess.

I hope you'll grant this spiritual experience is not exclusive to Christians. Being that you yourself were not a Christian at the time.

I do not grant any of that.

1. It was what made me a Christian and what turns people into Christians. You do not have it and remain non-Christian.
2. No other faith offers anything like this in even their doctrine. At least among the major faiths I have researched. The closest is some ambiguous and vague ideas of enlightenment in Hinduism.
3. There are not even a tiny fraction of these types of claims from non Christian faiths. Again the closest is enlighten but it is only reserved to a select few who meet strict criteria and since they seem to prefer caves or the top of tree to live in are not available to talk to.

As a comparison. To be a Christian God must transform you in similar ways to what I describe to become a Christian. To become a Muslim you need only declare God is one and Muhammad is his prophet. There is no comparison between the two. And no conformation for Islam as there is for Christianity.

Say a person was saved after this fashion. Do you believe this person could act in such a way to cause God to take back this gift of salvation?

Nope, but I also believe his former motivations to do the more heinous acts has vanished. WE still screw up quite a bit and sometimes seriously, but I doubt you will ever see a born again Christian (Born again in more than name only) kill 20 people from a bell tower. This is very confusing to the natural mind so I will elaborate extensively on this if you wish.

I'm willing to stab. I have taken stabs at it and usually just find the cardboard. I'm actually hoping to find something more substantial.

You must have been the technical advisor to the Iraqi army that lies buried in the sand. I work in the defense industry and am a veteran. IT is made of chobham armor plus a reactive amour that I cannot elaborate on.

Not to you armed with your truth.

What?

Well... right. However I find Christianity holds no place of special honor among religious belief. You had some knowledge of Christianity so you were able to see the truth at it's core. A Muslim may have a similar experience and recognize some core truths in Islam only because that is the belief that he had knowledge of. They surrender their self to Allah with as much conviction as you have.

Once again the world seems to disagree:

"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.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

You had a flash of insight. That's awesome but it doesn't stop you from being human. It's the beginning of a journey, not the end. The Holy Spirit does not make a person infallible.

It makes me saved not infallible. Infallible is a goal that no one reaches. I am glad you are not God and expecting infallibility. Heaven would be empty.

I don't believe any of us are in a position to judge the faith and belief of another. A person's relationship with God is between them and God. I'm happy to let God take care of that relationship.

I not only believe I am, I believe we all are and in many way absolutely. The law of non-contradiction is a good starting point.

Remember two things even if they are from famous rock groups.
1. There is no hero in neutrality. The Neville chamberlains of the world only increase the death toll.
2. If you decide not to chose you have still made a choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Ethics are what the Romans called Mallum prohibitum and are only rules against social morays. Morals are what they called mallum in se' and wrong in themselves. Ethics are social contrivances. Morals are objective requirements. Morals may be inside us but come from an external source. The fundamental principle of legality is morality not ethics even if it betray that foundation regularly. If the basis for law was agreement then that would have condemned Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King. Not a very good system, thank God it is not what is used.. 80% of those in Texas do not want same sex marriage, one judge forced it on them all and that has been repeated countless times. If laws are simply majority opinion then murdering a thousand people is no worse than acting unfashionably. Thank God your wrong.

That's what I said. Morals is internal but that internal sense of right and wrong is cause by many different external influences.

Laws are not simply a matter of majority opinion. Laws are a matter of agreement between those who have the power to reach such an agreement and by power I mean the ability to enforce. The Judge has the ability to enforce the law. You can still choose not to agree but then you have to deal with the enforcement.

Same way you can choose not to agree with God's law but you have to be willing to deal with the enforcement.

The issue is not where you get you morality but what morality in general is founded upon. As even Jefferson knew rights and law only can come from our creator or they are free to float around based on opinion. In your view had Hitler won the war and eliminated all opposition then genocide would have been legal and good. Nice system, maybe you can see why Christians fear your side so much.

Wasn't Jefferson the guy who went about boinking his slaves? I wonder what God's opinion on that was.

If Hitler had won and was able to enforce his law then you can still choose not to agree but then have to be willing to deal with the enforcement. It's not a side, it's just reality.

You are not relying on the bible, the bible emphatically states exactly what I said about the bread and wine. I have no idea where you get your one of a kind interpretation. I needed no spiritual help to simply read the clear words about the bread and wine.

I was referring to the difficulty that his own followers had in understanding this teaching. Which you keep saying was clearly stated.

There exists few biblical issues as clear as the bread and wines meaning. If you can't abandon your view and adopt what the verses simply say then I am not sure what branch your own. Virtually every scholar on the top branches, people fairly well educated among the middle branches, and even noob Christian on the bottom branches have the same interpretation as I do and the bible makes clear. I think anyone that disagrees with it without volumes of scholarly evidence is hugging the trunk.

Well I guess all them "noobs" are smarter then the disciples of Jesus were.

There are not many people who have more patience with admitted ignorance or less with ignorance shrouded in arrogance. The only people who Christ lit up with the most scorching words possible were those who thought they knew but would not admit they didn't even to the teacher of what they knew. Ignorance I have infinite patience for. ignorance camouflaged in arrogance I do not.

The evils we project into the world are reflected from an internal source. Kind of humbling if you'd ever choose to consider it.

If you were sitting on a low branch asking higher branches what those versus on bread and wine meant I would have been as kind and patient as possible. When your down there yelling that all the branches above you are wrong I have little patience left.

Hmmm... Does it seem to you that I am yelling you are wrong?

You cannot experience the intent of an analogy, especially this one.

You are so certain of what can and cannot be experienced.

Good lord, re-read the bolded parts. Anything can be unproductive if the person is wrong and stubbornly so, even arrogantly so.

That doesn't necessarily stop it from being entertaining though.

You could have said certain gases reflect back all frequencies of light except blue. That would make sense even if I was blind. However your interpretation of the bread and wine would be life claiming there is a giant blue plastic lens around the planet and you do not care if every scholar on earth disagrees and space ships have even went through your imaginary lens. Ignorance is one thing. The stubborn refusal to change your mind if the face of logic, reason, Christ's words themselves and universal scholarship is just stubbornness and a little weird.

I have a question, out of curiosity... What scholars? I've look, found a few I guess you could call scholars. I found their arguments kind of silly and rather presumptuous. Surely none that you are relying on of course. I'm sure you have some better ones tucked away somewhere. I'd like to see how well they can defend your position.

I prefer to take it as something your vanity will not admit your wrong about and move on. Preferably way on.

Oh I'm quite capable of being wrong, just haven't seen anything presented that would make me think so.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

80% of those in Texas do not want same sex marriage, one judge forced it on them all and that has been repeated countless times.

Remember that one time when gays tried to keep straight people from getting married...yeah...neither do I.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a start I guess.

I do not grant any of that.

1. It was what made me a Christian and what turns people into Christians. You do not have it and remain non-Christian.
2. No other faith offers anything like this in even their doctrine. At least among the major faiths I have researched. The closest is some ambiguous and vague ideas of enlightenment in Hinduism.
3. There are not even a tiny fraction of these types of claims from non Christian faiths. Again the closest is enlighten but it is only reserved to a select few who meet strict criteria and since they seem to prefer caves or the top of tree to live in are not available to talk to.

I was only asking that you grant being a Christian was not necessary to having such an experience. I didn't really expect anything further.

As a comparison. To be a Christian God must transform you in similar ways to what I describe to become a Christian. To become a Muslim you need only declare God is one and Muhammad is his prophet. There is no comparison between the two. And no conformation for Islam as there is for Christianity.

For some churches it is only necessary that you be baptized to be a Christian. For others you need to come forward and confess that Jesus is your savior to be accepted as a Christian by that church.

As far as Muslim spiritual experiences you might what to check with Tony Blair's sister. Of course we only have her word, and yours that these experiences happened.

Where I would grant both but of course, no true Scotsman would become a Muslim after such an experience would they...

Nope, but I also believe his former motivations to do the more heinous acts has vanished. WE still screw up quite a bit and sometimes seriously, but I doubt you will ever see a born again Christian (Born again in more than name only) kill 20 people from a bell tower. This is very confusing to the natural mind so I will elaborate extensively on this if you wish.

So in this possibility of seriously screwing up you don't think they might choose to seek answers in the "wrong" religion?

You must have been the technical advisor to the Iraqi army that lies buried in the sand. I work in the defense industry and am a veteran. IT is made of chobham armor plus a reactive amour that I cannot elaborate on.

Sure, might makes right... oh, wait. That was the other discussion.

What?

I'm assuming you have truth on your side? Is that in question?

Once again the world seems to disagree:

"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.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

(Speaking of true Scotsmen )

The World huh... Yeah that is a pretty big opponent to come up against in a discussion. Which forum is the World posting in these days?

It makes me saved not infallible. Infallible is a goal that no one reaches. I am glad you are not God and expecting infallibility. Heaven would be empty.

Yet here you are with your infallible certainty.

I not only believe I am, I believe we all are and in many way absolutely. The law of non-contradiction is a good starting point.

Remember two things even if they are from famous rock groups.
1. There is no hero in neutrality. The Neville chamberlains of the world only increase the death toll.
2. If you decide not to chose you have still made a choice.

Amazingly certain for a fallible being.

 

[metis]

So you are agreeing with their interpretation of what the bread and wine mean even though virtually every scholar disagrees with it and Christ was emphatic and specific in his explanation, and the counter explanation is not even theologically coherent. I can't believe there are two of you.

Just because something is logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. My point to Nakosis said it was generally logical, but I didn't say I agreed with it all. On top of this, I made no mention of the bread and wine statement, and I don't even know in which post he may have mentioned it.

 

[Muffled]

In my understanding the new Jerusalem is the eventual capital of the permanent earth centered realm of heaven. To go to the new Jerusalem is to go to heaven. Men have no capacity what ever to get themselves into heaven. The doors are analogies. The correct "door" is the God supplied method that will actually work. All other efforts to enter heaven by another "door" are futile and attempt to steal what God has provided. I do not believe that verse is suggesting anyone can actually get to heaven by any other method but for analogies sake does not make that emphatically clear. In my understanding no human effort can get any one to heaven. It is only by our accepting what Christ did that anyone will ever see heaven. All other efforts will be futile and end the individual's destiny being resigned to hell. IMO hell will eventually be annihilation, but that is controversial. You seem to have a far more complex and rare view about salvation and heaven than I have found in mainstream Christianity. Can you lay out your views in a post? Your views seem so unorthodox that I hesitate to debate them until they are known in detail to me.

If you meant earth is in the heavens I believe this is correct. If you meant earth is in Heaven then I believe you are incorrect.

I believe the New Jerusalem is in the heavens and when it comes to earth it remains in the clouds until it descends to a new earth.

I believe there is no evidence to support this belief.

I believe your understanding is flawed. There is no evidence to support it.

i do not believe Hell is annihiation since that would eliminate punishment and I believe the scripture does consider Hell a punishment.

I only write what the Holy Spirit gives me to write but since He is complex perhaps you could narrow it down to one subject that you would like to discuss in more detail.

 

[Muffled]

As I have no fixed position about the 144,000 I am open to your interpretations. I however do not believe anyone knows anything for certain. I did notice you seem to consider some middle area as separate from heaven. Can you elaborate on this?

I believe there is no middle area. There are only two realms, physical and spiritaul. Heaven is a spiritual realm. The New Jerusalem is in a physical realm and is physical.

i believe Heaven is separate from the New Jerusalem as earth is separate from Heaven.

I believe jesus knows.