# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  What Non-Christians Want Christians To Hear

## moostraks

Found this read this morning and thought I would share. The comments ring very true to my on experience in listening to the pagan community and to how I have personally felt about many who claim Christianity as their faith path.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfunda...tians-to-hear/




> Within three days I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected their cumulative sentiment to be one of mostly anger. But if you boiled down to a single feeling what was most often expressed in the nonbelievers statements, it would be Why do Christians hate us so much?

----------


## Crashland

Seconded. Great post

----------


## moostraks

> Seconded. Great post


Thanks! Many of the comments resonate with my own experiences and the responses I witnessed in the pagan community. Hate just breeds more hatred, but Christians fail to realize that they often plant the seed of resentment and animosity through their failure to listen to the person they are talking at, often deceptive tactics, and single minded concern for gaining souls for the banner they operate under.

----------


## westkyle

> Thanks! Many of the comments resonate with my own experiences and the responses I witnessed in the pagan community. Hate just breeds more hatred, but Christians fail to realize that they often plant the seed of resentment and animosity through their failure to listen to the person they are talking at, often deceptive tactics, and single minded concern for gaining souls for the banner they operate under.


I agree.  If they really want people to follow them they should be a lighthouse!  If their light is good then people will automatically follow towards it, and ask who you are and what you practice.

----------


## erowe1

I wonder what those same nonchristians would say when asked why they hate Jesus so much. I suspect almost all of them would deny it.

----------


## Terry1

> I wonder what those same nonchristians would say when asked why they hate Jesus so much. I suspect almost all of them would deny it.


What I find amazing is that some of those "nonchristians" can also be a better example of real Christian love then those talking about just how "Christian" they are.

----------


## Miss Annie

Great article M.   

When I came to believe so many years ago, I still remember what it was that opened my heart.  It was the pastor saying that God accepts us just as we are, he just loves us too much to leave us that way.  We don't have to clean ourselves up to come to God (which is humanly impossible anyway, only the Holy Spirit can do that), we come to God and then he himself, with the Holy Spirit working in us - bit by bit makes changes in our hearts where we allow him to.  We bring our faith and trust God for the rest!  

I think one of the great mistakes many Christians make is trying to convict others of their sin.  That is the work of the Holy Spirit and not man.  It is one thing for man to show people what the Word says about sin, but.... to convict others of sin is the work of the Holy Spirit.  When we step into trying to play God - we are in very dangerous territory because it was Satan himself who said he was going to "be like the Most High".   *Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.*  So we are to present the word, *then........ love* and let The Holy Spirit do the work of convicting and convincing.   It is love that wins hearts, not judgement by condescending Christians.   

I love the old hymns!!   They speak so much to the heart and of the Word and truth.  This is one that was very close to my heart and is exactly what I am speaking of here: 
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

----------


## Crashland

> I wonder what those same nonchristians would say when asked why they hate Jesus so much. I suspect almost all of them would deny it.


Yes, we get that question all the time - "Why do you hate God?" Which most non-Christians deny because it is an absurd question. But very rarely do we get asked "Why do you hate Christians?" So there's a difference there -- Christians often perceive non-Christians as hating _God_, but non-Christians often perceive Christians as hating _them_.

----------


## Terry1

> I think one of the great mistakes many Christians make is trying to convict others of their sin.  That is the work of the Holy Spirit and not man.  It is one thing for man to show people what the Word says about sin, but.... to convict others of sin is the work of the Holy Spirit.  When we step into trying to play God - we are in very dangerous territory because it was Satan himself who said he was going to "be like the Most High".   *Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.*  So we are to present the word, *then........ love* and let The Holy Spirit do the work of convicting and convincing.   It is love that wins hearts, not judgement by condescending Christians.


God also works through mankind to rebuke and convict someone to repentance in Him.  The Holy Spirit leads us and guides us, but we're supposed to do what we've been called to do in Christ in obedience to that same Holy Spirit.  Once the seed of rebuke, has been planted--then it's up to God to work in their minds and hearts by their own willingness to change and repent of what's being revealed to them through the Holy Spirits witness.    

Pandering to hate, revenge and lies is not what we're called to do in order to not offend someone.  Truth offends all by itself when someone refuses to see it.  We can forgive someone, but at the same time we don't have to respect them for what they're doing.  God works through willing vessels to correct and rebuke bad behavior.  Forgiveness follows repentance.

----------


## Terry1

> Thanks! Many of the comments resonate with my own experiences and the responses I witnessed in the pagan community. *Hate just breeds more hatred, but Christians fail to realize that they often plant the seed of resentment and animosity through their failure to listen to the person they are talking at, often deceptive tactics, and single minded concern for gaining souls for the banner they operate under*.


You mean when someone repeatedly accuses someone of subscribing to something that they've repeatedly told them they don't.  Yeah--I can certainly see where that would breed hatred and animosity.

----------


## Crashland

The idea that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you need to be rebuked, is part of the problem. It doesn't really matter to us if Christians think the rebuke should come from Christians or God, or God through Christians, or whatever. There's no way around it though. Making people recognize their own failings is an essential part of the Christian message, and the only way to do that is by rebuke, whether directly or indirectly. Thing is, I am well aware of my failings, and although I appreciate criticism, I don't need Christians constantly telling me about them in order to sell me their product.

----------


## Terry1

> The idea that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you need to be rebuked, is part of the problem. It doesn't really matter to us if Christians think the rebuke should come from Christians or God, or God through Christians, or whatever. *There's no way around it though. Making people recognize their own failings is an essential part of the Christian message, and the only way to do that is by rebuke, whether directly or indirectly.* Thing is, I am well aware of my failings, and although I appreciate criticism, I don't need Christians constantly telling me about them in order to sell me their product.


Well said.

----------


## moostraks

> Great article M.   
> 
> When I came to believe so many years ago, I still remember what it was that opened my heart.  It was the pastor saying that God accepts us just as we are, he just loves us too much to leave us that way.  We don't have to clean ourselves up to come to God (which is humanly impossible anyway, only the Holy Spirit can do that), we come to God and then he himself, with the Holy Spirit working in us - bit by bit makes changes in our hearts where we allow him to.  We bring our faith and trust God for the rest!  
> 
> I think one of the great mistakes many Christians make is trying to convict others of their sin.  That is the work of the Holy Spirit and not man.  It is one thing for man to show people what the Word says about sin, but.... to convict others of sin is the work of the Holy Spirit.  When we step into trying to play God - we are in very dangerous territory because it was Satan himself who said he was going to "be like the Most High".   *Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.*  So we are to present the word, *then........ love* and let The Holy Spirit do the work of convicting and convincing.   It is love that wins hearts, not judgement by condescending Christians.   
> 
> I love the old hymns!!   They speak so much to the heart and of the Word and truth.  This is one that was very close to my heart and is exactly what I am speaking of here: 
> Just as I am, without one plea,
> But that Thy blood was shed for me,
> ...



Excellent post! Much agreed. Favorite hymn of mine as well.

----------


## moostraks

> I wonder what those same nonchristians would say when asked why they hate Jesus so much. I suspect almost all of them would deny it.


Probably because they don't hate Him, it is an assumption or false allegation ascribed to outsiders to convince them of their need to submit to the banner of the church passing the judgement. Everyone sins and falls short.

----------


## moostraks

> The idea that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you need to be rebuked, is part of the problem. It doesn't really matter to us if Christians think the rebuke should come from Christians or God, or God through Christians, or whatever. *There's no way around it though. Making people recognize their own failings is an essential part of the Christian message, and the only way to do that is by rebuke, whether directly or indirectly.* Thing is, I am well aware of my failings, and although I appreciate criticism, I don't need Christians constantly telling me about them in order to sell me their product.


I think this is the take away point by those who use Scripture and _their_ faith for the purpose of claiming human judgement and authority is the same as speaking for higher Wisdom. They are power tripping and being consumed by their own ego, and destroying the lives and conscience of other people in the process. Imo, I believe there is likely to be an accounting for this behavior. The voice you hear reminding you of your own failings is the greatest, and more accurate assessment, than some pretentious human wanting to sit in judgement of your particular failings.

----------


## moostraks

> I agree.  If they really want people to follow them they should be a lighthouse!  If their light is good then people will automatically follow towards it, and ask who you are and what you practice.


Indeed!

----------


## moostraks

> You mean when someone repeatedly accuses someone of subscribing to something that they've repeatedly told them they don't.  Yeah--I can certainly see where that would breed hatred and animosity.


Proverbs 26:11Like a dog that returns to its vomit   Is a fool who repeats his folly.

So I am going to heed:

Proverbs 26: 4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.

That has been my gravest error.

~~~peace on your path

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, we get that question all the time - "Why do you hate God?" Which most non-Christians deny because it is an absurd question.


Why do you think it's absurd?




> non-Christians often perceive Christians as hating _them_.


I can't speak for them, nor do I want to defend everyone who calls himself a Christian, but do they really perceive that? If so, why? What hateful things do Christians do to them?

----------


## erowe1

> Probably because they don't hate Him


Jesus says they do.

----------


## moostraks

> Jesus says they do.


And here I thought He said He was going to be the Judge of that and not the human attempting to get someone to conform to their particular banner. Silly me.

----------


## moostraks

> Why do you think it's absurd?
> 
> 
> I can't speak for them, nor do I want to defend everyone who calls himself a Christian, but do they really perceive that? If so, why? What hateful things do Christians do to them?



Link contained some explanation from a number of different respondents, fwiw...

----------


## erowe1

> And here I thought He said He was going to be the Judge of that and not the human attempting to get someone to conform to their particular banner. Silly me.


He is the judge. And he says they do.

----------


## erowe1

> Link contained some explanation from a number of different respondents, fwiw...


Thanks. I had assumed that the nonchristian feedback he referred to would have some basis to it and that I'd sympathize with a lot of it and think to myself that, yes, these are cases of Christians doing things wrong. 

But now that I have actually read it, I'm struck by just how much of it, practically all of it, is just nonchristians venting their hatred of Jesus himself, and complaining about Christians doing good, rather than wrong. They might as well complain against a fire alarm for warning them that their house is on fire. Many of them even remake Jesus into someone whose message was the exact opposite of what it really was, pretending that he himself did not convict people of sin.

What surprises me most is how sympathetic the author of the article seems to be to those sentiments.

----------


## moostraks

> He is the judge. And he says they do.


And therein lay the rub. You will likely wish to spend an extensive amount proclaiming this authority and if it is upon who is a member of your church and the mission of your church, then by all means go right ahead and decide whom you want to associate and put forth in your name. Otherwise I would say it falls within:

Principles of Conscience

 Romans 14:1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
      5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

      10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

11For it is written,
            “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
            AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

      13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

----------


## RJB

> He is the judge. And he says they do.


Many don't hate him.  They just do not know him, yet.  This is why Ghandi's line about Christians being unlike Christ is painful because the truth hurts, and why we need to work on being Christ-like if we want to be his light to the world.

I didn't hate Jesus when I was an atheist.

----------


## moostraks

> Thanks. I had assumed that the nonchristian feedback he referred to would have some basis to it and that I'd sympathize with a lot of it and think to myself that, yes, these are cases of Christians doing things wrong. 
> 
> But now that I have actually read it, I'm struck by just how much of it, practically all of it, is just nonchristians venting their hatred of Jesus himself, and complaining about Christians doing good, rather than wrong. They might as well complain against a fire alarm for warning them that their house is on fire. Many of them even remake Jesus into someone whose message was the exact opposite of what it really was, pretending that he himself did not convict people of sin.
> 
> What surprises me most is how sympathetic the author of the article seems to be to those sentiments.


You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink.

----------


## erowe1

> Many don't hate him.  They just do not know him, yet.  This is why Ghandi's line about Christians being unlike Christ is painful because the truth hurts, and why we need to work on being Christ-like if we want to be his light to the world.
> 
> I didn't hate Jesus when I was an atheist.


Until a person is regenerated, all human beings are God's enemies. They do hate Him. Jesus Himself is the sole exception to this. This is the state from which we all need to be saved. It isn't that we just make innocent mistakes. It's that we're positively rebellious against God. In order for any of us to become saved it was necessary that God lead us to accept this fact and to repent, turning from that hatred of Him to faith in Him.

----------


## erowe1

> You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink.


I agree. But what almost all these Christians in the article in the OP are objecting to is that anyone would try to lead them to water at all.

The author of the article opened it by saying that he solicited their responses to being proselytized, and then went on to list all these objections to the whole idea of proselytizing. He seems to be pushing the thesis, "Christians, here's what's wrong with how you share the Gospel: that you do it at all."

----------


## moostraks

> I agree. But what almost all these Christians in the article in the OP are objecting to is that anyone would try to lead them to water at all.
> 
> The author of the article opened it by saying that he solicited their responses to being proselytized, and then went on to list all these objections to the whole idea of proselytizing. He seems to be pushing the thesis, "Christians, here's what's wrong with how you share the Gospel: that you do it at all."


Maybe because you are seeing it through the eyes of how you expect to do it according to the system you know rather than listening to the responses from the consumer whom you are selling the product? Idk. But I, personally feel this is the better method:




> I agree.  If they really want people to follow them they should be a lighthouse!  If their light is good then people will automatically follow towards it, and ask who you are and what you practice.


But that's my take after my experiences and listening to ther folks that have disdain for the current method.

----------


## Crashland

> Why do you think it's absurd?


Why do you hate Zeus?





> I can't speak for them, nor do I want to defend everyone who calls himself a Christian, but do they really perceive that? If so, why? What hateful things do Christians do to them?


You can read the comments in the OP, to start

----------


## erowe1

> Why do you hate Zeus?


Because he's a demon.

----------


## erowe1

> You can read the comments in the OP, to start


There are a lot. I haven't read them all. But, like I already said, of the ones I read, I didn't see any recounting anything I would call "hate." Did you?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Because he's a demon.


So, you believe Zeus exists?

I think you are in a "catch 22".

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe because you are seeing it through the eyes of how you expect to do it according to the system you know rather than listening to the responses from the consumer whom you are selling the product? Idk. But I, personally feel this is the better method:


I'm not selling a product. I think that looking at it that way is probably a big part of the problem with the author of the OP.

----------


## Crashland

> Until a person is regenerated, all human beings are God's enemies. They do hate Him. Jesus Himself is the sole exception to this. This is the state from which we all need to be saved. It isn't that we just make innocent mistakes. It's that we're positively rebellious against God. In order for any of us to become saved it was necessary that God lead us to accept this fact and to repent, turning from that hatred of Him to faith in Him.


Bull$#@!. Just because you don't agree with someone's religion doesn't mean you hate their God. It is impossible to hate something you don't believe in.

----------


## erowe1

> So, you believe Zeus exists?
> 
> I think you are in a "catch 22".


Yes. I believe demons exist. No doubt the pagans who worshipped Zeus believed a lot of things about him that were false. But demonic forces were behind their religion nonetheless.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes. I believe demons exist. No doubt the pagans who worshipped Zeus believed a lot of things about him that were false. But demonic forces were behind their religion nonetheless.


Ok. My definition of Zeus = "the God of Thunder, the most powerful of all the gods". I'll ask again. Why do you hate Zeus?

----------


## erowe1

> Bull$#@!. Just because you don't agree with someone's religion doesn't mean you hate their God. It is impossible to hate something you don't believe in.


It's true that disbelieving someone's religion doesn't automatically mean that you hate their God. But that's irrelevant. I never said otherwise. In the case of the one true God, the triune God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, who revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, it is a fact that all those who do not believe in Jesus hate Him. That's not my own verdict based on my own assessment of the evidence, it's Jesus's.

Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course you can hate someone you don't trust. In fact, hating someone and not trusting them would often go together.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok. My definition of Zeus = "the God of Thunder, the most powerful of all the gods". I'll ask again. Why do you hate Zeus?


Why is "because he's a demon" not an acceptable answer?

If you're getting at the point that Zeus supposedly doesn't exist, then I assume you believe Jesus really does or did exist, so that's not really analogous to the question of why you hate Jesus. So why do you?

----------


## Crashland

> It's true that disbelieving someone's religion doesn't automatically mean that you hate their God. But that's irrelevant. I never said otherwise. In the case of the one true God, the triune God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, who revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, it is a fact that all those who do not believe in Jesus hate Him. That's not my own verdict based on my own assessment of the evidence, it's Jesus's.
> 
> Your last sentence is nonsense. *Of course you can hate someone you don't trust. In fact, hating someone and not trusting them would often go together.*


No, you can't distrust someone you don't believe in, either. Do you distrust your cousin Lori G. Smith? She's such a great person. Why do you hate her?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It's true that disbelieving someone's religion doesn't automatically mean that you hate their God. But that's irrelevant. I never said otherwise. In the case of the one true God, the triune God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, who revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, it is a fact that all those who do not believe in Jesus hate Him. That's not my own verdict based on my own assessment of the evidence, it's Jesus's.
> 
> Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course you can hate someone you don't trust. In fact, hating someone and not trusting them would often go together.


ROFL!  I think he meant "don't believe exist in the first place", not "don't trust".

----------


## Crashland

> Why is "because he's a demon" not an acceptable answer?
> 
> Why do you hate Jesus?


Because when you ask me about hating God, you are forcing me to accept YOUR definition. So it is only fair that when I ask you about Zeus, you should have to accept MY definition. But you are unwilling to do that. The fact is though, you don't believe that Zeus, as I have defined him, actually exists. And I don't believe that God, as you have defined him, exists. It is impossible for you to hate Zeus as I have defined him because you don't think that such a thing actually exists. And it is impossible for me to hate God as you have defined him for the same reason.

----------


## RJB

> Until a person is regenerated, all human beings are God's enemies. *They do hate Him.* Jesus Himself is the sole exception to this. This is the state from which we all need to be saved. It isn't that we just make innocent mistakes. It's that we're positively rebellious against God. In order for any of us to become saved it was necessary that God lead us to accept this fact and to repent, turning from that hatred of Him to faith in Him.


Do you say this from personal experience?

Having been both an atheist and a Christian, I'm am amused how many times I hear someone claim to know what others think.

In reality, we don't know what's in the hearts of others, only God does.

----------


## erowe1

> No, you can't distrust someone you don't believe in, either. Do you distrust your cousin Lori G. Smith? She's such a great person. Why do you hate her?


Don't believe in means the same thing as distrust.

Or do you mean "don't believe in" in the sense of believes doesn't exist? If that's the case, then I reject the premise that anyone really deep down believes that God doesn't exist. Furthermore, in the case of people who have heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, their rejection of Him, and the God whom He reveals can't just be excused on the grounds of ignorance.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you say this from personal experience?


You mean did I hate God? Yes I did. The Bible says so.

If you mean to ask if I, based on my own experience, have grounds to condemn every other person as a hater of God, then no, I don't condemn them on the basis of my own experience, but on the basis of what God Himself has said about them.

But if there's someone out there who doesn't hate God and never has hated Him, then they don't need to be saved anyway. There is no Gospel for them, nor any need for one.

----------


## erowe1

> And I don't believe that God, as you have defined him, exists.


But that's not really true. That's a line you use to avoid saying that you hate Him.

And, by the way, the first post that I gave to which you responded didn't mention hating God, but hating Jesus. I notice that you switched that around. And I notice that you have scrupulously avoided the point about hatred of Jesus, whose existence you don't deny.

----------


## Crashland

> Don't believe in means the same thing as distrust.
> 
> Or do you mean "don't believe in" in the sense of believes doesn't exist? If that's the case, then *I reject the premise that anyone really deep down believes that God doesn't exist.* Furthermore, in the case of people who have heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, their rejection of Him, and the God whom He reveals can't just be excused on the grounds of ignorance.


You are wrong in rejecting that premise. Your heart and your mind are closed to millions of people who will testify otherwise, because you are clinging to a predetermined conclusion that you are unwilling to challenge.

But I already told you about Zeus. If Zeus sends you to Hades, you have only yourself to blame. You can't claim ignorance anymore.

----------


## Crashland

> But that's not really true. That's a line you use to avoid saying that you hate Him.
> 
> And, by the way, the first post that I gave to which you responded didn't mention hating God, but hating Jesus. I notice that you switched that around. And I notice that you have scrupulously avoided the point about hatred of Jesus, whose existence you don't deny.


That's because I very rarely get asked if I hate Jesus. I frequently get asked if I hate God. But no, I don't hate Jesus either, whoever he was.

----------


## Crashland

> But that's not really true. That's a line you use to avoid saying that you hate Him.


I know you really believe in Zeus though. This book I read told me that *everyone* knows deep down he is the God of Thunder. You are denying Zeus and are rebelling against him.

----------


## erowe1

> You are wrong in rejecting that premise. Your heart and your mind are closed to millions of people who will testify otherwise, because you are clinging to a predetermined conclusion that you are unwilling to challenge.


I'm willing to challenge it. But I'm also willing to believe it if and when it defeats that challenge. To challenge it is to challenge the Gospel that Jesus died for sins and rose again, which proves itself true in the face of all challenges.

----------


## erowe1

> I know you really believe in Zeus though. This book I read told me that *everyone* knows deep down he is the God of Thunder. You are denying Zeus and are rebelling against him.


But in the end, it will be Zeus who is thrown into the Lake of Fire, while on the other hand every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord. And am glad to give my allegiance to the latter, and rebel against the former.

----------


## Crashland

> But in the end, it will be Zeus who is thrown into the Lake of Fire, while on the other hand every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord.


No, in the end it will be your God who is thrown in to Hades for failing to appease Zeus. In the end everyone will recognize the supreme pantheon with Zeus at the top.

See I can play this game too

----------


## erowe1

> No, in the end it will be your God who is thrown in to Hades for failing to appease Zeus. In the end everyone will recognize the supreme pantheon with Zeus at the top.
> 
> See I can play this game too


It's not a game.

One of our claims is true. The other is false. The one true God will win, and the others will lose. There are opposing sides, and we all must choose one. There is no neutral ground.

It's also not just a matter of waiting and seeing, since Jesus has already proven victorious over death by rising from the grave.

----------


## Crashland

> I'm willing to challenge it. But I'm also willing to believe it if and when it defeats that challenge. To challenge it is to challenge the Gospel that Jesus died for sins and rose again, which proves itself true in the face of all challenges.


You say you are willing to challenge it, but there is nothing that anyone would be able to tell you that would convince you otherwise. In your world, everyone who says they don't believe in God are lying, end of story. Which is one of the most arrogant, repulsive attitudes in Christianity.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not a game.
> 
> One of our claims is true. The other is false. The one true God will win, and the others will lose. There are opposing sides, and we all must choose one. There is no neutral ground.


Actually, they are both false.

----------


## Crashland

Think about it with a dose of common sense. Is there *any* subject that  literally all of humanity agrees with? Hell, you can't even get everyone to agree on what year it is or whether inflicting pain on others is bad or not. Why on earth does it make sense  that everyone in the world would somehow have this knowledge deep down that an  unseen supreme intelligent being exists? The only reason anyone would believe such  an insane proposition is if it is part of a religious dogma, because the Bible says so.

----------


## erowe1

> You say you are willing to challenge it, but there is nothing that anyone would be able to tell you that would convince you otherwise.


Why do you think that?

----------


## erowe1

> Think about it with a dose of common sense. Is there *any* subject that  literally all of humanity agrees with? Hell, you can't even get everyone to agree on what year it is or whether inflicting pain on others is bad or not. Why on earth does it make sense  that everyone in the world would somehow have this knowledge deep down that an  unseen supreme intelligent being exists? The only reason anyone would believe such  an insane proposition is if it is part of a religious dogma, because the Bible says so.


Everyone believes in their own existence. Everyone believes that their senses correspond to a reality outside themselves. Everyone believes that the laws of logic hold (albeit not everyone could articulate them). Everyone believes in whatever mathematical truths they have apprehended. Everyone believes that there exists a moral law.

It is the proposition that the God to whom all these things point does not exist that is insane.

And this again becomes even more pointed when we limit ourselves to people who are aware of the revelation God has given us through Jesus.

----------


## moostraks

> I'm not selling a product. I think that looking at it that way is probably a big part of the problem with the author of the OP.


Imo you are, unless you are merely activating the elect. Then at which point, I suppose who is lost in the process might be a bit irrelevant. I would then say it would be easy to see why the consumers position might be nonsensical to you. Otherwise, imo you are soliciting a consumer to offer of their time to hear you out as to what it is _you_ have found to be of such merit or necessity to request to impose upon them for their time. When you begin with the presumption of another's position due to how they answer select questions in line with your specific affiliation's core values, then you are not really seeing the person you are speaking at, but following a to do list. This is where people lose patience with Christians, in my experience. 

All this is just food for thought for the curious anyways. I found the original link interesting and thought I'd share. If you find it useless, then ignore the opinions of the disgruntled masses and carry on.

----------


## moostraks

> Everyone believes in their own existence. Everyone believes that their senses correspond to a reality outside themselves. Everyone believes that the laws of logic hold (albeit not everyone could articulate them). Everyone believes in whatever mathematical truths they have apprehended. Everyone believes that there exists a moral law.
> 
> It is the proposition that the God to whom all these things point does not exist that is insane.
> 
> And this again becomes even more pointed when we limit ourselves to people who are aware of the revelation God has given us through Jesus.


I think most of your everyone statements are arguable by more than a few considering the massive numbers and individuality of the species.

----------


## erowe1

> Imo you are, unless you are merely activating the elect.


It's not just activating the elect, but the nonelect as well. It's important that we present the Gospel truthfully enough that both the elect accept it and that the nonelect reject it, and us along with it. We shouldn't try to trick someone into thinking they want something they really don't just so we can claim more converts or expand our own influence rather than Christ's.

2 Corinthians 2:15-17:



> 5 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> I think most of your everyone statements are arguable by more than a few considering the massive numbers and individuality of the species.


Maybe there are some exceptions, particularly among people whose levels of understanding are at that of infants, whom I'm sure God will judge appropriately. But there's no point in getting distracted by those cases.

What's important in this discussion is that, since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes have been clearly seen, being understood through creation, so that those who reject Him are without excuse (Romans 1:18ff.).

----------


## Crashland

> You say you are willing to challenge it, but there is nothing that anyone would be able to tell you that would convince you otherwise.





> Why do you think that?


Okay then tell me, what would it take to convince you otherwise?

----------


## moostraks

> It's not just activating the elect, but the nonelect as well. It's important that we present the Gospel truthfully enough that both the elect accept it and that the nonelect reject it. We shouldn't try to trick someone into thinking they want something they really don't just so we can claim more converts.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 2:15-17:


Well, then if you need to have proper assent and denial, then you might want to hear what the other side is saying about the tactics being employed. Which would mean actually being interested in active listening to what they are saying and walking a mile in their moccasins, intellectually speaking, and not merely skimming responses seeking to fulfill those presumptions you already have about those you are speaking at. Not all should teach was always understood in the places I attended because it takes a special personality willing to understand whom they are approaching and not work with preconceived ideas of how the person will comply or die, so to speak...

Interesting that you would say truthfully enough. Well, disturbing actually.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, then if you need to have proper assent and denial, then you might want to hear what the other side is saying about the tactics being employed. Which would mean actually being interested in active listening to what they are saying and walking a mile in their moccasins, intellectually speaking, and not merely skimming responses seeking to fulfill those presumptions you already have about those you are speaking at. Not all should teach was always understood in the places I attended because it takes a special personality willing to understand whom they are approaching and not work with preconceived ideas of how the person will comply or die, so to speak...
> 
> Interesting that you would say truthfully enough. Well, disturbing actually.


From the comments in the OP, it didn't look like many people had problems with the tactics being employed, but rather with the message itself.

Could you explain your last line? What's disturbing or interesting about "truthfully enough"?

----------


## presence

> Why do Christians hate us so much?


I think non-christians are more so disappointed that Christians always seem to take the fear mongering approach to sell their religion... 

_believe what we believe or suffer eternal damnation_

Just comes off a bit conceited, arrogant, and almost laughably threatening.   Especially since Christians continually infight and argue amongst themselves about what exactly it is they believe.

----------


## moostraks

> Maybe there are some exceptions, particularly among people whose levels of understanding are at that of infants, whom I'm sure God will judge appropriately. But there's no point in getting distracted by those cases.
> 
> What's important in this discussion is that, since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes have been clearly seen, being understood through creation, so that those who reject Him are without excuse (Romans 1:18ff.).


I was one who figured Him to be smart enough to work a system that didn't require a plethora of exceptions to a rule.

Now your last sentence is one I agree with but I am guessing we don't interpret that one in the same fashion.

----------


## Crashland

> It is the proposition that the God to whom all these things point does not exist that is insane.
> 
> And this again becomes even more pointed when we limit ourselves to people who are aware of the revelation God has given us through Jesus.


Those things don't necessarily "point" to there being an intelligent supreme being. Your religion is telling you that. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Not everyone agrees with your logically unsound argument that your holy book teaches. And even if it was logically sound, even then not everyone would agree with it, because we all know how many people are just plain illogical and honestly believe illogical things.

----------


## moostraks

> I think non-christians are more so disappointed that Christians always seem to take the fear mongering approach to sell their religion... 
> 
> _believe what we believe or suffer eternal damnation_
> 
> Just comes off a bit conceited, arrogant, and almost laughably threatening.   Especially since Christians continually infight and argue amongst themselves about what exactly it is they believe.


Lol! Yep. All too true...

----------


## erowe1

> Those things don't necessarily "point" to there being an intelligent supreme being. Your religion is telling you that. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Not everyone agrees with your logically unsound argument that your holy book teaches. And even if it was logically sound, even then not everyone would agree with it, because we all know how many people are just plain illogical and honestly believe illogical things.


It's not hard to grasp that you disagree, because your religion tells you to. But it is true that those things do point to God, since He is the author of them. Your expression of a denial of that fact doesn't make it less certain. You're like a fish denying the water in which it lives and moves and has its being.

----------


## erowe1

> I was one who figured Him to be smart enough to work a system that didn't require a plethora of exceptions to a rule.
> 
> Now your last sentence is one I agree with but I am guessing we don't interpret that one in the same fashion.


But my last sentence is nothing other than a reiteration of the other things I've been saying here all along.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not hard to grasp that you disagree, because your religion tells you to. *But it is true that those things do point to God, since He is the author of them.* Your expression of a denial of that fact doesn't make it less certain. You're like a fish denying the water in which it lives and moves and has its being.


How do you not see that this is a circular argument?

----------


## moostraks

> From the comments in the OP, it didn't look like many people had problems with the tactics being employed, but rather with the message itself.
> 
> Could you explain your last line? What's disturbing or interesting about "truthfully enough"?


We must be reading different quotes then because I see a problem with how they are being approached. Going back to the lighthouse idea (candle on a hill), rather than sinners in the hands of a wrathful Creator method might be a bit wise. A moth is drawn to a flame and people are drawn to His Love, imo. Many churches seem to be lacking Love. 

Disturbing is using the qualifier enough. Why must it be truthfully _enough_ instead of the truth?

----------


## RJB

For me, it was the realization that there was a God, that he loved me, and it was almost a physical feeling of my burdens being lifted off of me--  burdens that I didn't know that I carried.  It took a year to lead to that point but when it happened it was instantaneous and undeniable.



> I think non-christians are more so disappointed that Christians always seem to take the fear mongering approach to sell their religion... 
> 
> _believe what we believe or suffer eternal damnation_
> 
> Just comes off a bit conceited, arrogant, and almost laughably threatening.   Especially since Christians continually infight and argue amongst themselves about what exactly it is they believe.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay then tell me, what would it take to convince you otherwise?


Admittedly, at this point, with the level of knowledge about the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, it would be hard to do. But if you could present a valid argument based on sound reasoning evaluating all the historical evidence comprehensively surrounding the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and prove that it's likely that he didn't, I would accept that conclusion along with all of its corollaries, which would certainly include much of what I've said in this thread.

I wonder if you would do the same though. I wonder if, having studied the issue, you found that the only thing preventing you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead was your aversion to the implications of that, you would submit yourself to the truth and no longer live in denial of it.

----------


## erowe1

> burdens that I didn't know that I carried


That is a great description of exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance that I've been talking about. Those who reject the God who has revealed Himself through Jesus have burdens that they don't acknowledge that they have, and they don't like to be told that they have them. But they do. And it is right to say so.

----------


## Crashland

> For me, it was the realization that there was a God, that he loved me, and it was almost a physical feeling of my burdens being lifted off of me--  burdens that I didn't know that I carried.  It took a year to lead to that point but when it happened it was instantaneous and undeniable.


Right, and if someone hasn't "realized" those things, or if they have had an experience in the past which they believe is attributable to something other than the existence of God, then they honestly don't believe in God. I would hope that anyone who does believe in God has a good reason, whether it's by some method of reasoning or a personal experience or whatever. But we see time and time again in humanity, different people can be exposed to the exact same lines of reasoning, or the exact same experiences, and still *honestly* react differently and come to different or opposite conclusions. Some people here apparently are refusing to acknowledge that.

----------


## RJB

Erowe1.  I'm not trying to argue with you, but I'm just telling you my experience.

When I was 4 years old, I stopped believing in Santa Claus.  *I didn't hate Santa or like him.*  I wasn't very popular at school when I tried to enlighten my classmates.

In the Marine Corps I had quite a paradigm shift and I was debating the legitimacy of the Vietnam War with a fellow Marine.  It got to the point where he cocked his fist back and asked if his uncle who lost his arm, lost it for nothing.  I told him I was sorry and quickly ducked as his punch came at my head.  Contrary to what he said, *I didn't hate his uncle or the other men who gave their lives.  I felt pity for them.*

I basically felt the same about God until he entered my life fully--  *I had NO conscious feelings of hate.*

*The reason why I bring this up is that, the best way to turn a person away from your belief is to falsely accuse them of a belief they don't hold.*  You have told TER to provide a quotation made by you to prove you believe something or to apologize.  I'll return that: * Show a quotation written by every atheist that they hate God or apologize to them.*

One reason why I became a Catholic after Jesus entered my life was due to some pastors of other faiths telling me that Catholics worship the pope and other fallacies.  I knew this to be false and quickly dismissed anything else they said.  Same as when Rond/Sola told people that if they didn't believe in the doctrine of Faith Alone that meant they trusted their own works over God--  This is a falsehood and only steeled his opponents further against him.

Telling an atheist that he hates God when he has the same feeling for God as he would for Santa Claus only steels his heart against anything further that you have to say, because in his mind he sees you as a know-it-all and/or a liar.

----------


## moostraks

> But my last sentence is nothing other than a reiteration of the other things I've been saying here all along.


Then we interpret it in a different fashion.

----------


## erowe1

> Disturbing is using the qualifier enough. Why must it be truthfully _enough_ instead of the truth?


Because I was contrasting that with the alternative approach which is to sell the Gospel like a product you want to convince more people to buy, which involves not telling enough of the truth to get the nonelect to reject it. The word "enough..." was part of an expression that was completed by "that...."

I wasn't saying, or suggesting, that we should accept some amount of untruthfulness.

----------


## Crashland

> Admittedly, at this point, with the level of knowledge about the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, it would be hard to do. But if you could present a valid argument based on sound reasoning evaluating all the historical evidence comprehensively surrounding the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and prove that it's likely that he didn't, I would accept that conclusion along with all of its corollaries, which would certainly include much of what I've said in this thread.


I'm not really requiring that you lay out a condition in order to be convinced that your entire faith is false. I'm only requiring that you  lay out a condition to be convinced that people can genuinely not believe in the existence of God. There are Christians who believe this.




> I wonder if you would do the same though. I wonder if, having studied the issue, you found that the only thing preventing you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead was your aversion to the implications of that, you would submit yourself to the truth and no longer live in denial of it.


Of course I would. And I did for a time, when I believed in the existence of God.
Not believing in something in spite of the otherwise-convincing evidence only because you don't like the implications is inherently dishonest and wishful thinking.

----------


## erowe1

> I basically felt the same about God until he entered my life fully--  *I had NO conscious feelings of hate.*


The word "conscious" is a very important one there. You didn't acknowledge just how bad you were, but that rebellion in your soul against God was still there. It was not just the same as your ceasing to believe in Santa Claus. You stopped believing in Santa on account of the proper use of your faculties. But your disbelief in the God of the Bible came, in one way or another, through improper use of them, and this was on account of your sinfulness and enmity toward Him.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not really requiring that you lay out a condition in order to be convinced that your entire faith is false. I'm only requiring that you  lay out a condition to be convinced that people can genuinely not believe in the existence of God. There are Christians who believe this.


The condition I gave you is it.

This condition should be an acceptable one. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is a historical claim, subject to evaluation according to the same kinds of methods as other historical claims.

I can't speak for other professing Christians. But for me, that claim is central. It's the hub around which my other beliefs revolve, including my belief that Jesus was trustworthy in the verdicts He gave concerning those who do not have faith in Him.

Another way you could convince me that my belief about the disingenuousness of those who deny the existence of the God of the Bible would be by showing me that I am wrong in understanding the Bible to teach that they are being disingenuous in that.

Obviously just having someone tell me, "I don't believe in the God of the Bible, and my drawing of that conclusion is not based on any sinful bias I have," would not cut it, since they can't set that bias aside when making that claim. If, on the other hand, they could present an actual argument that would convince a dispassionate judge that Jesus really didn't come back to life from the dead, then that would work much better.

----------


## presence

> For me, it was the realization that there was a God, that he loved me, and it was almost a physical feeling of my burdens being lifted off of me--  burdens that I didn't know that I carried.  It took a year to lead to that point but when it happened it was instantaneous and undeniable.


_life is suffering
suffering has cause
the cause is our desire
without clinging we stop suffering _ 
-buddhism

_to work alone you are entitled, never to its fruit_
-hinduism

_constantly without desire, one observes its essence
constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations_ 
-taoism


...any of these meditations instantly and undeniably remove all burdens.

----------


## moostraks

> Because I was contrasting that with the alternative approach which is to sell the Gospel like a product you want to convince more people to buy, which involves not telling enough of the truth to get the nonelect to reject it. The word "enough..." was part of an expression that was completed by "that...."
> 
> I wasn't saying, or suggesting, that we should accept some amount of untruthfulness.


Okay. I guess I would never have thought to say it that way so it seems odd and unnecessary. So is it to limit by what measure you are imparting the truth? 

The product you're selling is your perception. As you have said He is evident enough so that those who reject Him are without excuse.

----------


## Crashland

> The word "conscious" is a very important one there. You didn't acknowledge just how bad you were, but that rebellion in your soul against God was still there. It was not just the same as your ceasing to believe in Santa Claus. You stopped believing in Santa on account of the proper use of your faculties. But your disbelief in the God of the Bible came, in one way or another, through improper use of them, and this was on account of your sinfulness and enmity toward Him.


I usually like to use the Santa Claus analogy myself too, although I would contend that like Santa Claus, by disbelief in God also came through *proper* use of my faculties. I believe that people can both come to a belief *or* a non-belief in God through a *proper* use of their faculties, which I take to mean using your faculties to the best of your ability.

The truth is though, atheists have no more hate for your one true God than you have hate for the one true giver of presents who lives at the north pole.

----------


## erowe1

> As you have said He is evident enough so that those who reject Him are without excuse.


Which you have said you agree with.

----------


## Crashland

> The condition I gave you is it.
> 
> This condition should be an acceptable one. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is a historical claim, subject to evaluation according to the same kinds of methods as other historical claims.
> 
> I can't speak for other professing Christians. But for me, that claim is central. It's the hub around which my other beliefs revolve, including my belief that Jesus was trustworthy in the verdicts He gave concerning those who do not have faith in Him.
> 
> Another way you could convince me that my belief about the disingenuousness of those who deny the existence of the God of the Bible would be by showing me that I am wrong in understanding the Bible to teach that they are being disingenuous in that.
> 
> Obviously just having someone tell me, "I don't believe in the God of the Bible, and my drawing of that conclusion is not based on any sinful bias I have," would not cut it, since they can't set that bias aside when making that claim. If, on the other hand, they could present an actual argument that would convince a dispassionate judge that Jesus really didn't come back to life from the dead, then that would work much better.


Ok. That actually sounds pretty reasonable, to me at least. But not everyone is convinced of this historical claim. The historical claim about Jesus rising from the dead is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. I hope you have very good reasons for why you believe this particular historical claim is true, and also why the extraordinary historical claims of countless other religions are not true. Personally, I have spent a great deal of time on this issue and have not come to the same conclusion as you. 

You said earlier that the word "conscious" is very important. I agree. What good is it though to claim that someone hates God if it's not a conscious hate? You can say they are not in alignment with God's will, which might put them and God at odds. But that is not the same thing as a person hating God. That's just being ignorant and happening to be God's enemy as a result. Claiming that someone hates God, in casual conversation, implies a conscious hate and a conscious understanding that God exists, which serves no purpose but to be inflammatory. Extending that to an unconscious hate and an "unconscious understanding" (if such a thing is even possible), however, makes the statement essentially lose its meaning.

----------


## RJB

> _life is suffering
> suffering has cause
> the cause is our desire
> without clinging we stop suffering _ 
> -buddhism
> 
> _to work alone you are entitled, never to its fruit_
> -hinduism
> 
> ...


  Wise words.  Christianity has similar teachings, but more importantly, Christianity has Jesus Christ who came down from heaven to be among us so we may be with him.

----------


## moostraks

> Which you have said you agree with.


Yep, but we take different approaches according to our interpretation and experiences.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ok. That actually sounds pretty reasonable, to me at least. But not everyone is convinced of this historical claim. *The historical claim about Jesus rising from the dead is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. I hope you have very good reasons for why you believe this particular historical claim is true, and also why the extraordinary historical claims of countless other religions are not true. Personally, I have spent a great deal of time on this issue and have not come to the same conclusion as you.* 
> 
> You said earlier that the word "conscious" is very important. I agree. What good is it though to claim that someone hates God if it's not a conscious hate? You can say they are not in alignment with God's will, which might put them and God at odds. But that is not the same thing as a person hating God. That's just being ignorant and happening to be God's enemy as a result. Claiming that someone hates God, in casual conversation, implies a conscious hate and a conscious understanding that God exists, which serves no purpose but to be inflammatory. Extending that to an unconscious hate and an "unconscious understanding" (if such a thing is even possible), however, makes the statement essentially lose its meaning.


Are you familiar with the science of apologetics?  The literature on it is vast and from numerous perspectives (Catholic, protestant, etc.).  When you've read up on it, you may change your mind.  At the least, you'll expand your mind.

----------


## Terry1

> Which you have said you agree with.


Erowe, this is where I will step in on your behalf and say that what moos will do is change her stance and narrative depending on whomever you're debating that she wants to side with.  I'm sure what you're saying is true that she did once agree with you and on those same terms.  But you're not arguing with someone she doesn't like, which makes all the difference with moos.  This is the way she rolls.

Once again, she's attempting to say here that you misunderstood her and what she was actually saying.

----------


## Crashland

> Are you familiar with the science of apologetics?  The literature on it is vast and from numerous perspectives (Catholic, protestant, etc.).  When you've read up on it, you may change your mind.  At the least, you'll expand your mind.


Yes, but actually, reading up on apologetics was the beginning of the end of my Christian faith. Now I consider apologetics to be more of an art than a science. And although sometimes the apologists will claim that their work is addressed to non-believers, I find all too often that the actual audience is Christians because of the prevalence of circular reasoning. When I read Christian apologetics I take a critical approach where I not only read the books, but I attempt to reconcile them with my understanding of the Bible and also research opposing arguments. I always find the arguments in Christian apologetics to be full of holes. In particular, the ones that I can remember I have studied the most so far are some of the works of C.S. Lewis (who is my favorite), Lee Strobel, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, William Lane Craig (he is the worst), Josh McDowell, and Ray Comfort. If you have any particular apologetics books in mind feel free to recommend them.

----------


## moostraks

> Erowe, this is where I will step in on your behalf and say that what moos will do is change her stance and narrative depending on whomever you're debating that she wants to side with.  I'm sure what you're saying is true that she did once agree with you and on those same terms.  But you're not arguing with someone she doesn't like, which makes all the difference with moos.  This is the way she rolls.


1 Peter 2:1-12 

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

Proverbs 26:21 As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire,
So is a contentious man to kindle strife.

Proverbs 18:19 
A brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city, and quarreling is like the bars of a castle.


Proverbs 6:16-19 

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

~~~peace on your path

----------


## Terry1

> 1 Peter 2:1-12 
> 
> So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
> 
> Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
> 
> Proverbs 26:21 As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire,
> So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
> 
> ...


You quoting scripture doesn't change the truth.

*St. Paul says:* “Proud”
*Psychology says:*  The narcissists inflated pride convinces them that they are superior to everybody else.  In such a place of pridefulness, the narcissist is overly sensitive to any form of actual or perceived criticism that could threaten their self-image and cause them shame.  They will react harshly and haughtily to anybody who dares to threaten their false self and magical thinking; therefore threats will not be tolerated for an instant.  As the narcissist is always right in their own mind, they will judge anybody in opposition to them immediately as being inferior to them, and therefore deserving of their rage and retribution for daring to attack or humiliation them.


*St. Paul says:* Unholy
*Psychology says:* The purpose of all human life is to become “Holy”, holy means to become “whole”.  When we are whole we are grounded in a sense of our True Self, and the interconnectedness with all that is sacred.  That interconnectedness is directed by the natural laws of love, wisdom, reverence and compassion, where we can be other centered.  Narcissists, on the other hand, are solitary beings who are grounded in a False Self that renders them addicted to their own self-centeredness.  Focused only on their own needs and wants, they become “unholy” predators cut off from all life (secular and sacred).  They are at the centre of their universe, with little or no moral code they become intent on violating everything in their sights in order to get their needs meet.  *In doing so they have no consideration for any damage they cause to others.   It is such evil intent that becomes the dualistic opposite of good, rendering the narcissist unholy.

St.Paul says:* Slanderers
*Psychology says:* Narcissists build an inner shrine to themselves where they self-aggrandize to an extraordinary degree so that they can feel intrinsically superior to all others.  Of course, their highly inflated view of themselves is an illusory false-self (a pathological ego) that becomes the basis for all future misinterpretations of their reality.  Their feelings of being superior in everyway to everybody, becomes the source of much pain and envy for them when ever they feel outshined by anybody.

Pathological envy and jealousy is an integral part of narcissism (envy is a desire for what another person has, while jealousy is the fear that what something can be taken away).  Narcissists are envious of anything in others that they lack in themselves (i.e. beauty, possessions, knowledge, personal qualities, power, skills, achievements, qualifications, relationships, money etc.  Their envy consumes them, and the list of their covetousness (“I want, I want”) is endless.  Envy is a normal human feeling which can range from mild to severe, from healthy to unhealthy, from positive to negative.  For example, “healthy envy” has positive qualities.  Healthy envy acts as a valuable guide for your heart, leading you in the direction of what your soul requires, so in effect, the thing you desire acts as a mirror for personal growth. For example, if you envy the knowledge of your tutor in college, perhaps there is a part of your soul that yearns to become a teacher, or to be in a position where you can impart knowledge.  Healthy envy is empowering because it brings you nearer to your life’s goal.*  Whereas, unhealthy envy is disempowering because it keeps you bound to a fantasy, making you blind to your own true nature.  Because the narcissist acts out of a False Self, they suffer from a twisted heart, leaving them at the mercy of their “unhealthy envy”, and envy that can trigger their feelings of vulnerability, shame and self-loathing at any moment.  Any of these feeling can result in narcissistic injury, to which the narcissist invariably react to with rage.  In order to rid themselves of such emotional turmoil and recover their equilibrium, the narcissist projects those intolerable feelings outward onto the person of their envy.   Once you become the object of the narcissists envy you are in serious trouble.  In order to improve their own self image they are likely to do a character assassination on you.  This is not innocent gossip, rather it is an intentional and premeditated smear campaigne of “projection and smearing” that is aimed at maligning you in order to tarnish your reputation and make them feel better about themselves.  Be warned, they are cold, ruthless, and self-serving, and by the way, they take no prisoners.**
*

----------


## erowe1

> Ok. That actually sounds pretty reasonable, to me at least. But not everyone is convinced of this historical claim. The historical claim about Jesus rising from the dead is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. I hope you have very good reasons for why you believe this particular historical claim is true, and also why the extraordinary historical claims of countless other religions are not true. Personally, I have spent a great deal of time on this issue and have not come to the same conclusion as you.


I hear this line about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence all the time. Is there an objective way of determining that a claim is extraordinary? And is there an objective way of determining what evidence counts as extraordinary evidence? Or are these attributions of extraordinariness just based on your gut? There is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, very strong evidence. And there have never been offered any explanations for it that don't boil down to the making of claims that are more incredible than the claim that we live in a universe created by a God who has revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ and that this revelation entailed Jesus's returning to life from the dead. If you're looking for something that presents this in terms of probabilities, Richard Swinburne, professor of philosophy from Oxford, calculated it at 97% likely that he did, and that is after accounting for the unprecedentedness of resurrections (which I take it to be what is meant by extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence).
http://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/p...20final(1).pdf

If you want to prove that your denial of the claim that a God who is real has revealed Himself to us in Jesus, and that it's not merely you being in denial, then presenting a good argument against the resurrection of Jesus would be the ideal way to do that.




> You said earlier that the word "conscious" is very important. I agree. What good is it though to claim that someone hates God if it's not a conscious hate? You can say they are not in alignment with God's will, which might put them and God at odds. But that is not the same thing as a person hating God. That's just being ignorant and happening to be God's enemy as a result. Claiming that someone hates God, in casual conversation, implies a conscious hate and a conscious understanding that God exists, which serves no purpose but to be inflammatory. Extending that to an unconscious hate and an "unconscious understanding" (if such a thing is even possible), however, makes the statement essentially lose its meaning.


"Conscious" is important because there are different levels of thought and consciousness in our minds. What happens when a person is in denial about something is that they are faced with evidence that they ought to believe, but that they willfully refuse to believe. But this refusal to believe must extend not just to the initial thing itself, but also to their acknowledgement of what's going on in their own minds. They must make themselves believe that they're not in denial in order for the denial to work. They are not using their faculties properly, but they must think that they are using them properly. I think that in moments of weakness they must war with themselves inside their own minds about it. There is a part of their minds, perhaps one that they manage to suppress from their consciousness, that knows that they are letting their bias against the God whom Jesus reveals guide their reasoning. And this very act of suppression is itself rebellious against Him.

Because of all this, those Christians who tell nonchristians the bad news that, "No. You are not OK," which all the people in the OP found so objectionable, are doing something right, not wrong. And the resistance to that message on the part of those nonchristians is no sign that it is wrong.

----------


## moostraks

> You quoting scripture doesn't change the truth.
> 
> *St. Paul says:* “Proud”
> *Psychology says:*  The narcissists inflated pride convinces them that they are superior to everybody else.  In such a place of pridefulness, the narcissist is overly sensitive to any form of actual or perceived criticism that could threaten their self-image and cause them shame.  They will react harshly and haughtily to anybody who dares to threaten their false self and magical thinking; therefore threats will not be tolerated for an instant.  As the narcissist is always right in their own mind, they will judge anybody in opposition to them immediately as being inferior to them, and therefore deserving of their rage and retribution for daring to attack or humiliation them.
> 
> 
> *St. Paul says:* Unholy
> *Psychology says:* The purpose of all human life is to become “Holy”, holy means to become “whole”.  When we are whole we are grounded in a sense of our True Self, and the interconnectedness with all that is sacred.  That interconnectedness is directed by the natural laws of love, wisdom, reverence and compassion, where we can be other centered.  Narcissists, on the other hand, are solitary beings who are grounded in a False Self that renders them addicted to their own self-centeredness.  Focused only on their own needs and wants, they become “unholy” predators cut off from all life (secular and sacred).  They are at the centre of their universe, with little or no moral code they become intent on violating everything in their sights in order to get their needs meet.  *In doing so they have no consideration for any damage they cause to others.   It is such evil intent that becomes the dualistic opposite of good, rendering the narcissist unholy.
> 
> ...


The Excellence of Love

    I Corinthians 13:1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
      4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

      8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

----------


## Crashland

> I hear this line about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence all the time. Is there an objective way of determining that a claim is extraordinary? And is there an objective way of determining what evidence counts as extraordinary evidence? Or are these attributions of extraordinariness just based on your gut? There is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, very strong evidence. And there have never been offered any explanations for it that don't boil down to the making of claims that are more incredible than the claim that we live in a universe created by a God who has revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ and that this revelation entailed Jesus's returning to life from the dead. If you're looking for something that presents this in terms of probabilities, Richard Swinburne, professor of philosophy from Oxford, calculated it at 97% likely that he did, and that is after accounting for the unprecedentedness of resurrections (which I take it to be what is meant by extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence).
> http://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/p...20final(1).pdf
> 
> If you want to prove that your denial of the claim that a God who is real has revealed Himself to us in Jesus, and that it's not merely you being in denial, then presenting a good argument against the resurrection of Jesus would be the ideal way to do that.


Yes, I meant that claiming that someone came back from the dead, is an extraordinary claim. Because yes, it is unprecedented.

I am doing a double-take on that Swinburne paper. Did you actually read this? That 97% figure is coming from nothing. After several pages of pontificating about the reasons God might have raised Jesus from the dead, on the last page he is pulling that number right out of his ass. If you think you can concisely explain where that 97% is coming from, by all means please summarize. Not to mention practically every source in this paper is (shockingly) the Bible. Round and round we go on the circular reasoning.

Swinburne:



> If we suppose that the probability that we would have this combination of prior and posterior evidence if Jesus was not God Incarnate is 1/1000, then it can be shown that the total evidence gives a probability of 97/100 that Jesus was God Incarnate who rose from the dead


Dafuq is this? ^^^^  The 1/1000 figure is BS and so is the 97/100. It is absolutely probable that we can have this combination of "evidence" (stuff in the Bible) if Jesus was not God Incarnate. This is a religion. This kind of "evidence" happens all the time for all kinds of crazy sh*t.





> "Conscious" is important because there are different levels of thought and consciousness in our minds. What happens when a person is in denial about something is that they are faced with evidence that they ought to believe, but that they willfully refuse to believe. But this refusal to believe must extend not just to the initial thing itself, but also to their acknowledgement of what's going on in their own minds. They must make themselves believe that they're not in denial in order for the denial to work. They are not using their faculties properly, but they must think that they are using them properly. I think that in moments of weakness they must war with themselves inside their own minds about it. There is a part of their minds, perhaps one that they manage to suppress from their consciousness, that knows that they are letting their bias against the God whom Jesus reveals guide their reasoning. And this very act of suppression is itself rebellious against Him.
> 
> Because of all this, those Christians who tell nonchristians the bad news that, "No. You are not OK," which all the people in the OP found so objectionable, are doing something right, not wrong. And the resistance to that message on the part of those nonchristians is no sign that it is wrong.


You keep resisting the truth that Zeus is the God of Thunder. You are in denial. You must be warring with yourself inside your mind about it because I KNOW that there is a part of you that knows you are letting your hatred for Zeus distort your reasoning.

^The above is exactly what you sound like to non-Christians.

----------


## Crashland

Swinburne marvels at how the person of Jesus miraculously, against all the incredible odds, meets the prior and posterior conditions for being God incarnate. Yet where does he derive the prior and posterior conditions for being God incarnate from? Oh, the Bible.

----------


## fr33

Just read the comments on Fox News (when they do allow comments) and Breitbart. You will witness plenty of hatred directed towards Islam. The odds are that commenters there are likely to be influenced by the bible.

Atheists tend to rank about as low as rapists in some polls.

There is so much hatred from Christians and other theists, it's sickening. As someone who used to be a Christian at a younger age, that hate was part of why I started questioning the faith in God that I had. I realized that even I had a lot of hate and that it contradicted with the teachings I was brought up to believe in. I then realized that the religion I was indoctrinated in was part of the reason for that hate.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

A neighbor once told me "Atheists are the reason our country is in such bad shape".  I just looked at him, shaking my head, and said, "No, their not".  He said, "Their not?  Oh...."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just read the comments on Fox News (when they do allow comments) and Breitbart. You will witness plenty of hatred directed towards Islam. The odds are that commenters there are likely to be influenced by the bible.
> 
> Atheists tend to rank about as low as rapists in some polls.
> *
> There is so much hatred from Christians and other theists, it's sickening. As someone who used to be a Christian at a younger age, that hate was part of why I started questioning the faith in God that I had. I realized that even I had a lot of hate and that it contradicted with the teachings I was brought up to believe in. I then realized that the religion I was indoctrinated in was part of the reason for that hate.*


I grew up in a family full of Southern Baptists and other Protestants.  The hate-mongers weren't as prominent as the ones you experienced, but they were there.  A number of my family members as well until they got old and lost the energy to be angry so often.  My grandmother cussed out Catholics anytime they came up in discussion, grandpa was prone to racial slurs(not the funny sort), etc.  At the same time, I've met plenty of very nice Protestants.  As an atheist (I get the impression you are the sort very interested in formal logic from your history), you should know that reasoning from parts to whole (which you are doing in your categorization of "theists" generally and Christians in particular)  is a logical fail generally.

At any rate, get to know more people of all religions.  It will expand your mind even if you disagree.  ~hugs~

----------


## Kevin007

> Thanks! Many of the comments resonate with my own experiences and the responses I witnessed in the pagan community. Hate just breeds more hatred, but Christians fail to realize that they often plant the seed of resentment and animosity through their failure to listen to the person they are talking at, often deceptive tactics, and single minded concern for gaining souls for the banner they operate under.


kind of like the democratic party?

----------


## Kevin007

> Proverbs 26:11Like a dog that returns to its vomit   Is a fool who repeats his folly.
> 
> So I am going to heed:
> 
> Proverbs 26: 4Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
> Or you will also be like him.
> 
> That has been my gravest error.
> 
> ~~~peace on your path


lol. "stock" reply

----------


## moostraks

> kind of like the democratic party?


Lol! Yep. This thread came to mind:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-kick-your-a**




> lol. "stock" reply


Realized I was being gaslit.

ETA: Link for gaslighting:http://notyourplaything.com/2013/04/...l-personality/

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, I meant that claiming that someone came back from the dead, is an extraordinary claim. Because yes, it is unprecedented.
> 
> I am doing a double-take on that Swinburne paper. Did you actually read this? That 97% figure is coming from nothing. After several pages of pontificating about the reasons God might have raised Jesus from the dead, on the last page he is pulling that number right out of his ass. If you think you can concisely explain where that 97% is coming from, by all means please summarize. Not to mention practically every source in this paper is (shockingly) the Bible. Round and round we go on the circular reasoning.
> 
> Swinburne:
> 
> 
> Dafuq is this? ^^^^  The 1/1000 figure is BS and so is the 97/100. It is absolutely probable that we can have this combination of "evidence" (stuff in the Bible) if Jesus was not God Incarnate. This is a religion. This kind of "evidence" happens all the time for all kinds of crazy sh*t.


The numbers are given and defended at length in his book on the resurrection. The article just summarizes the argument. What other things that you consider crazy do you think have the kind of evidence the resurrection does.

I would still like to see your argument against it. To this point your responses comport much better with my claim that your conclusion is based on your hatred of Jesus than with your claim that it's based on some dispassionate evaluation of the available data.




> You keep resisting the truth that Zeus is the God of Thunder.


Can you quote me doing that?

----------


## otherone

> But if you boiled down to a single feeling what was most often expressed in the nonbelievers statements, it would be Why do Christians hate us so much?


Christianity:

----------


## otherone

> Are you familiar with the _science_ of apologetics?

----------


## Crashland

> The numbers are given and defended at length in his book on the resurrection. The article just summarizes the argument. What other things that you consider crazy do you think have the kind of evidence the resurrection does.
> 
> I would still like to see your argument against it. To this point your responses comport much better with my claim that your conclusion is based on your hatred of Jesus than with your claim that it's based on some dispassionate evaluation of the available data.


Oh, OK, it's in his book. Well I only have what was at the link you provided. And if his book is anything like his summary in that link, I don't think I'll find it very compelling.

It's not a matter of arguing against it. *I don't believe in things unless I see a good reason to*. And I would hope, neither do you. I have reviewed all the evidence for Christianity at my disposal and I don't think there is a good reason to believe it. I don't find your evidence convincing. How many times do I have to explain this, that it is possible for another human being to disagree with something you might feel is obvious.
I am happy to go point by point if you really want to go down that road, but you are the one making the claim and I respond to your claims. That is how it works. I am not trying to convince you that God doesn't exist. I am only claiming that *your* claims are without substance.





> Can you quote me doing that?


Don't have to. The fact is, you aren't acknowledging that Zeus is the supreme God of Thunder. This is a refusal to admit something that you know deep down is true.

----------


## erowe1

> Oh, OK, it's in his book. Well I only have what was at the link you provided. And if his book is anything like his summary in that link, I don't think I'll find it very compelling.
> 
> It's not a matter of arguing against it. *I don't believe in things unless I see a good reason to*. And I would hope, neither do you. I have reviewed all the evidence for Christianity at my disposal and I don't think there is a good reason to believe it. I don't find your evidence convincing. How many times do I have to explain this, that it is possible for another human being to disagree with something you might feel is obvious.


If you don't have an argument to support your belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then, yes, believing in something without a good reason is exactly what you're doing. I don't dispute that it's possible to disagree with me, or that you do disagree with me. I dispute your claim that this disagreement is rooted in a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence rather than your aversion to the implications of Jesus's resurrection.




> I am happy to go point by point if you really want to go down that road, but you are the one making the claim and I respond to your claims. That is how it works. I am not trying to convince you that God doesn't exist. I am only claiming that *your* claims are without substance.


You are making claims. It seems to me that you have no basis for your claims other than your deeply held religious biases. Yes, please go point-by-point. I'm calling your bluff. You haven't given any serious thought to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.




> Don't have to. The fact is, you aren't acknowledging that Zeus is the supreme God of Thunder. This is a refusal to admit something that you know deep down is true.


Where are you getting this? I don't refuse to admit that. I just refuse to worship him. My allegiance is elsewhere.

----------


## Crashland

As obvious as it might seem to *you* that there is a God, it is just as obvious to me that your claim is false about everyone knowing in their hearts that God exists. At least I don't have the height of arrogance to pretend that I know what goes on in the mind of virtually every other human being on the planet, especially when it is at odds with what they themselves claim to be thinking. It's obvious to me that you are a liar and don't know what you are talking about, because guess what, I know me better than you do. I know what goes on in my head and I know what it is that I find convincing or not convincing. Is there such a thing as denial? Absolutely. But you have the gall to tell everyone who disagrees with you they are in denial? Hook me up to a lie detector then and ask me if I truly think there is probably a God. Do it to any of the millions of atheists. How's that for an objective evidence, would that convince you if we all pass with flying colors to prove we actually believe what we say? I'm sure you will make up some lame explanation about us deceiving ourselves. Well guess what, if you are deceived about something, it means you honestly fell for it, and honestly believe a falsehood. But here you are showing tremendous disrespect to people outside your faith calling them all liars about their own beliefs.

----------


## otherone

> Within three days I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected their cumulative sentiment to be one of mostly anger. But if you boiled down to a single feeling what was most often expressed in the nonbelievers’ statements, it would be *Why do Christians hate us so much?*


thus:



> As obvious as it might seem to *you* that there is a God, it is just as obvious to me that your claim is false about everyone knowing in their hearts that God exists. At least I don't have the height of arrogance to pretend that I know what goes on in the mind of virtually every other human being on the planet, especially when it is at odds with what they themselves claim to be thinking. It's obvious to me that you are a liar and don't know what you are talking about, because guess what, I know me better than you do. I know what goes on in my head and I know what it is that I find convincing or not convincing. Is there such a thing as denial? Absolutely. But you have the gall to tell everyone who disagrees with you they are in denial? Hook me up to a lie detector then and ask me if I truly think there is probably a God. Do it to any of the millions of atheists. How's that for an objective evidence, would that convince you if we all pass with flying colors to prove we actually believe what we say? I'm sure you will make up some lame explanation about us deceiving ourselves. Well guess what, if you are deceived about something, it means you honestly fell for it, and honestly believe a falsehood*. But here you are showing tremendous disrespect to people outside your faith calling them all liars about their own beliefs.*

----------


## moostraks

> Christianity:


Yep. I have been told I only "claim" to be Christian or that I have no beliefs because I don't subscribe to a particular person's position.(point of clarification this is specific incidences and specific persons in which this occurs) The tribalism seems to be the most important aspect for far too many. Which is weird because the point I have found to be most intrinsic to it was we all have similar problems but to a greater or lesser degree is irrelevant. The solution imo taught being to think outside of oneself and be and spread Love (such as a parent has for a child). I am accused of being a bit simplistic in my beliefs but I hold to the harm none adage. Two words but the implications of following it are staggering. It is nowheres as easy as it sounds and in thus humility and the strength of a Power outside oneself is tapped which I have found is Love.

----------


## Crashland

> If you don't have an argument to support your belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then, yes, believing in something without a good reason is exactly what you're doing. I don't dispute that it's possible to disagree with me, or that you do disagree with me. I dispute your claim that this disagreement is rooted in a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence rather than your aversion to the implications of Jesus's resurrection.
> 
> 
> You are making claims. It seems to me that you have no basis for your claims other than your deeply held religious biases. Yes, please go point-by-point. I'm calling your bluff. You haven't given any serious thought to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.


Here you go again telling me what I have or haven't done. You don't know me. I spent years of my life wrestling with this and it is insulting for a stranger like you to tell me I don't take this seriously.

Your premise about my "claim" is fundamentally flawed, but I'll humor you. I see the Bible the same as any other religious text. I see no line of reasoning that would allow me to accept the Bible as truth, which could not also be applied to the religious teachings of other religions. In order for me to be convinced that Jesus is God, I would first need to be convinced that a God exists, and secondly that everything in the Bible is true. Right now I am convinced of neither.





> Where are you getting this? I don't refuse to admit that. I just refuse to worship him. My allegiance is elsewhere.


So you do admit that Zeus is actually the supreme God of Thunder, then. Sounds like blasphemy

----------


## otherone

> The solution imo taught being to think outside of oneself and be and spread Love (such as a parent has for a child). I am accused of being a bit simplistic in my beliefs but I hold to the harm none adage. Two words but the implications of following it are staggering. It is nowheres as easy as it sounds and in thus humility and the strength of a Power outside oneself is tapped which I have found is Love.


You catch more flies with


than with

----------


## moostraks

> You catch more flies with
> 
> 
> than with


Indeed. I am initially insulted when the comment is made as it is on occasion about oh, say, how I am not evidencing _proper_ faith because of my particular opinion on a subject matter. Then, I try to understand why a person is as they are  (to the best of my ability) so that I can keep a perspective of it is not my faith but a failure to communicate.

ETA My goal is to get past that initial reaction. My heroes are those who operate with that reservoir of peace at their beck and call.

----------


## otherone

> ETA My goal is to get past that initial reaction. My heroes are those who operate with that reservoir of peace at their beck and call.


"fear" is a more expedient motivator.

----------


## moostraks

> "fear" is a more expedient motivator.


I believe I laughed a bit too hard at this. Lol!

----------


## Ronin Truth

*I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.*  ―     Mahatma Gandhi

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Realized I was being gaslit.
> 
> ETA: Link for gaslighting:http://notyourplaything.com/2013/04/...l-personality/


"POST OF THE DAY"

I've been studying gaslighting lately.  Recommended the book in your link to a woman whose daughter is being bullied.  I suggested she educate her daughter on gaslighting and emotional abuse and she was very grateful.

Spiritual gaslighting is rampant in my opinion.  We all must be very careful to not do it and be aware when others do it to us.

You called it well here, Moos.

May our Sovereign Lord continue to soften and call His saints to Himself.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> *“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”*  ―     Mahatma Gandhi


^^This

I wish sooooo much that we had Jesus' life and teachings compiled in sources outside the Bible.

What puzzles me is that here's a guy going around performing amazing miracles for 3 years, creates a huge stir among the commoners as well as the elites, yet there are no other sources.  Where's the mainstream media?  Where's the biographers?  Where's the reporters, lay supporters, even detractors?

doesn't make sense...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I reject the premise that anyone really deep down believes that God doesn't exist.


I reject the premise that anyone really deep down disagrees with me.  Therefore, not only am I right, I am Super-Right!

----------


## Terry1

> You catch more flies with
> 
> 
> than with



Some snakes prefer the snake oil method.  Can't change the nature of the beast--but a noble try on your part.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ^^This
> 
> I wish sooooo much that we had Jesus' life and teachings compiled in sources outside the Bible.
> 
> What puzzles me is that here's a guy going around performing amazing miracles for 3 years, creates a huge stir among the commoners as well as the elites, yet there are no other sources.  Where's the mainstream media?  Where's the autobiographies?  Where's the reporters, lay supporters, even detractors?
> 
> doesn't make sense...


Christians during Christ's life and long after (and today in some places) were heavily persecuted and didn't have the luxury of broadcasting the info you're talking about.  In fact, it was extremely difficult just to become a Christian until relatively recently in history.  Broadcasting to the world all about yourself was a good way to get oneself killed.  IDK about you, but most people don't want to be fed to lions.

There are plenty of first century saints you can read, though.  ~hugs~

----------


## Ronin Truth

> ^^This
> 
> I wish sooooo much that we had Jesus' life and teachings compiled in sources outside the Bible.
> 
> What puzzles me is that here's a guy going around performing amazing miracles for 3 years, creates a huge stir among the commoners as well as the elites, yet there are no other sources.  Where's the mainstream media?  Where's the autobiographies?  Where's the reporters, lay supporters, even detractors?
> 
> doesn't make sense...


You're correct, it doesn't make sense. Where's the Roman historians?

----------


## Terry1

> Indeed. I am initially insulted when the comment is made as it is on occasion about oh, say, how I am not evidencing _proper_ faith because of my particular opinion on a subject matter. Then, I try to understand why a person is as they are  (to the best of my ability) so that I can keep a perspective of it is not my faith but a failure to communicate.
> 
> ETA My goal is to get past that initial reaction. My heroes are those who operate with that reservoir of peace at their beck and call.


So sorry that you're so misunderstood and such a victim of so many others superior attitudes and lack of compassion towards you.  We can only hope that they will all change to meet those high standards that you so eloquently have made yourself an example of in the future.

----------


## Crashland

> Christians during Christ's life and long after (and today in some places) were heavily persecuted and didn't have the luxury of broadcasting the info you're talking about.  In fact, it was extremely difficult just to become a Christian until relatively recently in history.  Broadcasting to the world all about yourself was a good way to get oneself killed.  IDK about you, but most people don't want to be fed to lions.
> 
> There are plenty of first century saints you can read, though.  ~hugs~


There were some, but like you said, it didnt always end well for them. There are "witnesses" and martyrs in every religion though - people have been willing to die for so many other beliefs that you reject as false. I don't see what makes Christian witnesses/martyrs any more convincing.

----------


## moostraks

> "POST OF THE DAY"
> 
> I've been studying gaslighting lately.  Recommended the book in your link to a woman whose daughter is being bullied.  I suggested she educate her daughter on gaslighting and emotional abuse and she was very grateful.
> 
> Spiritual gaslighting is rampant in my opinion.  We all must be very careful to not do it and be aware when others do it to us.
> 
> You called it well here, Moos.
> 
> May our Sovereign Lord continue to soften and call His saints to Himself.


Thank you...

----------


## Terry1

> As obvious as it might seem to *you* that there is a God, it is just as obvious to me that your claim is false about everyone knowing in their hearts that God exists. At least I don't have the height of arrogance to pretend that I know what goes on in the mind of virtually every other human being on the planet, especially when it is at odds with what they themselves claim to be thinking. It's obvious to me that you are a liar and don't know what you are talking about, because guess what, I know me better than you do. I know what goes on in my head and I know what it is that I find convincing or not convincing. Is there such a thing as denial? Absolutely. But you have the gall to tell everyone who disagrees with you they are in denial? Hook me up to a lie detector then and ask me if I truly think there is probably a God. Do it to any of the millions of atheists. How's that for an objective evidence, would that convince you if we all pass with flying colors to prove we actually believe what we say? I'm sure you will make up some lame explanation about us deceiving ourselves. Well guess what, if you are deceived about something, it means you honestly fell for it, and honestly believe a falsehood. But here you are showing tremendous disrespect to people outside your faith calling them all liars about their own beliefs.


Wow--great post Crash! Woot!

----------


## moostraks

> In order to improve their own self image they are likely to do a character assassination on you.  This is not innocent gossip, rather it is an intentional and premeditated smear campaigne of projection and smearing that is aimed at maligning you in order to tarnish your reputation and make them feel better about themselves.  Be warned, they are cold, ruthless, and self-serving, and by the way, they take no prisoners.





> So sorry that you're so misunderstood and such a victim of so many others superior attitudes and lack of compassion towards you.  We can only hope that they will all change to meet those high standards that you so eloquently have made yourself an example of in the future.


Well at least you apprised me of your game plan. Who is chasing whom? 

Your claims are bogus and ignorant. You may not minimize my experiences nor command me to accept your false reality about my intentions or beliefs. I am neither misunderstood nor a victim. People who wrap themself with the cross but continue to carry every worldly vice due to the bitterness of their own hearts rarely see beyond the tip of their own nose to hear what another person is saying. My point was I need to not be insulted because it isn't my problem the person is self absorbed and lacks manners nor respects boundaries. So no reason to accept their baggage just because they are attempting to foist it upon me. 

 I Corinthians 13:1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
      4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

 8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love

----------


## Terry1

> Well at least you apprised me of your game plan. Who is chasing whom? 
> 
> Your claims are bogus and ignorant. You may not minimize my experiences nor command me to accept your false reality about my intentions or beliefs. I am neither misunderstood nor a victim. People who wrap themself with the cross but continue to carry every worldly vice due to the bitterness of their own hearts rarely see beyond the tip of their own nose to hear what another person is saying. My point was I need to not be insulted because it isn't my problem the person is self absorbed and lacks manners nor respects boundaries. So no reason to accept their baggage just because they are attempting to foist it upon me. 
> 
>  I Corinthians 13:1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
>       4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
>  8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love



"peace on your path" dear moos.   Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of being a liar about my own beliefs and accusing me of gnosticism.  You know where to find me when you're ready---if ever.

You should reread Crashland's most enlightening post here.  I thought it was stellar and accurate in description of anyone who perpetrates this deed upon another.





> Originally Posted by *Crashland* 
> As obvious as it might seem to *you* that there is a God, it is just as obvious to me that your claim is false about everyone knowing in their hearts that God exists. At least I don't have the height of arrogance to pretend that I know what goes on in the mind of virtually every other human being on the planet, especially when it is at odds with what they themselves claim to be thinking. It's obvious to me that you are a liar and don't know what you are talking about, because guess what, I know me better than you do. I know what goes on in my head and I know what it is that I find convincing or not convincing. Is there such a thing as denial? Absolutely. But you have the gall to tell everyone who disagrees with you they are in denial? Hook me up to a lie detector then and ask me if I truly think there is probably a God. Do it to any of the millions of atheists. How's that for an objective evidence, would that convince you if we all pass with flying colors to prove we actually believe what we say? I'm sure you will make up some lame explanation about us deceiving ourselves. Well guess what, if you are deceived about something, it means you honestly fell for it, and honestly believe a falsehood. But here you are showing tremendous disrespect to people outside your faith calling them all liars about their own beliefs.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Christians during Christ's life and long after (and today in some places) were heavily persecuted and didn't have the luxury of broadcasting the info you're talking about.  In fact, it was extremely difficult just to become a Christian until relatively recently in history.  Broadcasting to the world all about yourself was a good way to get oneself killed.  IDK about you, but most people don't want to be fed to lions.
> 
> There are plenty of first century saints you can read, though.  ~hugs~


I don't mean the followers, I mainly wonder where are the neutral parties - the historians, the writers and the media.

Makes no sense that a man doing miraculous things wouldn't receive more attention outside the faithful.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Yes, we get that question all the time - "Why do you hate God?" Which most non-Christians deny because it is an absurd question. But very rarely do we get asked "Why do you hate Christians?" So there's a difference there -- Christians often perceive non-Christians as hating _God_, but non-Christians often perceive Christians as hating _them_.


Do Christians hate the Buddha?

----------


## Terry1

> Do Christians hate the Buddha?


I don't, I think he was a nice guy with good intentions.  My sister just made a fountain of his head over her new inground pool.

----------


## VIDEODROME

As for the main topic:  I have run into many pushy Christians and it gets annoying. 

When the recession hit, I got a job as a long haul truck driver for a few years.  I found that some Christian groups in various ways had setup camp at truck stops to evangelize from mini-Chapels.  If there are Christian truckers who are road weary and lonely, this could probably be a good service for them to use.  

However, their approach could be to pushy.  There have been times I was sleeping in my truck on a Sunday morning and some $#@! from the Chapel banged on my door.  They had shoved a pamphlet in my door so I know it was them.  I could have been under a load driving across the country and interrupted sleep is the last thing I need.  Drivers need rest to operate these big trucks safely.  

I have also been at truck stops where two Evangelist types just stood in front of the door.  Maybe I want to go inside to use the bathroom and I don't need to guys like this trying to corral me to the side to Evangelize me.

----------


## Terry1

> As for the main topic:  I have run into many pushy Christians and it gets annoying. 
> 
> When the recession hit, I got a job as a long haul truck driver for a few years.  I found that some Christian groups in various ways had setup camp at truck stops to evangelize from mini-Chapels.  If there are Christian truckers who are road weary and lonely, this could probably be a good service for them to use.  
> 
> However, their approach could be to pushy.  There have been times I was sleeping in my truck on a Sunday morning and some $#@! from the Chapel banged on my door.  They had shoved a pamphlet in my door so I know it was them.  I could have been under a load driving across the country and interrupted sleep is the last thing I need.  Drivers need rest to operate these big trucks safely.  
> 
> I have also been at truck stops where two Evangelist types just stood in front of the door.  Maybe I want to go inside to use the bathroom and I don't need to guys like this trying to corral me to the side to Evangelize me.


I have two front doors on my home and this is why every Saturday when the Johovah's Witnesses come banging at 9AM,  I put up a note on both doors that say, "please use other door".  At least the dog has fun chasing them from door to door.  One of them actually walked around back of the house and banged on the back door. Now there's a note there as well. lol

----------


## moostraks

> "peace on your path" dear moos.   Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of being a liar about my own beliefs and accusing me of gnosticism.  You know where to find me when you're ready---if ever.


Well, to begin, I had already apologized for any misperceptions that may have come from my not being more verbose several times now. You never addressed my questions. Your links were insufficient to prove your position. You draw erroneous conclusions frequently (as I have seen from what you claim about me and I know for a fact to be inaccurate) and I believe that is what you are doing with your position on works. Don't want it called Gnosticism, okay, I dropped it, days ago but you take no prisoners. Think what you want, I'm not the one trying to force folks to conform to a teaching. I already said that Gnosticism was never meant as a slur. What I did say you were lying about was my intentions, experiences, and my faith, and that is a fact. I don't have to apologize because you employ magical thinking and wish to create a false reality by which you will attempt to control me. 

You will be waiting a long, long time if you think I am going to apologize for something I have not done just to pacify someone who is behaving like a playground bully.
http://lightshouse.org/lights-blog/a...#axzz3I2HFTFQ8

----------


## Terry1

> Well, to begin, I had already apologized for any misperceptions


Link and post # please?  Sorry if I missed that apology for calling me a liar about what I believe and a gnostic.  I'm sure you'll have no problem finding me that post and page. Thanks.




> Originally Posted by *moostraks* 
> you will likely never perceive what I meant.





> moos wrote:
> I don't have to do anything you think you can command of me just because you want to turn Orthodox sermons into gnostic beliefs.


Being in denial of what you actually said and did and then making yourself out to be the victim after you've already attacked someone else's beliefs has a label and a name for this type of behavior.

While it's possible that I could be accused of other things--I have never accused someone not of my own faith of not believing in their stated beliefs and implied they were liars about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do Christians hate the Buddha?


Some might, but I don't.  He didn't so much create a new religion as create a (then) new systematic philosophy.  (IMHO)
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm



> *Is              it a religion?* It is neither              a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood,              for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance              to a supernatural being." 
> Buddhism does              not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned              and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali,              is known as _saddha._ The confidence placed by a follower on              the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or              a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because              it was he who discovered the path of deliverance. 
> 
> A Buddhist does              not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved              by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives              no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash              away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile              another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are              directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks              refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does              a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower              of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge              even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

----------


## moostraks

> Link and post # please?  Sorry if I missed that apology for calling me a liar about what I believe and a gnostic.  I'm sure you'll have no problem finding me that post and page. Thanks.


I never said you lied about what you believed. I said it did not resemble the position as I understood it of the Orthodox church. Big difference by the way. I posted a link to a page on Gnosticism that mirrored what you were saying and asked for whether you, EOC members, or Gnostics could clarify how it was different. You never did because all you thought was sufficient for a response was to claim you believe this, it is Orthodox, and then your supporting links were not supporting your conclusions on the position as it was to be inferred I suppose and our not being Orthodox was preventing us from seeing this. That is a bogus response imo. I am not apologizing for asking if it was Gnostic. It is not a dirty word any more than them. I have said several times it was not meant as a slur. To apologize is to say their beliefs are not valid and yours are more respectable than those _Gnostics_. So, um, no, not apologizing for more than the misperceptions for not being more verbose initially. I am not going to do as you command. You have wasted enough of my time on needless drama. Go wring an apology out of some other poor, unsuspecting soul if you must have gratification for being right from someone I suppose,(but I pray you don't for their sake as well as your own) but I am not going to apologize to a person behaving like a bully and feed the wolf driving this obsessive anger over erroneous perception of malice.

----------


## TER

The mark of the Christian is the ability to forgive.  Every religion worth even the smallest bit of value will teach about love.  What sets Christianity apart, however, is that a man who was born from a virgin, who fulfilled prophecies going back centuries, who claimed to be the incarnate Sod of the Almighty God, and who performed great miracles and who himself rose from the dead, He taught that our very salvation is dependent upon it.  And this condition He has explained is not merely the feeling of, or simple words of love, but_ in works of love_, such as repentance, mercy, charity, and forgiveness.  Whosoever harbors hatred in their hearts and bears grudges will not enter into the eternal rest and joy in the next life, for according to the God-Man we will be judged according to how we judged, and by the same measure, and unless we forgive those who do us wrong, our Father in Heaven will not forgive us.

----------


## moostraks

> The mark of the Christian is the ability to forgive.  Every religion worth even the smallest bit of value will teach about love.  What sets Christianity apart, however, is that a man who was born from a virgin, who fulfilled prophecies going back centuries, who claimed to be the incarnate Sod of the Almighty God, and who performed great miracles and who himself rose from the dead, He taught that our very salvation is dependent upon it.  And this condition He has explained is not merely the feeling of, or simple words of love, but_ in works of love_, such as repentance, mercy, charity, and forgiveness.  Whosoever harbors hatred in their hearts and bears grudges will not enter into the eternal rest and joy in the next life, for according to the God-Man we will be judged according to how we judged, and by the same measure, and unless we forgive those who do us wrong, our Father in Heaven will not forgive us.


It should the mark of the Christian to forgive but far too often there is very little resemblance between Christians and that ability or any resemblance to love in their demeanor and that is why so many are wondering why Christians hate them. The intolerance of various churches towards each other, well, it looks like even once you have supposedly become Christian it is all relevant to whom it is you are associating with as to whether this claim has any validity. Why would someone willing thrown themselves into such a lion's den is often the conclusion many come to while also being told what it is they supposedly think. It is a mess and it should not be.

----------


## Terry1

> The mark of the Christian is the ability to forgive.  Every religion worth even the smallest bit of value will teach about love.  What sets Christianity apart, however, is that a man who was born from a virgin, who fulfilled prophecies going back centuries, who claimed to be the incarnate Sod of the Almighty God, and who performed great miracles and who himself rose from the dead, He taught that our very salvation is dependent upon it.  And this condition He has explained is not merely the feeling of, or simple words of love, but_ in works of love_, such as repentance, mercy, charity, and forgiveness.  Whosoever harbors hatred in their hearts and bears grudges will not enter into the eternal rest and joy in the next life, for according to the God-Man we will be judged according to how we judged, and by the same measure, and unless we forgive those who do us wrong, our Father in Heaven will not forgive us.


You're right--I have no excuse for my unforgiveness.  I'm weak and struggle with the cruelty, envy and hatred of others.  It always takes me longer than it should to forgive them.  Many times I find myself at an impasse with people such as this and while I do realize it's as much an opportunity to overcome them--at the same time, it's as much a struggle to do so.  I am guilty, this I know.

It's the evil in this world I hate.  Once someone abused one of my horses out of pure hatred.  They had beaten her, kicked her and dragged her with a rope.  I fell on my on my face crying to God asking why then--why are there people like this in the world.  I didn't know then at that time, but I do understand now and why.  It still doesn't get any easier to forgive them.

----------


## TER

> It should the mark of the Christian to forgive but far too often there is very little resemblance between Christians and that ability or any resemblance to love in their demeanor and that is why so many are wondering why Christians hate them. The intolerance of various churches towards each other, well, it looks like even once you have supposedly become Christian it is all relevant to whom it is you are associating with as to whether this claim has any validity. Why would someone willing thrown themselves into such a lion's den is often the conclusion many come to while also being told what it is they supposedly think. It is a mess and it should not be.


The question is not whether there are many churches, because that questions was answered 2000 years ago.  It is not a modern day theory to insist that there is one body of Christ in unity of faith and actualized for what it is (the Church) in the communion through the Body and Blood of Christ, that is the Holy Eucharist.  This is in fact the original teaching which comes from Christ Himself.  What is the modern view is to relativize and nominalize these apostolic teachings so that one can tailor make their own church, based on their own impressions of what their 'conscious' tells them, when it often times is not their conscious which they say, but their pride, fear, laziness and lack of faith.

Whosever, believer or not, has a problem with a Christian saying that there is one Church, one Body, and that through Christ alone our human nature finds salvation, then they have a problem with the very teachings of the Scriptures and of Christ Himself.  Jump around as they might, the history of the Church, the writings of the Saints, and the real and ancient and apostolic teachings are quite clear in this regard.  If someone wants to make the case that this isn't applicable anymore, that the rules have changed these past few hundred years, that modern sensibilities and progressive circumstances need to be addressed, they are free to do so. But they are the ones teachings innovations apart from Holy Tradition and they certainly should not accuse the Christian who struggles to be in obedience to the apostolic teachings to be less a Christian, lest they keep chopping at their own trunk.

The question is then do we know how to forgive.  Can we forgive those who hate us?  Can we forgive those who fight against us or the co-members of the Christ, that is Church?  Because membership in the Church in this life does not guarantee entrance into the Kingdom if we first have not learned to forgive others, whether they are in sacramental divine fellowship with the Church or not. 

God will judge all, and many who considered themselves first will be last, but this does not deny the truth that there is one Church which has remained in the unity of life and faith since Christ sent down the Holy Spirit and gave birth to it, indeed, incarnated it with His Holy Spirit.  So while we must do our best for peace and love, we must not distort or deny or marginalize the basic truths of the faith just so that our conscious may sit well, because we very often our 'conscious' is us fooling ourselves or being fooled by darker forces.  

The goal of the Christians as a royal priesthood is to pray for the world, to offer to God the sacrifice of our passions and lusts and self-centered wills,  and to live _and even die_ 'on behalf of all and for all'.  If we cannot even forgive our brethren, how can it be that we will die for them?  But when we do forgive them, it is indeed ourselves which we crucify and we in a way die for them, so that in such love, we too might find eternal life.

----------


## RJB

> It should the mark of the Christian to forgive but far too often there is very little resemblance between Christians and that ability or any resemblance to love in their demeanor and that is why so many are wondering why Christians hate them. The intolerance of various churches towards each other, well, it looks like even once you have supposedly become Christian it is all relevant to whom it is you are associating with as to whether this claim has any validity. Why would someone willing thrown themselves into such a lion's den is often the conclusion many come to while also being told what it is they supposedly think. It is a mess and it should not be.


This is where fasting, praying, almsgiving, etc. come into play.  It is through these works we learn discipline.  Our goal isn't merely salvation.  It's to die to self, share in his divinity, and become more Christ-like.

----------


## moostraks

> This is where fasting, praying, almsgiving, etc. come into play.  It is through these works we learn discipline.  Our goal isn't merely salvation.  It's to die to self, share in his divinity, and become more Christ-like.


For you these works become your means to achieve discipline, for others they are a stumbling block. 

Romans 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It should the mark of the Christian to forgive but far too often there is very little resemblance between Christians and that ability or any resemblance to love in their demeanor and that is why so many are wondering why Christians hate them. The intolerance of various churches towards each other, well, it looks like even once you have supposedly become Christian it is all relevant to whom it is you are associating with as to whether this claim has any validity. Why would someone willing thrown themselves into such a lion's den is often the conclusion many come to while also being told what it is they supposedly think. It is a mess and it should not be.


Sometimes, I think it's more practical to analyze the grudge or anger one might carry.  Really think about whether anger smoldering in the center of your being is helping you and maybe consider distancing yourself from it.  

Eventually, come to understanding how to deal with the party who injured you physically or emotionally.  They may repent and apologize, or not.  They may instead remain a Toxic Personality that is best to avoid.

----------


## Terry1

It's so very easy for everyone else to talk about having forgiveness when they're not the target of someone else's evilness.  Trust me on this one--I know how to forgive--I'm not as quick to respond as some of my betters who are.  Forgiveness does come eventually, unfortunately--we can not forget, so it becomes a daily struggle with each memory of what someone has done to us and continue to do.  It's so very easy to preach the message to everyone else---the hardest part is living it--for all of us.  

I admit my weakness and guilt.  I never want to be blind to my own selfish anger so I live in denial of it.  I embrace my weakness with the full understanding that deliverance from unforgiveness comes from knowing that He that is in me is stronger than he that is in this world.  It doesn't happen over-night my friends--this will take me a life-time of days filled with struggling in faith.

----------


## RJB

Yes, it's far easier to judge others than ourselves.  I'm still trying to wrench this plank from my own eye 




> For you these works become your means to achieve discipline, for others they are a stumbling block. 
> 
> Romans 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

----------


## moostraks

> The question is not whether there are many churches, because that questions was answered 2000 years ago.  It is not a modern day theory to insist that there is one body of Christ in unity of faith and actualized for what it is (the Church) in the communion through the Body and Blood of Christ, that is the Holy Eucharist.  This is in fact the original teaching which comes from Christ Himself.  What is the modern view is to relativize and nominalize these apostolic teachings so that one can tailor make their own church, based on their own impressions of what their 'conscious' tells them, when it often times is not their conscious which they say, but their pride, fear, laziness and lack of faith.
> 
> Whosever, believer or not, has a problem with a Christian saying that there is one Church, one Body, and that through Christ alone our human nature finds salvation, then they have a problem with the very teachings of the Scriptures and of Christ Himself.  Jump around as they might, the history of the Church, the writings of the Saints, and the real and ancient and apostolic teachings are quite clear in this regard.  If someone wants to make the case that this isn't applicable anymore, that the rules have changed these past few hundred years, that modern sensibilities and progressive circumstances need to be addressed, they are free to do so. But they are the ones teachings innovations apart from Holy Tradition and they certainly should not accuse the Christian who struggles to be in obedience to the apostolic teachings to be less a Christian, lest they keep chopping at their own trunk.
> 
> The question is then do we know how to forgive.  Can we forgive those who hate us?  Can we forgive those who fight against us or the co-members of the Christ, that is Church?  Because membership in the Church in this life does not guarantee entrance into the Kingdom if we first have not learned to forgive others, whether they are in the fellowship with the Church or not. 
> 
> God will judge all, and many who considered themselves first will be last, but this does not deny the truth that there is one Church which has remained in the unity of life and faith since Christ sent down the Holy Spirit and gave birth to it, indeed, incarnated it with His Holy Spirit.  So while we must do our best for peace and love, we must not distort or deny or marginalize the basic truths of the faith just so that our conscious may sit well, because we very often our 'conscious' is us fooling ourselves or being fooled by darker forces.  
> 
> The goal of the Christians as a royal priesthood is to pray for the world, to offer to God the sacrifice of our passions and lusts and self-centered wills,  and to live _and even die_ 'on behalf of all and for all'.  If we cannot even forgive our brethren, how can it be that we will die for them?  But when we do forgive them, it is indeed ourselves which we crucify and we in a way die for them, so that in such love, we too might find eternal life.


You know sometimes the faithful with all their certainty they have of their "facts" needs to take a step back and listen to how they are approaching the very legitimate concerns that are being scoffed at and swept under the rug as examples, instead of one's lack of humility or failure to listen to the Holy Spirit, pride, or laziness. Most Christians believe there is one true Church but it is in how they interpret that understanding where the tribalism and rudeness to the Spirit within others is insulted and condemned. At the end of the day it is man judging man when it comes to those tribalist arguments and as is said:

Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

41 Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also will answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you? 45 Then he will answer them, saying, Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

I have always found it better to judge a man based upon his integrity as opposed to his affiliations. But that's me and I am accountable for my choices and willingness to listen to the Spirit as I have been called.

----------


## euphemia

I can't remember the last time I told someone they are going to hell.  

The thing I want non-Christians to hear is that there is such a thing as objective truth.  Morality is not up to an individual's choice because there are other people in the world.  

Honestly, Christian or not, I find Patheos to be filled with people who are very angry and bitter based on their own bad experiences.  Because of that, they think all faith traditions are the same and all are bad.  I find that not to be a very openminded way of looking at things.  I would not put a lot of stock in what most of them have to say because they lump all Christians into the same tiny box.  An honest person looking for truth will keep looking until he finds it.

If you have questions about why a particular person believes the way they do, ask him/her.  

One thing I notice is that bloggers (Christian or not) seem to be a self affirming, ego massaging bunch.  Because someone writes their own thoughts and feelings and they spread around the internet, they are true.  Writers become famous for having a feeling.   Having a following makes it so.  Being shared on Facebook makes it carved in stone.  *eyeroll*

----------


## Terry1

> You know sometimes the faithful with all their certainty they have of their "facts" needs to take a step back and listen to how they are approaching the very legitimate concerns that are being scoffed at and swept under the rug as examples, instead of one's lack of humility or failure to listen to the Holy Spirit, pride, or laziness. Most Christians believe there is one true Church but it is in how they interpret that understanding where the tribalism and rudeness to the Spirit within others is insulted and condemned. At the end of the day it is man judging man when it comes to those tribalist arguments and as is said:
> 
> Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
> 
> 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
> 
> I have always found it better to judge a man based upon his integrity as opposed to his affiliations. But that's me and I am accountable for my choices and willingness to listen to the Spirit as I have been called.



Excuse me here!  Are you serious or joking?  Just yesterday you were the one defending the comment by Kevin007 to me stating that I'd fell off my meds--claiming he was innocent of any wrong doing while then attacking me for my counter comment back to him.  Granted two wrongs didn't make a right, but you were clearly using your friend Kevin007 to support you in your character assassination of me.  

All of this crap your posting about how noble and virtuous you are with scripture saying how terrible I am, while you can't see your own evilness.  And that is the real and true spiritual crime here and any one supporting you in it as well.  You are ridiculous.  God I pray that I never become blind to my own crap.  I freely admit I've been wrong.  I won't hide behind the word of God or use His word as a cloak to cover up any evil crap I might do as you do.  That's why I haven't touched the word of God to support any of this crap like you have done.  You should be ashamed, but I know that just ain't gonna happen here.

----------


## otherone

> It should the mark of the Christian to forgive but far too often there is very little resemblance between Christians and that ability or any resemblance to love in their demeanor and that is why so many are wondering why Christians hate them.


 John 13:35
"By this everyone will know
that you are my disciples, 

if you love one another.

----------


## TER

> This is where fasting, praying, almsgiving, etc. come into play.  It is through these works we learn discipline.  Our goal isn't merely salvation.  It's to die to self, share in his divinity, and become more Christ-like.





> For you these works become your means to achieve discipline, for others they are a stumbling block.


So what is the stumbling block that RJB mentioned in this post?

----------


## euphemia

> John 13:35 "By this everyone will know
> that you are my disciples, 
> if you love one another.”


Make sure you paint everyone with the same broad brush.

----------


## Terry1

> John 13:35
> "By this everyone will know
> that you are my disciples, 
> 
> if you love one another.”


$#@!ing "Christians"!  The irony of it all.

----------


## jllundqu

I would respond to the OP in a very similar way.  When I lived in GA, folks would come to the door and ask me if I had found Jesus yet. As tempting as it was to offer the Forrest Gump response, "I didn't know I's supposed to be LOOKIN for him!"  I simply and politely tell them I am not Christian and I am not interested.  I take whatever leaflets they offer and try to close the door.  The really fun days was when they would come to your DOOR and tell you you're going to hell for not being a Christian... now THAT's personal service!  I think the best response I've read came from the article in the OP:




> In Judaism, we do not seek to convert people. That is because we accept that there are many paths to God, and believe that no one religion can lay sole claim to the truth or to Gods favor. Each person is free to find his or her own way. To Christians I would say: Practice your religion as you wish. There is no need to try and influence others. If your religion is a true one, people will come to it on their own


I want to print this quote on cards and hand it out to any and all persons attempting to prosthelytize me...

----------


## otherone

> Make sure you paint everyone with the same broad brush.


If the brush fits...

----------


## otherone

> $#@!ing Christians!  The irony of it all.


Not ironic, rather a great litmus test to figure out who the actual Christians are.

----------


## Terry1

> Not ironic, rather a great litmus test to figure out who the actual Christians are.


True that!  I really suck at this stuff at times.

----------


## TER

> You know sometimes the faithful with all their certainty they have of their "facts" needs to take a step back and listen to how they are approaching the very legitimate concerns that are being scoffed at and swept under the rug as examples, instead of one's lack of humility or failure to listen to the Holy Spirit, pride, or laziness.


Shall we discuss our "facts" then?  Can you show me your "facts" that you are right with regards to what it means to be a Church and what the Holy Eucharist is?  I am eager to see if you will demonstrate Solo Scriptura or bring other things as evidence as well, or perhaps just chalk it up to your 'conscious', whatever the cause of that is.





> Most Christians believe there is one true Church but it is in how they interpret that understanding where the tribalism and rudeness to the Spirit within others is insulted and condemned.


Yes, there are different interpretation about the nature of the Church.  It started around the 1600's because before then, it was quite clear what the apostolic interpretation was regarding the nature of the Church.  This was the worship as one community in fellowship and through the Holy Spirit by baptism and chrismation and fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. Sure, there were arguments about WHICH Church was the one true Church, but I am eager to see your facts and evidence to demonstrate that YOUR interpretation is the correct one and not the Church which has saints going back to the beginning.  And then after that, perhaps you can explain to me _why_ your interpretation is different than the writings of all the Christians Saints (and they all were ascetics!)




> At the end of the day it is man judging man when it comes to those tribalist arguments and as is said:
> 
> Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
> 
> 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


What you call 'tribalism' is a pejorative against the Church, because the Church is for all the human race and not limited to one race, one nation, one class, but is open to all and for all who come in spirit AND truth.  It would be good for you to think about the Quakers and the Anabaptists when you apply this particular pejorative to the Orthodox Church, or are they less tribal?  Or maybe the Native Americans were less tribal?  Or Israel of the Old Covenant?  Or perhaps to the Christian martyrs and confessors of every century going back to the beginning?  There is no tribalism but that which is the unity of life within the body of Christ, and it is for all who share the nature of human being.  What they need however is that which Adam lacked, which is humility and obedience.   




> I have always found it better to judge a man based upon his integrity as opposed to his affiliations. But that's me and I am accountable for my choices and willingness to listen to the Spirit as I have been called.


  There is no judgement upon your eternal salvation from me, and you know that.  The Orthodox teachings as you know is that God will judge the heart of the man.  There is, however, brotherly concern.  If you think me to be a better brother by just shutting up and allowing you to take your own path which I believe is wrong, then I can see why your experience has been what it has been with some Orthodox.  You see, while we must love and forgive and have mercy for all people, and pray the prayer of Christ that all may be one in God, we do not do so in false constructions, but rather speak the truth in love.  And the truth is that you are holding your interpretations and your fallible conscious to be the authority of truth apart from the teachings of the saints.  If you are okay with that, and nothing I say means anything to you, then I am sorry that is the case.  But it is the Christian way for those whom we love and wish to share in full communion with to fight for unity of mind and worship as one Body in the heavenly worship and communion of God.

----------


## moostraks

> Excuse me here!  Are you serious or joking?  Just yesterday you were the one defending the comment by Kevin007 to me stating that I'd fell off my meds--claiming he was innocent of any wrong doing while then attacking me for my counter comment back to him.  Granted two wrongs didn't make a right, but you were clearly using your friend Kevin007 to support you in your character assassination of me.  
> 
> All of this crap your posting about how noble and virtuous you are with scripture saying how terrible I am, while you can't see your own evilness.  And that is the real and true spiritual crime here and any one supporting you in it as well.  You are ridiculous.  God I pray that I never become blind to my own crap.  I freely admit I've been wrong.  I won't hide behind the word of God or use His word as a cloak to cover up any evil crap I might do as you do.  That's why I haven't touched the word of God to support any of this crap like you have done.  You should be ashamed, but I now that just ain't gonna happen here.



I am not blind to my problems. You just want to make me accept the baggage you want me to carry and not the baggage I am responsible for carrying. The fact you think I am posting anything to make myself seem virtuous has been part of one of the original erroneous assumptions you have been making about me. The Scripture is a reminder to myself and addresses the very active dangers in pursuing the wrong course of action.

I should be ashamed? Who is pursuing whom?

As for Kevin, if you recall, I said the problem with what you posted was that it not only insulted a perceived threat but anyone who did not have a noble job according to some subjective standard. SO...rather than deal with the veracity of his comment, _your_ comment harmed any number of earnest, hard working people. And speaking of veracity, have you not been badgering me for days now about challenging your truthfulness and now I should be told I am in error for not challenging his? Seems as though the major concern is that one does what benefits Terry. Find another person who wants that job, I am not interested. Thanks for the repeated offer though.

----------


## otherone

> True that!  I really suck at this stuff at times.


IDK.
If I could _actually_ believe the "good news", I imagine I'd be pretty ecstatic all the time...

----------


## Terry1

..

----------


## Terry1

> IDK.
> If I could _actually_ believe the "good news", I imagine I'd be pretty ecstatic all the time...


Well my friend, believing the good news is relative to choosing to believe in it.  I fail many times, even though I know what the truth is.  It's called *human weakness*. sigh--

----------


## moostraks

> Shall we discuss our "facts" then?  Can you show me your "facts" that you are right with regards to what it means to be a Church and what the Holy Eucharist is?  I am eager to see if you will demonstrate Solo Scriptura or bring other things as evidence as well, or perhaps just chalk it up to your 'conscious', whatever the cause of that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are different interpretation about the nature of the Church.  It started around the 1600's because before then, it was quite clear what the apostolic interpretation was regarding the nature of the Church.  This was the worship as one community in fellowship and through the Holy Spirit by baptism and chrismation and fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. Sure, there were arguments about WHICH Church was the one true Church, but I am eager to see your facts and evidence to demonstrate that YOUR interpretation is the correct one and not the Church which has saints going back to the beginning.  And then after that, perhaps you can explain to me _why_ your interpretation is different than the writings of all the Christians Saints (and they all were ascetics!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To what benefit would this discussion have when I have well witnessed what happens to challenges to said teachings? Thanks for the offer but I think this subforum has shown of what value these challenges are to the parties involved and the witness of the Faith. Would you like me to challenge you in sisterly concern that your choices are wrong and you are not living in fullness of the Faith as I have experienced it? Do you believe that when the leadership of your faith meet with the leaders of other faiths that they make such a condescending statement to them? I would never presume to make such a statement, but it I suppose the difference may lie in how we have both come to our sincerely held beliefs.

----------


## jmdrake

> Shall we discuss our "facts" then?  Can you show me your "facts" that you are right with regards to what it means to be a Church and what the Holy Eucharist is?  I am eager to see if you will demonstrate Solo Scriptura or bring other things as evidence as well, or perhaps just chalk it up to your 'conscious', whatever the cause of that is.


I will only say this and I'm done.  From the events from the past few days I'm more convinced of solo scriptura than ever before.  In a discussion with someone I heard something I didn't think fit the Bible or at least the way understood it.  I was told the problem was my belief in "solo scriptura".  So I asked for EO sources.  When I got them, my interpretation the EO writings was the same as my interpretation of the Bible.  So at the end of the day, there's always room for interpretation and/or human error.  I was accused of, among other things, trying to "create contradictions."  My attempt to argue from the EO teachings was met with as much anger as my sticking to the Bible.  Here is the deal.  It is possible for me to wrap my hands around the Bible.  There are too many other extra-biblical sources out there.  Sure they're nice to read at times.  But that can't be the foundation of my faith.  Paul warned against being "ever learning and never coming into the knowledge of the truth."  The church fathers are a good supplement if there's something that isn't covered in the Bible (like how did Paul die) which is the same way I use Josephus, or if there is something I don't understand and I'm using them as a commentary the same way I would use John Calvin or Martin Luther or John Wesley or even T.D. Jakes.  I'm happy to hear what someone else has to say about the Bible.  But at the end of the day I have to make up my own mind for myself.

----------


## moostraks

> So what is the stumbling block that RJB mentioned in this post?





> It is through these works


...

----------


## TER

> To what benefit would this discussion have when I have well witnessed what happens to challenges to said teachings? Thanks for the offer but I think this subforum has shown of what value these challenges are to the parties involved and the witness of the Faith. Would you like me to challenge you in sisterly concern that your choices are wrong and you are not living in fullness of the Faith as I have experienced it? Do you believe that when the leadership of your faith meet with the leaders of other faiths that they make such a condescending statement to them? I would never presume to make such a statement, but it I suppose the difference may lie in how we have both come to our sincerely held beliefs.


But if you truly cared for me as a sister, you would help me see where my faith is wrong.  So please, I await your evidence and the facts that your interpretation is correct so that I might join with you in unity of Faith.

----------


## moostraks

> I will only say this and I'm done.  From the events from the past few days I'm more convinced of solo scriptura than ever before.  In a discussion with someone I heard something I didn't think fit the Bible or at least the way understood it.  I was told the problem was my belief in "solo scriptura".  So I asked for EO sources.  When I got them, my interpretation the EO writings was the same as my interpretation of the Bible.  So at the end of the day, there's always room for interpretation and/or human error.  I was accused of, among other things, trying to "create contradictions."  My attempt to argue from the EO teachings was met with as much anger as my sticking to the Bible.  Here is the deal.  It is possible for me to wrap my hands around the Bible.  There are two many other extra-biblical sources out there.  Sure they're nice to read at times.  But that can't be the foundation of my faith.  Paul warned against being "ever learning and never coming into the knowledge of the truth."  The church fathers are a good supplement if there's something that isn't covered in the Bible (like how did Paul die) which is the same way I use Josephus, or if there is something I don't understand and I'm using them as a commentary the same way I would use John Calvin or Martin Luther or John Wesley or even T.D. Jakes.  I'm happy to hear what someone else has to say about the Bible.  But at the end of the day I have to make up my own mind for myself.


Yep. I hear you. And I wonder how many here would raise their hands when asked if they feel that rather than being willfully disobedient towards the church as another person sees it, they are being actively accountable instead of abdicating responsibility to a priest?

----------


## moostraks

> But if you truly cared for me as a sister, you would help me see where my faith is wrong.  So please, I await your evidence and the facts that your interpretation is correct so that I might join with you in unity of Faith.


No, that is what your position seems to conclude as necessary. I believe differently. I think to tell you your faith is wrong is to esteem myself as worthy to be a judge of you.

----------


## Terry1

> Yep. I hear you. And I wonder how many here would raise their hands when asked if they feel that rather than being willfully disobedient towards the church as another person sees it, they are being actively accountable instead of abdicating responsibility to a priest?


pfft--maybe because it's biblical.

* James 5:16 Confess* _your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

_If I wanted to confess my sins to a righteous person of God--it certainly wouldn't be someone like you.  I'll take a priest any day.

----------


## euphemia

> If the brush fits...


It really doesn't.  And it is very helpful to choose some artist rendering from 200 years ago to define your experience today.

----------


## RJB

Cats are alright.  Not a big lover here, but it seemed like the thread needed a new direction:

----------


## Crashland

> pfft--maybe because it's biblical.
> 
> * James 5:16 Confess* _your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
> 
> _If I wanted to confess my sins to a righteous person of God--it certainly would be someone like you.  I'll take a priest any day.


True, but if "one another" in "confess your faults to one another" is to be understood in the same sense as "pray for one another", then it would make sense to confess your faults to ordinary people, not just priests. Just like you pray for ordinary people, not just priests.

----------


## Terry1

> No, that is what your position seems to conclude as necessary. I believe differently. I think to tell you your faith is wrong is to esteem myself as worthy to be a judge of you.


What's the difference between your beef with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and intercession of the saints and ours with sola scripture.  You seem to practice double standards constantly. 

 What's okay for you to make a claim against a church, it's doctrine and members, but it isn't okay for them to make a claim against another or what you believe. 

 So everyone should just step out of moos's path and let her lord over her entire fiefdom of Christendom and her final judgments of them.  Then you claim that our members have superior attitudes--fat chance there gooberette.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> True, but if "one another" in "confess your faults to one another" is to be understood in the same sense as "pray for one another", then it would make sense to confess your faults to ordinary people, not just priests. Just like you pray for ordinary people, not just priests.


From the commentary on James 5:16, pg 1680 of The Orthodox Study Bible: 


> Some allege that confessing sins to God before a priest is not biblical.  The ancient Christian custom was to confess your trespasses to one another.  When a Christian was guilty of sin, the matter was confessed before the whole Church as an act of repentance.  As the Church grew, and those not part of the community came to observe, the pressure in such public confession became so great that the priest, instead of the entire community, heard the ocnfession, representing the people.  What is not taught in Scripture is  a private confession only to God, which refuses to acknowledge sin to the community.  Thus the Church has effected healing through such works of faith as confession of sins and the power of intercessory prayer.

----------


## Crashland

> From the commentary on James 5:16, pg 1680 of The Orthodox Study Bible:


Right. I don't think confessing to priests is un-biblical. But I think it *is* biblically consistent to confess to any other Christians. There is nothing in there that says it has to be in front of the whole Church, just like you don't have to pray in front of the whole Church if you want to pray for someone. You can pray with any other Christian one-on-one. And you can confess your faults to any other Christian one-on-one.

----------


## RJB

> True, but if "one another" in "confess your faults to one another" is to be understood in the same sense as "pray for one another", then it would make sense to confess your faults to ordinary people, not just priests. Just like you pray for ordinary people, not just priests.


If you committed a sin,  what would bring more spiritual healing: 1. confessing it to your barber, who will tell everyone?  2. Confess it to your co-conspirator before doing it again? or 3. Confessing it to your spiritual advisor?

In my experience #3 works best for me.

Along with what HB said, I actually really enjoyed my first Orthodox Confession.  The priest stood beside me as we faced the icons and he stood there as my friend rather than a judge.  It's a great way to get things off your chest, spiritually, emotionally and even physically.  There was a study I read years ago that Catholics who went to regular confession rarely needed a therapist.  Facing ones sins is very liberating.

----------


## euphemia

> If you committed a sin,  what would bring more spiritual healing: 1. confessing it to your barber, who will tell everyone?  2. Confess it to your co-conspirator before doing it again? or 3. Confessing it to your spiritual advisor?


Confessing it to God is all that is needed for forgiveness.  If it is something I find myself doing over and over, involving other people of faith will be supportive, but it will not bring about forgiveness.

----------


## TER

> I will only say this and I'm done.  From the events from the past few days I'm more convinced of solo scriptura than ever before.  In a discussion with someone I heard something I didn't think fit the Bible or at least the way understood it.  I was told the problem was my belief in "solo scriptura".  So I asked for EO sources.  When I got them, my interpretation the EO writings was the same as my interpretation of the Bible.  So at the end of the day, there's always room for interpretation and/or human error.  I was accused of, among other things, trying to "create contradictions."  My attempt to argue from the EO teachings was met with as much anger as my sticking to the Bible.  Here is the deal.  It is possible for me to wrap my hands around the Bible.  There are two many other extra-biblical sources out there.  Sure they're nice to read at times.  But that can't be the foundation of my faith.  Paul warned against being "ever learning and never coming into the knowledge of the truth."  The church fathers are a good supplement if there's something that isn't covered in the Bible (like how did Paul die) which is the same way I use Josephus, or if there is something I don't understand and I'm using them as a commentary the same way I would use John Calvin or Martin Luther or John Wesley or even T.D. Jakes.  I'm happy to hear what someone else has to say about the Bible.  But at the end of the day I have to make up my own mind for myself.


At least you confess that you have made yourself the ultimate authority of your faith while others seem to shy away from it.

But please tell me, what is this evidence which you proclaimed that your interpretation of the Holy Eucharist is correct and all the witness of the early Church is wrong?  The sole writing of one saint which you have misconstrued?  Try studying a little harder to learn what symbols meant within the context of liturgical worship and JudeoChristian thought and you will come with the same conclusion which every honest Christian historian worth his salt has surmised.  But perhaps you are smarter and more knowledgable than those Protestant scholars who have confirmed what the apostolic fathers believed?  But you have hardly read the writings of the early Church!  And your knowledge of the early Church is severely lacking! As an investigate mind and logical person, how is it that you dump the vast majority of historical evidence and simply stick to the Bible and your own fallible, limited mind to be the ultimate authority to interpret it?  Glorifying God, defending His Church, and learning from the Saints is not prideful, it is indeed the essence of humility and obedience and what it means to be a Christian.  What is prideful is attributing one's one limited and fallible mind to be the authority of the truth in what the Christian faith is, what the Scriptures mean, and what it means to be a member of Christ's Church when it goes against the very historical and traditional teachings handed down from the very beginning!

It is remarkable that those who have made themselves popes of their own 'personal faith' cast those who submit themselves in love and obedience to Christ and His Church as being prideful.  Oh how it must be lovely to create my own doctrines, my own beliefs, and my own teachings based upon my own experience or conscious or interpretative abilities of writings written by men!   How convenient!  But these are fantasies and are of the devil who tempted Adam in the Garden with similar thoughts of vainglory. 




> There are two many other extra-biblical sources out there. Sure they're nice to read at times. But that can't be the foundation of my faith.


Of course not, because history judges you to be wrong on many of your beliefs, so in order for you to be right all the Christians witnesses of the first 1800 centuries were completely wrong on the basic foundations of what it meant to be a baptized member of the Church.  You would rather ignore them or cast them away as less knowledgeable then you and only useful when their teachings conform with your own.  But who are we to conform the faith and create our church?  Rather, it is us who in humility must learn to conform ourselves to the Church which has been from the beginning.  

This modern disease today called Cafeteria Christianity and Burger King Christianity is the legacy of Protestantism, and is the fruit of the destruction of the faith which started way back since the day the Filioque was introduced and diminished the Holy Spirit as a mere 'power' or 'grace' and not the Person Whom He is.  This led to the distortion of the Holy Spirit as being an object, an attribute, and not the very God Himself working within the lives of people and within creation in general in order to sanctify it with the very energy of God Himself.  This distortion further complicated by the scholastic era, whereby the sacraments as divine mysteries were investigated with human logic and academic science and diminishing it's quintessential role within the unity of Christ and the Church through the very sacrament!  The Eucharist became a mere vehicle of grace and not what it was always considered to be, the very actualization of the Church as the unity in life in the Kingdom of Grace.  And later, by the Reformers, who created a completely new religion in their rejection of the papacy, and instead of reaching back like true and honest investigators to find the truths of the faith, they created their own ideas about the very essence of what it meant to be saved as a Church, as an assembly of believers in MIND, FAITH, and SPIRIT, as One Body incarnate of Christ through the Holy Spirit in unity of FAITH and sealed by the very Body and Blood of Christ.  Instead of coming back to the Church which their forefathers split from in the Great Schism, out of convenience, pride, and vainglory, they constructed an entire new religion based on egalitarian ideals with human reason and logic as it ultimate tools and their innovative intrepretations (however many they are and however different!) to be the foundation of their faith.

Jmdrake, believe what you will, but when you say that you will make up what the truth is by what your mind thinks, then you follow the same path which every other person has led in creating their own church and faith apart from the one initiated by Christ and ordained by the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Yes, these words seem bitter to you, but you putting yourself above the Saints and making yourself be the authority for truth.  Had you been ignorant of these facts, then there is great hope in the mercy of God.  Perhaps then that is why you refuse to read and take seriously the words of the early Christians writers of the first centuries, so that you might not have to face their testimony and witness which clashes with yours.  But you not ignorant of these facts and for that you should go and read and study harder what greater men then either you or I in the centuries following Christ understood what the orthodox and catholic teachings of the Christian faith was and stop putting so much reliance on yourself.

----------


## Crashland

> If you committed a sin,  what would bring more spiritual healing: 1. confessing it to your barber, who will tell everyone?  2. Confess it to your co-conspirator before doing it again? or 3. Confessing it to your spiritual advisor?
> 
> In my experience #3 works best for me.
> 
> Along with what HB said, I actually really enjoyed my first Orthodox Confession.  The priest stood beside me as we faced the icons and he stood there as my friend rather than a judge.  It's a great way to get things off your chest, spiritually, emotionally and even physically.  There was a study I read years ago that Catholics who went to regular confession rarely needed a therapist.  Facing ones sins is very liberating.


Yeah everyone can do whatever they feel is best, but I'm just saying, it's not unbiblical to confess your sins to one another, regardless of whether it is a priest or not. Some people find value in confessing to a Christian friend, or a small group of Christians to keep each other accountable. Also, it can help to confess to people who you actually live with and see all the time, as opposed to a priest who you have limited access to. I'm not saying any way is right or wrong, but neither way is unbiblical.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Right. I don't think confessing to priests is un-biblical. But I think it *is* biblically consistent to confess to any other Christians. *There is nothing in there that says it has to be in front of the whole Church*, just like you don't have to pray in front of the whole Church if you want to pray for someone. You can pray with any other Christian one-on-one. And you can confess your faults to any other Christian one-on-one.


It's not explicit, but in historical context, we know that's what James meant in his epistle.  He was addressing an entire community, not just one person or writing in the abstract.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you committed a sin,  what would bring more spiritual healing: 1. confessing it to your barber, who will tell everyone?  2. Confess it to your co-conspirator before doing it again? or 3. Confessing it to your spiritual advisor?
> 
> In my experience #3 works best for me.
> 
> Along with what HB said, I actually really enjoyed my first Orthodox Confession.  The priest stood beside me as we faced the icons and he stood there as my friend rather than a judge.  It's a great way to get things off your chest, spiritually, emotionally and even physically.  There was a study I read years ago that Catholics who went to regular confession rarely needed a therapist.  Facing ones sins is very liberating.


  I thought I would dislike my first confession.  I have only seen RC confessions in documentaries and films with the confessionals and such.  What "normal" people pay hundreds of dollars to a therapist to do, a priest does for nothing.

----------


## jmdrake

> At least you confess that you have made yourself the ultimate authority of your faith while others seem to shy away from it.


Any honest and fully self aware person would say the same thing.  TER, you once said that after studying the Eastern Orthodox religion you came to the conclusion that it's the "true church".  That makes you the "ultimate authority" of your own faith whether you see it that way or not.  Terry read about the Holy Wisdom and came up with a different conclusion than you have.  She felt certain it meant one thing.  You believed that it might mean something else.  Two people supposedly following the same church fathers and yet came to different conclusions.  How is that?  Because at the end of the day we all have brains that we must engage.  That's really all I have on the subject.  Peace.

Edit: You know what?  I wasn't going to say anything else, but I will respond to this:




> But please tell me, what is this evidence which you proclaimed that your interpretation of the Holy Eucharist is correct and all the witness of the early Church is wrong? The sole writing of one saint which you have misconstrued?


A) It wasn't just "one saint".  You clearly didn't read my source.

B) Your whole "misconstrue" quip just further proves my point.  It doesn't matter what I might find in the writings of the church fathers.  If it disagrees with your view, or what your church officially teaches, or what you think your church officially teaches, I'll be accused of "misconstruing" it.

C) You, heavenlyboy and Terry1 came up with *three different* explanations for why I was "wrong".  HB initially claimed my source didn't call the Eucharist a metaphor.  Terry said my source was just "not 100% right".  You came up with the "It means both" argument, without actually citing St. Clement ever saying that, and that became the "accepted" viewpoint.

D) I went through the same "You're misconstruing the church fathers" argument with Terry over her view on Holy Wisdom.  I kept waiting for someone else to either confirm her or me.  I'm thankful that you finally gave your view on it.  But why should it have to be that way?  Why is the very act of *thinking* so controversial?

No.  Sorry to disappoint.  But I'm done with the "prove your viewpoint from the church fathers" game.  Been there.  Done that.  Don't care anymore.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not explicit, but in historical context, we know that's what James meant in his epistle.  He was addressing an entire community, not just one person or writing in the abstract.


It is true he is addressing a community, but when he says to pray for one another and confess to one another, I wouldn't think it would be such a huge issue to have to define what "one another" means. There comes a point where it is just infeasible for everyone to pray for everyone else in a large community, or for everyone to confess to everyone else. But within the community, people can still pray for one another and confess to one another. If every prayer you pray doesn't have to be public in front of the entire community, then neither does confessing.

----------


## RJB

> What "normal" people pay hundreds of dollars to a therapist to do, a priest does for nothing.


Yep.  



> *The church is a hospital for sinners not a club for saints.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is true he is addressing a community, but when he says to pray for one another and confess to one another, I wouldn't think it would be such a huge issue to have to define what "one another" means. *There comes a point where it is just infeasible for everyone to pray for everyone else in a large community, or for everyone to confess to everyone else. But within the community, people can still pray for one another and confess to one another. If every prayer you pray doesn't have to be public in front of the entire community, then neither does confessing*.


Exactly!  This is one of the reasons the confession sacrament came to be, as you saw in my earlier quote from the Orthodox Bible.

----------


## TER

> No, that is what your position seems to conclude as necessary. I believe differently. I think to tell you your faith is wrong is to esteem myself as worthy to be a judge of you.


It is not merely I, a friend, who tells you you are wrong with your understanding of ecclesiology and the Holy Eucharist.  Much greater than that, it is the saints and the history of Christianity going back to the first century which judge you to be wrong on certain things.  What bothers you is that I point it out, those things which go squarely against your stated beliefs.  

You think that by me being silent about this makes me a better and truer brother to you?  But how can I be a better brother to you by allowing you to put yourself on such a dangerous perch, whereby you have placed yourself and your 'experience' and 'conscious' above the testimony and the teachings of the Church?

If you rather a brother to let you go your own path going in circles, from here to there, based on your interpretations and your experience, then you are correct to look elsewhere then the Orthodox Church.  Because our love for one another does not allow us to see our brethren fall into the cracks of their own fantasies and the whims of the season, but to defend, pray, and struggle for one another in spirit AND truth (real, concrete, historical, apostolic, sacramental truth).

----------


## Crashland

> Exactly!  This is one of the reasons the confession sacrament came to be, as you saw in my earlier quote from the Orthodox Bible.


Yes, but it would not be biblically supported that in this situation, the priest necessarily needs to replace the entire community. That is one solution, but not the only solution.

----------


## presence

> But please tell me, what is this evidence which you  proclaimed that your interpretation of the Holy Eucharist is correct and  all the witness of the early Church is wrong?



LOL





> I think non-christians are more so disappointed that Christians always seem to take the fear mongering approach to sell their religion... 
> 
> _believe what we believe or suffer eternal damnation_
> 
> Just comes off a bit conceited, arrogant, and almost laughably threatening.   *Especially since Christians continually infight and argue amongst themselves about what exactly it is they believe.*

----------


## TER

> True, but if "one another" in "confess your faults to one another" is to be understood in the same sense as "pray for one another", then it would make sense to confess your faults to ordinary people, not just priests. Just like you pray for ordinary people, not just priests.


When we sin as members of the body of Christ, we sin not only against God, but against the entire body, indeed, against the entire cosmos as it were.  Our confession of course includes confessing to those whom we have offended, but as it is also against the body of Christ, the Church, we confess our sins before those ordained as representatives of Christ on earth, namely the priest, in accordance to the teachings from Christ that those whom, after blowing the Spirit upon them, ordained them with the charisma to forgive sins.  




> 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”


These then ordained (by the same Spirit) priests to continue this apostolic charisma as instructed by Christ.

----------


## jmdrake

It's funny that a thread that was initially about what non-Christians have against Christians has turned into what Christians have against each other.

----------


## otherone

> It really doesn't.  And it is very helpful to choose some artist rendering from 200 years ago to define your experience today.


At what point in history can we examine the behavior of self-professed Christians?

----------


## Crashland

> When we sin as members of the body of Christ, we sin not only against God, but against the entire body, indeed, against the entire cosmos as it were.  Our confession of course includes confessing to those whom we have offended, but as it is also against the body of Christ, the Church, we confess our sins before those ordained as representatives of Christ on earth, namely the priest, in accordance to the teachings from Christ that those whom, after blowing the Spirit upon them, ordained them with the charisma to forgive sins.


Hm, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Decent point. Still though, nothing unbiblical about also confessing to other Christians who are not priests

----------


## TER

> No.  Sorry to disappoint.  But I'm done with the "prove your viewpoint from the church fathers" game.  Been there.  Done that.  Don't care anymore.


Of course you don't care, because to take it seriously with the weight it deserves would mean for you to face some hard truths that might hurt your sensibilities, make you questions some deep seated beliefs of yours, and perhaps have you come to the realization that you are preaching things against the testimony of the saints and the truths of the Christian faith.  This might mean you would have to make some very important changes in your life which for whatever reason (convenience, fear, pride,?) you are not prepared to make.

Very well.  I do not condemn you, and truly I say 'peace on your path'.  May you find the Kingdom of God.

----------


## TER

> Hm, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Decent point. Still though, nothing unbiblical about also confessing to other Christians who are not priests


No, not at all. In fact, we are commanded to confess our sins to those whom we have sinned against.

----------


## Crashland

> It's funny that a thread that was initially about what non-Christians have against Christians has turned into what Christians have against each other.


Yeah, should probably come back to that. It is in everyone's interest for Christians to be aware exactly of how they are perceived by non-Christians and why

----------


## TER

> At what point in history can we examine the behavior of self-professed Christians?


Any time you like.  Which Christian saints would you like to talk about?  Would you like to discuss about St. Ekaterina of Alexandria?  

You see, those people pictured in your post are not the models of our lives and who we Christians aim to be, in the image and likeness of Christ.  So using them as a prop piece only demonstrates that evil exists in the world and that simply calling oneself a Christian does not make one so.  But there are numerous people who indeed lived Christian lives, who lived as Christ did, filled with the Holy Spirit of God, and these are the models to which we look towards in our struggles in this world as examples of faithfulness, mercy, and love.

----------


## presence

> It's funny that a thread that was initially about what non-Christians have against Christians has turned into what Christians have against each other.




It was kind of like a joke that you already know the punch line to though.

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course you don't care, because to take it seriously with the weight it deserves would mean for you to face some hard truths.


The "hard truth" that I've had to face is that I can't count on you, TER, to be rational about this discussion.  And I mean that as a friend.  There are some discussions that I'm not rational about as well.  I did what you asked.  You asked for *one* church father that took the "metaphor" position.  I gave you *three*.  You basically just ignored any evidence contrary to your belief system and demanded more.  The logical conclusion is that no matter how much evidence I might pile up, you can always say "But you've misconstrued it" or "you need to research more" or some other goalpost move for *you* to avoid *your* hard truth that *you* might be wrong.  Again, the Bible warns against people "ever learning and never coming into a knowledge of the truth".  Believing that you must read and understand every last Christian Orthodox theologian for the past 1,000 years to understand the Gospel is a sure way to always learn and never know the truth.  Terry1 was just as adamant about what she believe to be the Orthodox view on Holy Wisdom as you are about the Eucharist.  Think about that.




> Very well. I do not condemn you, and truly I say 'peace on your path'. May you find the Kingdom of God.


And I don't condemn you and peace to you as well.  May you end up in the Kingdom of God as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> It was kind of like a joke that you already know the punch line to though.


FYI the Little Debbie company is owned by Seventh Day Adventists.....which is ironic considering the SDA emphasis on health.

----------


## euphemia

> At what point in history can we examine the behavior of self-professed Christians?


I think you can always discuss it.  What is probably not helpful is to assume that all Christians believe certain behavior is appropriate, or that a faith system demanded that they commit such behavior.  

And if you are going to do that, it would only be fair to discuss the behavior of non believers or other faith traditions besides Christianity.  If you can prove that unbelievers do no wrong, then please, I'm listening.

----------


## otherone

> Any time you like.  Which Christian saints would you like to talk about?  Would you like to discuss about St. Ekaterina of Alexandria?  
> 
> You see, those people pictured in your post are not the models of our lives and who we Christians aim to be, in the image and likeness of Christ.  So using them as a prop piece only demonstrates that evil exists in the world and that simply calling oneself a Christian does not make one so.  But there are numerous people who indeed lived Christian lives, who lived as Christ did, filled with the Holy Spirit of God, and these are the models to which we look towards in our struggles in this world as examples of faithfulness, mercy, and love.


Like I wrote:



It's pretty easy to sort it out.

----------


## otherone

> And if you are going to do that, it would only be fair to discuss the behavior of non believers or other faith traditions besides Christianity.  If you can prove that unbelievers do no wrong, then please, I'm listening.


Christians aren't better than pagans?

----------


## euphemia

Or prove that a Christian faith codifies as good the behavior your revile.

----------


## otherone

> Or prove that a Christian faith codifies as good the behavior your revile.


Is America a Christian nation?

----------


## Terry1

> The "hard truth" that I've had to face is that I can't count on you, TER, to be rational about this discussion.  And I mean that as a friend.  There are some discussions that I'm not rational about as well.  I did what you asked.  You asked for *one* church father that took the "metaphor" position.  I gave you *three*.  You basically just ignored any evidence contrary to your belief system and demanded more.  The logical conclusion is that no matter how much evidence I might pile up, you can always say "But you've misconstrued it" or "you need to research more" or some other goalpost move for *you* to avoid *your* hard truth that *you* might be wrong.  Again, the Bible warns against people "ever learning and never coming into a knowledge of the truth".  Believing that you must read and understand every last Christian Orthodox theologian for the past 1,000 years to understand the Gospel is a sure way to always learn and never know the truth.  *Terry1 was just as adamant about what she believe to be the Orthodox view on Holy Wisdom as you are about the Eucharist.  Think about that.
> 
> *
> 
> And I don't condemn you and peace to you as well.  May you end up in the Kingdom of God as well.



Oh no you didn't go there!   We've already hashed that out and you were supposed to have understood that I made a mistake with that first link I posted on the Holy Wisdom. Since I made it more than clear at that time. That was made MORE than clear to you.  You attempting to state now that is was my position is intellectual dishonesty--flat out lying here jmd.  Now, I didn't think you'd stoop this low, but maybe I was wrong.

This is the exact crap I'm talking about that you and moos both pulled in that thread.  I thought that you and I had bridged our differences and now you stoop this low again.

----------


## jmdrake

> Christians aren't better than pagans?


Actually by nature Christians aren't any better than pagans.  The Bible gives a lot of instruction that if followed would make one a better person.  But following that instruction requires an actual relationship with Jesus.  Many Christians violate the 2nd commandment and "take the name of the Lord" in vain, meaning taking the Christian name without taking Christ.  In fact most of us do that to some degree or another.

----------


## RJB

I see no one liked sleeping cats.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5690123

How about fighting cats?

----------


## TER

> Actually by nature Christians aren't any better than pagans.  The Bible gives a lot of instruction that if followed would make one a better person.  But following that instruction requires an actual relationship with Jesus.  Many Christians violate the 2nd commandment and "take the name of the Lord" in vain, meaning taking the Christian name without taking Christ.  In fact most of us do that to some degree or another.


Well said!

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh no you didn't go there!   We've already hashed that out and you were supposed to have understood that I made a mistake with that first link I posted on the Holy Wisdom. Since I made it more than clear at that time. That was made MORE than clear to you.  You attempting to state now that is was my position is intellectual dishonesty--flat out lying here jmd.  Now, I didn't think you'd stoop this low, but maybe I was wrong.
> 
> This is the exact crap I'm talking about that you and moos both pulled in that thread.  I thought that you and I had bridged our differences and now you stoop this low again.


Terry, this has *nothing* to do with you posting the "wrong link".  And I'm not "lying".  At first you were all over me for saying that there's no proof that Wisdom is the source for all the other virtues.  Eventually you came to this position.




> I agree with this and I guess we could interpret that hypostatic could also apply to all of the divine attributes including wisdom.


I'm glad you did.  That doesn't change the fact that at first you were saying I was "misinterpreting" your sources, not just the "wrong" link, but the *other* link you provided as well, just like TER is saying I'm "misconstruing" St. Clement.  The point that in your misguided wrath you are missing, is that while Orthodox Christians take solace in the fact that they have the church fathers to guide their interpretation, even the interpretation of the church fathers is up to interpretation.  I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, this has *nothing* to do with you posting the "wrong link".  And I'm not "lying".  At first you were all over me for saying that there's no proof that Wisdom is the source for all the other virtues.  Eventually you came to this position.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you did.  That doesn't change the fact that at first you were saying I was "misinterpreting" your sources, not just the "wrong" link, but the *other* link you provided as well, just like TER is saying I'm "misconstruing" St. Clement.  The point that in your misguided wrath you are missing, is that while Orthodox Christians take solace in the fact that they have the church fathers to guide their interpretation, even the interpretation of the church fathers is up to interpretation.  I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp.


Fine, I can peacefully agree to disagree then--all's good.

----------


## moostraks

> What's the difference between your beef with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and intercession of the saints and ours with sola scripture.  You seem to practice double standards constantly. 
> 
>  What's okay for you to make a claim against a church, it's doctrine and members, but it isn't okay for them to make a claim against another or what you believe. 
> 
>  So everyone should just step out of moos's path and let her lord over her entire fiefdom of Christendom and her final judgments of them.  Then you claim that our members have superior attitudes--fat chance there gooberette.


I am not judging anyone. I am listening to the Spirit and living according to my Faith as it has been given to me. I don't know why you are so obsessed with thinking I am condemning or judging you but it is false as I have repeated a number of times. I have enough problems dealing with my own path to need to lord over someone else. It seems to me you are projecting again. Stop lying about me. It is not just against Christian rules but forum rules.

----------


## TER

> ... while Orthodox Christians take solace in the fact that they have the church fathers to guide their interpretation, even the interpretation of the church fathers is up to interpretation.  I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp.


Why is it so hard a concept to grasp that St. Ignatius of Antioch had a better idea about what the apostolic teachings are with regards to the nature of the Church and the Holy Eucharist then the modern Protestant Christian does?  Why is it such a hard concept to grasp that the writing of St. Clement regarding the Holy Eucharist being a symbol is not according to the modern scholastic materialistic understanding of symbols (which separates the object from its mysteriological nature which transcends time) but rather as a ontological reality and actualization of exactly that which makes it a symbol to begin with?  Because this is how symbols were understood at the time and still understood within the mystery of faith, and not only for Christianity but for many religions.  You are coming at the words of St. Clement through the mind of a western scholastic and human rational approach, while the mystery of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, is not defined in such a way, but rather in child-like humility and faith can it be understood how a symbol in its fullness is exactly that which it symbolizes it is, indeed, by necessity this is so of it is to be the fulfillment of what a symbol actually is.

But even if one cannot accept this and still maintains that St. Clement meant the Eucharist was a mere symbol according to how symbols are understood in these modern times, the overwhelming rest of the evidence confirms the orthodox teachings regarding the Eucharist.  And these are undeniable.  Look at the writings of all the saints of the first and second century, which give the ancient interpretation of what Christ and the Apostles taught regarding the Holy Eucharist.  How it was the very 'food of immortality' and 'the very body and blood of Christ.'  I can list them all if you wish and we can debate them as well.

When one studies the actual history through the lens of the Church and reads the writings of the Church Fathers, they can begin to understand why the academic Church historians who have dedicated their lives studying and learning about the Christian Church from the first century on can say that it is without a doubt that the earliest worshiping Christians did in fact believe in the real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  To deny this is to deny historical facts.

You are correct that even the interpretation of the Church Fathers are up to interpretation.  And that is why we do not and must not rely upon one man however saintly he is as some kind of vicar of Christ (and this includes ourself!), but rather rely on the Church in its wholeness, through its fidelity and ancient witness to be the pillar and foundation of the truth, to actualize what the Church herself _is_ within the unity of the faithful, as guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, and to delineate through the consensus and by the grace of God those fundamental and salvific teachings which have been passed down by the Apostles unto the Church.  Those who in the past have witnessed to the truths, who have strived for the unity of the faith and maintained undefiled the fundamental teachings, the Church recognizes as Saints.  It behooves us to read their writings, appreciate their witness, and learn from them what the correct understanding and interpretations of the Scriptures are and not rely on doctrines or interpretations (ours included!) which are innovative, lack historical and Patristic support, and contradict the faith traced back concretely and historically through time and in sacramental unity to the first century saints of the Christian faith.

----------


## euphemia

> Is America a Christian nation?


Not really.  The original settlers were mostly Christian.  My ancestors were almost certainly thrown out of Scotland for faith reasons and came over here after that.  Some of the founders were men of faith, but many were not.  I don't think they sat around pouring through the Bible looking for laws to make, if that's what you are asking.

What they did was create a government that depended on the citizens to self govern.  They developed a system that enforced a certain standard of behavior.  You can call that what you want.  And I think they intended that the new government would neither interfere with personal faith nor codify it.

I will also say that war brings out the best and worst in people.  While there are tremendous acts of bravery, there are also acts of brutality and cowardice.  I don't think the end justifies the means.  War seems to make people think it does.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The "hard truth" that I've had to face is that I can't count on you, TER, to be rational about this discussion.  And I mean that as a friend.  There are some discussions that I'm not rational about as well.  I did what you asked.  You asked for *one* church father that took the "metaphor" position.  I gave you *three*.  You basically just ignored any evidence contrary to your belief system and demanded more.  The logical conclusion is that no matter how much evidence I might pile up, you can always say "But you've misconstrued it" or "you need to research more" or some other goalpost move for *you* to avoid *your* hard truth that *you* might be wrong.  Again, the Bible warns against people "ever learning and never coming into a knowledge of the truth".  Believing that you must read and understand every last Christian Orthodox theologian for the past 1,000 years to understand the Gospel is a sure way to always learn and never know the truth.  Terry1 was just as adamant about what she believe to be the Orthodox view on Holy Wisdom as you are about the Eucharist.  Think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't condemn you and peace to you as well.  May you end up in the Kingdom of God as well.


Not to get in the middle of y'all's debate, but this is one of the virtues of Orthodoxy.  What we commonly call "the richness of the faith" (a quick webbernet search doesn't turn up this term, but it is in a number of books I've read) is something that one can spend more than a lifetime learning.

----------


## moostraks

> It is not merely I, a friend, who tells you you are wrong with your understanding of ecclesiology and the Holy Eucharist.  Much greater than that, it is the saints and the history of Christianity going back to the first century which judge you to be wrong on certain things.  What bothers you is that I point it out, those things which go squarely against your stated beliefs.  
> 
> You think that by me being silent about this makes me a better and truer brother to you?  But how can I be a better brother to you by allowing you to put yourself on such a dangerous perch, whereby you have placed yourself and your 'experience' and 'conscious' above the testimony and the teachings of the Church?
> 
> If you rather a brother to let you go your own path going in circles, from here to there, based on your interpretations and your experience, then you are correct to look elsewhere then the Orthodox Church.  Because our love for one another does not allow us to see our brethren fall into the cracks of their own fantasies and the whims of the season, but to defend, pray, and struggle for one another in spirit AND truth (real, concrete, historical, apostolic, sacramental truth).





> The "hard truth" that I've had to face is that I can't count on you, TER, to be rational about this discussion.  And I mean that as a friend.  There are some discussions that I'm not rational about as well.  I did what you asked.  You asked for *one* church father that took the "metaphor" position.  I gave you *three*.  You basically just ignored any evidence contrary to your belief system and demanded more.  The logical conclusion is that no matter how much evidence I might pile up, you can always say "But you've misconstrued it" or "you need to research more" or some other goalpost move for *you* to avoid *your* hard truth that *you* might be wrong.  Again, the Bible warns against people "ever learning and never coming into a knowledge of the truth".  Believing that you must read and understand every last Christian Orthodox theologian for the past 1,000 years to understand the Gospel is a sure way to always learn and never know the truth.  Terry1 was just as adamant about what she believe to be the Orthodox view on Holy Wisdom as you are about the Eucharist.  Think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't condemn you and peace to you as well.  May you end up in the Kingdom of God as well.


Listen and really hear jmdrake on this one. I don't feel a responsibility to be in judgement of you and have faith in Him that He is capable of handling the relationship in a manner greater than my attempts could ever be to force my path upon you. I really am tired of being told I have not humbled myself enough just because I disagree with you assessment and so now I must just accept the mystery and move on as an Orthodox. No. I have serious misgivings and have sought and heard repetitively the position points are my sticking points. They are non-negotiable for me. I cannot and will not do it. I am not condemning you but am not receiving the same respect. 

Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval.

Now maybe you might just take a moment and consider the heritage I have and dwell on just how well it panned out when some of my ancestors turned their faith over to the men in robes.

----------


## TER

> Listen and really hear jmdrake on this one. I don't feel a responsibility to be in judgement of you and have faith in Him that He is capable of handling the relationship in a manner greater than my attempts could ever be to force my path upon you. I really am tired of being told I have not humbled myself enough just because I disagree with you assessment and so now I must just accept the mystery and move on as an Orthodox. No. I have serious misgivings and have sought and heard repetitively the position points are my sticking points. They are non-negotiable for me. I cannot and will not do it. I am not condemning you but am not receiving the same respect. 
> 
> Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval.
> 
> Now maybe you might just take a moment and consider the heritage I have and dwell on just how well it panned out when some of my ancestors turned their faith over to the men in robes.


Do you think are more accurate in your beliefs about the Christian faith than St. Ignatius?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why is it so hard a concept to grasp that St. Ignatius of Antioch had a better idea about what the apostolic teachings are with regards to the nature of the Church and the Holy Eucharist then the modern Protestant Christian does?


And I'm sure Jesus had a better understanding than St. Ignatius.  I'd rather go to the source thank you very much.  And at the end of the day someone still has to interpret what St. Ignatius has to say or St. Clement has to say or Tertullian of Carthage or Irenaeus of Lyons had to say or what Justin Martyr.

Please see: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/  Someone can take the writings of *all* of those saints and come up with a plausible theory that Eucharist is metaphorical and not literal.  It's a matter of interpretation.  And before you say "Well it's those ignorant protestants who misconstrue everything", I think we've settled by now that even people within the same Orthodox communion at times interpret writing of the church fathers differently.  And why do you think that *you* know better than John Calvin or Martin Luther?  I don't think I know better than them.  There are points I have in agreement with both of them.  There are points that I have in disagreement with both of them.  Just because they had better Bible knowledge than I do doesn't mean that I *must* be in agreement with them and it most *certainly* doesn't mean that I have to agree with someone else's interpretation of their interpretation of the Bible.  The same is true for Ignatius and Clement and  Tertullian and Martyr and anyone else.

Like I said.  I'm not playing that game anymore.  Have fun though.

----------


## TER

> Who are you to condemn someone elses servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lords help, they will stand and receive his approval.


Whose is one serving when they make their minds to be the authority on truth?  When one places themself above the Saints who were filled with Truth Himself, to whom are they serving?

----------


## moostraks

> Do you think are more accurate in your beliefs about the Christian faith than St. Ignatius?


 thanks for listening to the theme of the point being made...

----------


## jmdrake

> Not to get in the middle of y'all's debate, but this is one of the virtues of Orthodoxy.  What we commonly call "the richness of the faith" (a quick webbernet search doesn't turn up this term, but it is in a number of books I've read) is something that one can spend more than a lifetime learning.


Nothing wrong with continuing to learn.  Plenty wrong with never coming into a knowledge of the truth.  The Bible specifically warns against that. 

_2 Timothy 2:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth._

If Christianity depends on you learning not just what's in the Bible, but 2,000 years and counting of other writings, after all today's RCC/EO scholars are next centuries saints, then you never come into a knowledge of the truth.  Again, the works of those church fathers "interpreting" the Bible are themselves up for further interpretation.

----------


## TER

> And I'm sure Jesus had a better understanding than St. Ignatius.


And I am sure St. Ignatius had a much better understanding then you.




> I'd rather go to the source thank you very much


What you are really saying is that you would rather take your interpretation above anyone who contradicts yours, even of the saints of the first centuries.  




> And at the end of the day someone still has to interpret what St. Ignatius has to say or St. Clement has to say or Tertullian of Carthage or Irenaeus of Lyons had to say or what Justin Martyr.


Yes, but one can do so using their limited experiences and limited knowledge, or by humbling themselves, gain the experience and knowledge of the Church, which St. Paul clearly and emphatically taught was the pillar and foundation of truth.  




> Please see: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/  Someone can take the writings of *all* of those saints and come up with a plausible theory that Eucharist is metaphorical and not literal.  It's a matter of interpretation.  And before you say "Well it's those ignorant protestants who misconstrue everything", I think we've settled by now that even people within the same Orthodox communion at times interpret writing of the church fathers differently.  And why do you think that *you* know better than John Calvin or Martin Luther?  I don't think I know better than them.  There are points I have in agreement with both of them.  There are points that I have in disagreement with both of them.  Just because they had better Bible knowledge than I do doesn't mean that I *must* be in agreement with them and it most *certainly* doesn't mean that I have to agree with someone else's interpretation of their interpretation of the Bible.  The same is true for Ignatius and Clement and  Tertullian and Martyr and anyone else.
> 
> Like I said.  I'm not playing that game anymore.  Have fun though.


When you want to stop playing games and actually make an effort to read and study the writings and testimony of the early Christian saints, then I believe we might have a much more fruitful discussion.

----------


## TER

> thanks for listening to the theme of the point being made...


I'm sorry, I missed the point.  You said I condemned people, when what I did was point to how your teachings contradict the teachings of the first century saints.  My question then is, are you more knowledgable than St. Ignatius with regards to the Christian faith and what it means to be a member of the Church?

----------


## jmdrake

Interestingly enough, Ignatius once referred to himself as the "bread of God."  Sound metaphorical to me.  (Unless he believed that people are eating him at communion as well).

Again from: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/
_Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters that are extant. The situation Ignatius was in while composing his seven epistles is unique to say the least. Showing his love for Christ and His church, Ignatius selflessly and voluntarily presented himself before the Emperor Trajan as a Christian bishop and was subsequently charged and condemned to death by wild beasts.

All seven letters were written while Ignatius was a Roman prisoner in rout to Rome where he was to be killed. Four of the letters were written during a stop in Smyrna where Pollycarp was bishop; they consist of his letter to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, and the Romans. The remaining three letters to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp were written from Troas where they tarried a few days.

The works of Ignatius can be somewhat confusing because of what are called, long recensions. The long recensions are longer versions of Ignatius’ letters that were created in the late fourth or early fifth century. Even the authenticity of the short (or shorter) recensions is in question by some scholars. Nevertheless, I will treat the short recensions as authentic because they are generally believed to be authentic, and I have found a clear reference to one of them in the writings of Irenaeus.

From Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, there is a quote that has become somewhat famous in Catholic apologetic circles. The quote has been credited for convincing many former Protestants that the Catholic Church is Christ’s true church, not that any of these people needed Ignatius to help them get there; they were headed there anyway. But the quote is believed to be quite powerful in persuading Catholic leaning inquisitors. Here is the quote:

  “They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” (From Chapter 7) 

As always, in order to understand the quote, the context must be considered. Who are “they?” Why do they not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ? And what does Ignatius mean by “Eucharist and prayer?”

Who was Ignatius referring to? Prior to making the above statement, Ignatius identified the heretics in a couple of different places. “He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians.” (ibid, Chapter 2) And, “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.” (ibid, Chapter 5)

The they Ignatius was talking about are Dosetists (Greek: dokesis). The word means, “to seem.” Docetism claimed that Christ did not exist in human form. And, as Ignatius points out, they claim He only seemed to suffer, to which Ignatius replied, “They only seem to be Christians.”

They do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered. And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord. Ignatius goes on to say this:

 “Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” 

It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius. They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists objected to the Eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ. That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice is what the Eucharist is all about. It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Dosetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the Eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion.

There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the Eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ. That is merely assumed by those who already believe it. We should also keep in mind that Ignatius was about to be martyred, and this letter to the Smyrnaeans was written to exhort the church to keep the unity in truth, obeying the Gospel of Christ, and to be aware of heresies like Docetism. If there had been anything like the sacrifice of the mass or Eucharistic adoration existing during that time, Ignatius would have certainly included something about it in this letter.

In his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius wrote, “If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Take ye heed, then, to have but one eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood.” (Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapters 3 and 4)

There is only one sacrifice for sin, one flesh of Christ, and one altar in heaven, and one truth which is in Jesus Christ. He exhorted the Philadelphians to come together to give thanks and praise, to celebrate the passion of Christ in unity and love. This exhortation is echoed in His letter to the Ephesians where he said,

    “Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.” (To the Ephesians, Chapter 13) 

Notice, he didn’t exhort them to come together to participate in offering up Christ in an un-bloody sacrifice.

Most of Ignatius’ letters were exhortations to peace, unity, and vigilance, but his letter to the Romans was quite different. The thing that troubled Ignatius most was the potential hindrance of his martyrdom by the Christians in Rome. Ignatius wanted to make clear to the church in Rome his desire to be martyred. Fortunately for us, doing so provided opportunity for him to expound a bit on his understanding of the bread of Christ.

   “I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 4) 

Ignatius identifies himself as wheat and bread of God. This comes from the biblical understanding of the Eucharist celebration. The Apostle Paul said, “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1Cor. 10:17) That bread representing not only the body of Christ that was broken for us, but also our oneness with him. And, the Lord promises we too will suffer persecution because if we are one with Him, the world will hate us as it does Him. A better explanation is found in the words of Irenaeus who referenced Ignatius’ words:

 “And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 5:28) 

By calling himself the wheat of Christ and the pure bread of heaven, Ignatius identifies himself to be in union with Christ’s passion. And this is what Ignatius wanted more than anything, to partake of the bread of God; that is, to be martyred for his faith and live forever more with Christ. He eloquently explained to the church in Rome that he desired the ultimate prize: eternal life made possible by the flesh and blood of Christ.

 “For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (To the Romans, Chapter 7) 

Ignatius speaks of the Spirit of God within him (there is within me a water) beckoning him to come. He had no delight in corruptible food such as earthly bread, but rather the living bread come down from heaven, namely, the flesh of Christ that was sacrificed for the sins of the world. And for drink he desired not corruptible wine, but the incorruptible blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. Ignatius was about to encounter his Lord face to face!

Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous. It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda. Unfortunately it will continue to be the case. But for those who truly desire truth and are willing to take the time, the agendas of some will not prevail over truth._

----------


## moostraks

> Whose is one serving when they make their minds to be the authority on truth?  When one places themself above the Saints who were filled with Truth Himself, to whom are they serving?


Again have you considered the witness of the church, the infallible repository, to which you are wrapping your individualistic position and its history with my ancestors before you wish to proclaim its excellency in upholding the ideals of the Faith? By what authority are you given to harass me into acquiescing to your positon when I am repeatedly informing you I am living my faith as I have been called and how humble are you really being and what really is the goal here by continuing when you are told the person you are harassing is honoring their faith?

----------


## TER

Jmdrake, funny how you claim to go to the source for the truth yet use commentary by those with an agenda to deny the Presence of the Holy Eucharist as your proof.  Why not read St. Ignatius' writings themselves?  Or better yet, look for the understanding of St. Ignatius through the Church which he himself was as a bishop in?  The seat of St. Ignatius remains to this day.  The Bishop of Antioch can trace himself directly through a succession of bishops all the way back to St. Ignatius.  Does what this bishop and all the ones who followed St. Ignatius have any weight of evidence, or will you just conclude what the blogger from 'one fold' has to say as the truth?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, funny how you claim to go to the source for the truth yet use commentary by those with an agenda to deny the Presence of the Holy Eucharist as your proof.


The only "agenda" that I have is for you to come into the knowledge of the truth that *everything* is up for interpretation.  And last time we had this discussion I went directly to the online Catholic encyclopedia and read St. Clement in context and it confirmed exactly what the source I linked to said.  St. Clement taught the Eucharist was a metaphor for the body and blood of Jesus.  Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this as is.  You want the last word, you can have it.  But you should realize that all you're doing is making me less interested in reading whatever it is you want me to read, especially since you seem unwilling to approach any of this using critical thought.

----------


## TER

> Again have you considered the witness of the church, the infallible repository, to which you are wrapping your individualistic position and its history with my ancestors before you wish to proclaim its excellency in upholding the ideals of the Faith? By what authority are you given to harass me into acquiescing to your positon when I am repeatedly informing you I am living my faith as I have been called and how humble are you really being and what really is the goal here by continuing when you are told the person you are harassing is honoring their faith?


When you keep replying without answering the question, it makes me think perhaps you are avoiding the question.  If this seems like harassment, it is because you refuse to answer the simple question yet feel the need to come back with an insult.  The question is simple, and apart from what 'your ancestors' thought.  It is what YOU think.  Do you feel you are more correct with regards to the Christian truths and what it means to be a member of the Church of Christ then St. Ignatius the first century martyr bishop who was ordained when most Apostles were still alive and was taught by them and followed St. Peter as bishop of the largest community of Christians in the first century?  It is a simple question. Now if you cannot answer it, then say so, but don't come back to throw insults and then claim I am harassing you.

I freely admit I fall way short in holiness then St. Ignatius, and that my interpretations and experience are a mere pittance compared to this great saint.  Why is it that you cannot answer it yet reply back with innuendos that it is I who am less humble?

----------


## TER

> The only "agenda" that I have is for you to come into the knowledge of the truth that *everything* is up for interpretation.  And last time we had this discussion I went directly to the online Catholic encyclopedia and read St. Clement in context and it confirmed exactly what the source I linked to said.  St. Clement taught the Eucharist was a metaphor for the body and blood of Jesus.  Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this as is.  You want the last word, you can have it.  But you should realize that all you're doing is making me less interested in reading whatever it is you want me to read, especially since you seem unwilling to approach any of this using critical thought.


Sometimes critical thought takes the place of common sense, and anyone who thinks they have more understanding to the teachings of the Apostles then first century glorified saints is using uninformed uncritical thinking and ignoring fundamental common sense.

----------


## TER

> But you should realize that all you're doing is making me less interested in reading whatever it is you want me to read, especially since you seem unwilling to approach any of this using critical thought.


Jmdrake, I have known you long enough to know that no matter what I do, you will not study the writings of the early Church.  I have asked you innumerable times and you don't, I don't suspect this current thread will either.  My intention therefore is not so much that you might read them, but perhaps someone else reading this thread and who wishes to learn further and make the conscious and honest effort to read and study what the early Church taught, they might become motivated.  If only one person does this, it would have been worth the effort.

----------


## moostraks

> When you keep replying without answering the question, it makes me think perhaps you are avoiding the question.  If this seems like harassment, it is because you refuse to answer the simple question yet feel the need to come back with an insult.  The question is simple, and apart from what 'your ancestors' thought.  It is what YOU think.  Do you feel you are more correct with regards to the Christian truths and what it means to be a member of the Church of Christ then St. Ignatius the first century martyr bishop who was ordained when most Apostles were still alive and was taught by them and followed St. Peter as bishop of the largest community of Christians in the first century?  It is a simple question. Now if you cannot answer it, then say so, but don't come back to throw insults and then claim I am harassing you.
> 
> I freely admit I fall way short in holiness then St. Ignatius, and that my interpretations and experience are a mere pittance compared to this great saint.  Why is it that you cannot answer it yet reply back with innuendos that it is I who am less humble?


No I am not using innuendos. I am pretty well over what I have witnessed the past few days of Orthodoxy. Sealed the deal for me on what I had been on the fence about for a few years. Shall we play the saint of the day game and I am to attempt to live like said saint for a day and then the next day we get to pick a new one and I am supposed to live without any conflictions according to each one's positon on the entirety of faith? Twister would be less conflicting than attempting to achieve that type of a goal. So now I answered your question are you going to honestly respect that my position has any merit or am *I* not entitled to living my faith according to how it has been given me and that you are attempting to force me to conform against my own conscience for your own purpose even if it is at the expense of my own faith?

----------


## moostraks

> Jmdrake, I have known you long enough to know that no matter what I do, you will not study the writings of the early Church.  I have asked you innumerable times and you don't, I don't suspect this current thread will either.  My intention therefore is not so much that you might read them, but perhaps someone else reading this thread and who wishes to learn further and make the conscious and honest effort to read and study what the early Church taught, they might become motivated.  If only one person does this, it would have been worth the effort.



Indeed they certainly are beneficial as lights on the path for the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit. To dismiss the Orthodox church consensus is not the same as proclaiming disdain for those who have applied themselves to the study of spiritual matters.

----------


## Terry1

> Again have you considered the witness of the church, the infallible repository, to which you are wrapping your individualistic position and its history with my ancestors before you wish to proclaim its excellency in upholding the ideals of the Faith? By what authority are you given to harass me into acquiescing to your positon when I am repeatedly informing you I am living my faith as I have been called and how humble are you really being and what really is the goal here by continuing when you are told the person you are harassing is honoring their faith?


LOL

----------


## Terry1

> Indeed they certainly are beneficial as lights on the path for the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit. To dismiss the Orthodox church consensus is not the same as proclaiming disdain for those who have applied themselves to the study of spiritual matters.


Why don't you stop answering every single post made to jmd by everyone else.  Is he paying you for this service?

----------


## moostraks

> Why don't you stop answering every single post made to jmd by everyone else.


This one was also connected in thought process to what he was addressing me with regarding complying with the saints, but don't let that interrupt your witch hunt. Your responses are absolute fodder for non-Christians on the theme of the op.

----------


## Terry1

> I am not judging anyone. I am listening to the Spirit and living according to my Faith as it has been given to me. I don't know why you are so obsessed with thinking I am condemning or judging you but it is false as I have repeated a number of times. I have enough problems dealing with my own path to need to lord over someone else. It seems to me you are projecting again. Stop lying about me. It is not just against Christian rules but forum rules.


You're joking--right?  Nah--I didn't think so.

----------


## Terry1

> This one was also connected in thought process to what he was addressing me with regarding complying with the saints, but don't* let that interrupt your witch hunt*. Your responses are absolute fodder for non-Christians on the theme of the op.


Are you calling yourself a witch?

----------


## TER

> No I am not using innuendos. I am pretty well over what I have witnessed the past few days of Orthodoxy. Sealed the deal for me on what I had been on the fence about for a few years. Shall we play the saint of the day game and I am to attempt to live like said saint for a day and then the next day we get to pick a new one and I am supposed to live without any conflictions according to each one's positon on the entirety of faith? Twister would be less conflicting than attempting to achieve that type of a goal. So now I answered your question are you going to honestly respect that my position has any merit or am *I* not entitled to living my faith according to how it has been given me and that you are attempting to force me to conform against my own conscience for your own purpose even if it is at the expense of my own faith?


Aside from the emotional reaction, I see you still did not answer the simple question. 

You never were on the fence moostraks, so spare me the drama. Someone on the fence actually goes to a Church, seeks out to experience the worship in the Divine Liturgy and speaks with a priest to answer questions or concerns they may have.  You like to window shop what looks nice on the outside but refuse (out of fear?) to actually go inside. 

Rather, it seems to me that you were interested at one time because you found that many of the teachings conformed with your beliefs, for how could they not considering they are the words of the Holy Spirit, and if your felt nudged at one time, it was the Holy Spirit doing it.  

But when it came to those beliefs which you would not accept, which you could not humble yourself and admit that perhaps you are incorrect or wrong (and not 2000 years of saints!), you distanced yourself.  Fair enough.  Tread your own path.  May it be blessed!  But don't go around denouncing those who defend the teachings of the 2000 year old Orthodox Church because it conflict with your sensibilities.  No one here has held a sword to your head for you to convert.  You have a problem with the Church, that is something you will have to answer for, for better or for worse.  You think you are greater then the saints and more knowledgable and while you like some of their teachings, you deny the other foundational ones which go back to the beginning?  That is something you will have to give an account for.  You think because of your 'ancestral heritage' you can deny the claim of the Orthodox Church which can rightly claim to be apostolic and in sacramental communion since the beginning?  Then you still don't understand what it means to leave mother and father and brother and sister in order to follow Christ.  You don't want to conform yourself to the faith, you want worldly comfort and a church which will conform to you.  But that is not the way of the saints nor how we find unity in faith and truth within the body of Christ.  

Your salvation is not up to me or to anyone else but God, but your insistence on claiming that this path you are deliberately choosing 'has been given to you' could very well be a figment of your own imagination and I am trying to help you see that.  If you want to tread your own path while putting yourself above the fundamental teachings of the Church, then good luck with that.   But don't deny me my faith which has been handed down to the Church for 2000 years before you were born.

----------


## moostraks

> Are you calling yourself a witch?


Yep, that's what those folks were who the pious Christians slaughtered right?

----------


## Terry1

> Yep, that's what those folks were who the pious Christians slaughtered right?


Well--if nothing else--at least you've committed yourself to something, if it's a witch--then who am I to argue with that?  Certainly explains a lot.  Glad to see you finally found a spiritual niche.

----------


## moostraks

> Aside from the emotional reaction, I see you still did not answer the simple question. 
> 
> You never were on the fence moostraks, so spare me the drama. Someone on the fence actually goes to a Church, seeks out to experience the worship in the Divine Liturgy and speaks with a priest to answer questions or concerns they may have.  You like to window shop what looks nice on the outside but refuse (out of fear?) to actually go inside. 
> 
> Rather, it seems to me that you were interested at one time because you found that many of the teachings conformed with your beliefs, for how could they not considering they are the words of the Holy Spirit, and if your felt nudged at one time, it was the Holy Spirit doing it.  
> 
> But when it came to those beliefs which you would not accept, which you could not humble yourself and admit that perhaps you are incorrect or wrong (and not 2000 years of saints!), you distanced yourself.  Fair enough.  Tread your own path.  May it be blessed!  But don't go around denouncing those who defend the teachings of the 2000 year old Orthodox Church because it conflict with your sensibilities.  No one here has held a sword to your head for you to convert.  You have a problem with the Church, that is something you will have to answer for, for better or for worse.  You think you are greater then the saints and more knowledgable and while you like some of their teachings, you deny the other foundational ones which go back to the beginning?  That is something you will have to give an account for.  You think because of your 'ancestral heritage' you can deny the claim of the Orthodox Church which can rightly claim to be apostolic and in sacramental communion since the beginning?  Then you still don't understand what it means to leave mother and father and brother and sister in order to follow Christ.  You don't want to conform yourself to the faith, you want worldly comfort and a church which will conform to you.  But that is not the way of the saints nor how we find unity in faith and truth within the body of Christ.  
> 
> Your salvation is not up to me or to anyone else but God, but your insistence on claiming that this path you are deliberately choosing 'has been given to you' could very well be a figment of your own imagination and I am trying to help you see that.  If you want to tread your own path while putting yourself above the fundamental teachings of the Church, then good luck with that.   But don't deny me my faith which has been handed down to the Church for 2000 years before you were born.



So good of you to inform me of just how committed I was to the prospect of joining the church because you know me so well as to why I was not attending. I pretty much lost interest right there regarding the rest of what you had to say about my "drama" you'd like me to spare you. I am not denying you anything. I am not obstructing you or the practice of your sincerely held beliefs one bit which is more than I can say for you in respect to my position being my faith that was given to me. Tribalism. Integrity is more important than the affiliation you proclaim.

You say I am window shopping? Do you speak to your new converts with such harshness or do you welcome them home due to their wisdom of humbling themselves to your banner? You act as though I have had no commitments in my walk and it is not reasonable to be cautious when they stakes are as serious as they are for walking away from Orthodoxy. To me it sounds like the hotel California, difference being my conscience is checked in a suitcase at the door and I better hope that mystery thing gets through to my misgivings real quick.

Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I didn't answer you regarding the saints.  Just because you think the church is infallible to which you have chosen to affiliate does not mean I must bow down and abdicate my responsibility to my faith to appease your demons. You're  right I will be accountable, but the fear you wish to instill in me is only the hard sell for the benefit of onlookers you might persuade of what becomes of those who snub your church. If I believed your church was The means then I would be there but I have been further convinced through the nonsense I have witnessed that it is not the place I would ever call home. 

~~~peace on your path

----------


## moostraks

> Well--if nothing else--at least you've committed yourself to something, if it's a witch--then who am I to argue with that?  Certainly explains a lot.  Glad to see you finally found a spiritual niche.


How's that slandering thing going down for you? Does it help you sleep at night?

----------


## Terry1

> To me it sounds like the hotel California, 
> 
>  Just because you think the church is infallible to which you have chosen to affiliate does not mean I must bow down and abdicate my responsibility to my faith to appease your demons. 
> 
> ~~~peace on your path


 I'll take Hotel California to the roach motel any day.

----------


## Terry1

> How's that slandering thing going down for you? Does it help you sleep at night?


You tell me, you seem to be more adept in the act.  No--I have no problem sleeping at all--but then I have a clear conscience.

You just implied that we bow down to demons--what was that all about eh?  Like I've been saying--you can't see your own crap, but sit on your ass there and accuse everyone else of everything under the sun and still think you're the victim.

Well--you can have your Quaker oats and analbaptists--I'll stick with my Orthodox faith--or "demons" as you call them.

----------


## TER

> So good of you to inform me of just how committed I was to the prospect of joining the church because you know me so well as to why I was not attending. I pretty much lost interest right there regarding the rest of what you had to say about my "drama" you'd like me to spare you. I am not denying you anything. I am not obstructing you or the practice of your sincerely held beliefs one bit which is more than I can say for you in respect to my position being my faith that was given to me. Tribalism. Integrity is more important than the affiliation you proclaim.
> 
> You say I am window shopping? Do you speak to your new converts with such harshness or do you welcome them home due to their wisdom of humbling themselves to your banner? You act as though I have had no commitments in my walk and it is not reasonable to be cautious when they stakes are as serious as they are for walking away from Orthodoxy. To me it sounds like the hotel California, difference being my conscience is checked in a suitcase at the door and I better hope that mystery thing gets through to my misgivings real quick.
> 
> Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I didn't answer you regarding the saints.  Just because you think the church is infallible to which you have chosen to affiliate does not mean I must bow down and abdicate my responsibility to my faith to appease your demons. You're  right I will be accountable, but the fear you wish to instill in me is only the hard sell for the benefit of onlookers you might persuade of what becomes of those who snub your church. If I believed your church was The means then I would be there but I have been further convinced through the nonsense I have witnessed that it is not the place I would ever call home. 
> 
> ~~~peace on your path


  I see you still have not answered the simple question I asked you earlier but insist that it is I who am the arrogant proudful one when it is you who cannot confess that a saint like St. Ignatius was a more informed Christian regarding the teachings the Apsotles then you. In the beginning of this charade I asked you for evidence that your intepretation of the Holy Eucharist was the correct one and why you were right and the Church Fathers were wrong, and I don't recall receiving an answer.  All I have received is that your spiritual path is being led by the 'Spirit'. Okay.  Maybe.  But had you said something like that in a first century assembly of believers, in the days of the Apostles before the term Christian was even coined and professed the things you do now regarding the sacrament of the Church, they would have shown you the door let alone allow you to get anywhere near the Holy Gifts.  Are you going to accuse them of not being Christian as well?  Are you going to denounce them as you denounce the Orthodox for devoting their lives to keep pure the faith which you twist and turn to confirm to your own sensibilities or what the supposed 'spirit' leads you?  Teachings which were anathema from the very beginning?  Perhaps they too were arrogant and full of demons for excommunicating those who spoke the things that you so freely speak now, denouncing the very Body and Blood of Christ?

Believe what you will, and if you feel like I am trying to fear you into anything, than that is perhaps you deep down do fear the fact that you are denying certain fundamental truths.  But, oh well, 'the spirit' will lead you!  The Apostles and the early Church were less Christians then you because they excommunicate and kicked out those who threatened the unity of the faith on account of their own fantasies and ancestral beliefs.  Perhaps they should have followed your example, allowed anybody to believe what they wanted and still called themselves Christian and spread their own innovative teachings regarding something as fundamental as the Holy Eucharist!  Now that would have been the better way!  Instead of tens of thousands of denomination as we have today, there would be millions!  In fact, perhaps the Name of Christ would have disappeared long ago in the consciousness of man.  (Of course, we know this is not so, because Christ established A Church, and that Church has survived not because of the sins of men, but in spite of it, and because of the Holy Spirit in it.) 

In fact, your approach is the very essense of Gnosticism, the very heresy which first threatened the Church.  Perhaps you want to study up more on it like you said you would recently?  It is not too far from paganism or the charismatic Protestantism you practice.  It is the same we see today sprouting its evil head, whereby the faith is relativized, the Church is nominalized, the apostolic traditions and teachings are ignored, so that the modern man can live comfortably within their own minds, do whatever the supposed 'spirit' leads them to do, all the while separating themselves further and further from the truth and from the very Church and Bride of Christ. 

You despise the Orthodox for taking seriously the mission commissioned to it as a strict guardian of the faith?  You denounce then every generation of Christian saints at the same time as well, including the Apostles, who would have excommunicated you from the assembly in a heartbeat for putting yourself and your beliefs above the teachings handed down by the saints. 

Your problem therefore is not with Orthodoxy alone.  Your problem is with anyone who claims that there is one Church.  Well guess what, then you problem is with the entire Christian revelation as revealed by Christ and His Apostles and which has been taught and believed from the first century onwards!  

_And I am not saying that you will not find salvation on the Last Day_, but according to the saints which you selectively ignore, it will be the one and same Church which 2000 years ago excommunicated those who denied the Holy Eucharist, and whether or not you enter into the Kingdom will depend on you being grafted upon this one Church or not.  Sounds arrogant to you?  Then take it up with the Saints.  Take it up with St. Paul.  Take it up with Christ.  Your problem is not with me,  I am a follower and a servant and a pissant.  Your problem is with Christianity in general because it doesn't comply to your sensibilities or live up to your what you think are higher standards.  Yes, we are to forgive, and to love, and to have mercy, but we are also to speak the truth in love, and what you want is the love part but not have to face the truth part.  But thankfully, the saints were very merciful, and Christ even more so, so there will indeed be those who on account of ignorance will still enter into the Kingdom on account of how lived and how they loved.  But as for friendly advice, I would start practicing your excuses as to why you denied the foundational apostolic teachings of the Church which in your case you were not ignorant of, but have indeed been made aware yet now consciously deny and even fight against.  I am not saying that your excuses will be not be justified, or rejected, Christ (and the saints!) will judge, I am simply giving you advice that perhaps you might want to start thinking about your excuses when and if you must give an account.

And if you think that this is fear mongering, you bet it is!  You better believe it, because as far as I can see it, this is about life and death, and quite serious.  You love the Lord, you want to be in communion with Him?  Then stop putting your mind to be the authority and learn what it means to learn from the saints, not just the nuggets about love and mercy and forgiveness, but the entire teachings, the entire deposit of faith, because in the next life, there will not be confusion, nor will there be relativism as we see it now with regards to the truth.  In the Last Day, there will be one Bride which has been prepared, in one faith, in one spirit.  There may be more than one path into the Kingdom, but there will be one Church as there is one Bridegroom Who is Christ.  You may have your own interpretation of what that means, but I take the interpretations of the Saints above either of ours.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> But you should realize that all you're doing is making me less interested in reading whatever it is you want me to read, especially since you seem unwilling to approach any of this using critical thought.


Doesn't this kind of exasperation basically sum up what the main thread topic is all about?

----------


## moostraks

> Doesn't this kind of exasperation basically sum up what the main thread topic is all about?


Yes it does. Absolutely. Reminds me of the way the mafia is portrayed. If you dare to come into their sight of vision for conquest, then it _will_ be their way. You're being extorted into compliance. You can offer one group your soul in order to make them stop harassing you. It does not matter though, because what basis upon which your soul has been taken in surity for protection is then contested by a rival gang. So the only thing one can do for protection from the rival gang is to offer your soul to them. And so on and so on...

Interestingly enough it seems, to me anyways, is the attitude of force most Christians employ to convince people cuts across the grain of what the message is of the words they claim to be inspired by. They devour each other and snuff out the very Light they claim to be sharing.

----------


## robert68

TER PM'd me the other day, and here's the part relevant to the thread topic. I've never PM'd him. 




> Robert, you are a sick man, and you goal in this forum which is apparent by your posting history is to be a fighter and enemy of the Christ and His Church. You don't fight against just me and HB and RJB, but I am sure you will say that you don't care ... But the sad and unfortunate truth is that with some people, whose hearts have been darkened to such a degree and their souls corrupted to such an extent, the more you pray for them, the more the demons fight back, and what one does to try and help only causes them more damage. This is the main reason why I don't address your posts, because there is little for me to offer you. I simply am not strong enough to battle the demons which you yourself have become a slave to.
> 
> What you need Robert is not a catechism, you need an exorcism, and I am not saying this to be mean to you or to offend or humiliate you, but honestly to help you. There is no better advice someone anonymous like me over the internet or even your close Orthodox Christian friends can give then for you to go to a priest for exorcism and confession.


For those who don't know, my occasional posts wrt the OC typically point out its clergy’s past veneration of emperors, czars, and princes, in order to have privilege status, and their historic opposition to individual rights. Also, that it’s creed and canons are political products, and its church’s were commonly funded by the state. In a foremost political forum, named after Ron Paul, with individual rights cited twice in the mission statement, those facts are relevant. He obviously hates those facts being pointed out, and me for doing so. BTW, he’s given me a short hand version of this PM in a negative rep before.

----------


## TER

Robert, my pm to you was in response to your attack on HB.  If you are going to publicly broadcast a pm, then at least broadcast the entire thing. But I can bold the parts which you edited it as being unrelevant. And by the way, when you are ready, I am happy to direct you to a priest for exorcism. 


Robert, you are a sick man, and you goal in this forum which is apparent by your posting history is to be a fighter and enemy of the Christ and His Church. You don't fight against just me and HB and RJB, but I am sure you will say that you don't care.* I wonder what your Orthodox Christian friends would say if they knew the real you and how you felt about their faith and their Church. I am sure they will forgive you, just as I forgive you, and pray for you as I pray for you, and love you just as I love you as a child of God*. But the sad and unfortunate truth is that with some people, whose hearts have been darkened to such a degree and their souls corrupted to such an extent, the more you pray for them, the more the demons fight back, and what one does to try and help only causes them more damage. This is the main reason why I don't address your posts, because there is little for me to offer you. I simply am not strong enough to battle the demons which you yourself have become a slave to. 

What you need Robert is not a catechism, you need an exorcism, and I am not saying this to be mean to you or to offend or humiliate you, but honestly to help you. There is no better advice someone anonymous like me over the internet or even your close Orthodox Christian friends can give then for you to go to a priest for exorcism and confession.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, I have known you long enough to know that no matter what I do, you will not study the writings of the early Church.


Okay.  This nonsense is worth responding too.  I have read the posts that you've made that aren't directed at trying to bully (yes bully) your position on others and are just you quoting some reading by a church father that you found inspiring.  I've even responded.  You've acknowledged my responses.  So why you've decided to be dishonest about that now, I don't know.  Maybe you don't want me reading what you post?  I don't know.  It's one thing to say "Here's a nice writing on love by St. X" or "Here's a wonderful letter on humility from St. Y".  It's quite another thing to try to use writings of saints as some kind of trump card to win an argument that you can't win Biblically, and then when your opponent actually finds support for his position in those same writings to say "Well clearly you didn't understand them and/or read enough."  Doing the former encourages people to read what you find inspiring.  Doing the latter turns them off.  If you don't understand that then I pray God will grant you the Spirit of discernment.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*You must be the change you wish to see in the world.*

 Mahatma Gandhi 

*WWJD?*

----------


## TER

Thank you jmdrake. I am happy to see you search out the writings of the early Christians to find out what the apostolic faith is and not simply depend on your own self and your own interpretative abilities and simply call it the 'spirit', knowing how fallible and limited we are and how far removed we are from Jerusalem 2000 years ago.  Keep it up!  May you learn more in doing so!

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Robert, my pm to you was in response to your attack on HB.  If you are going to publicly broadcast a pm, then at least broadcast the entire thing. But I can bold the parts which you edited it as being unrelevant. And by the way, when you are ready, I am happy to direct you to a priest for exorcism. 
> 
> 
> Robert, you are a sick man, and you goal in this forum which is apparent by your posting history is to be a fighter and enemy of the Christ and His Church. You don't fight against just me and HB and RJB, but I am sure you will say that you don't care.* I wonder what your Orthodox Christian friends would say if they knew the real you and how you felt about their faith and their Church. I am sure they will forgive you, just as I forgive you, and pray for you as I pray for you, and love you just as I love you as a child of God*. But the sad and unfortunate truth is that with some people, whose hearts have been darkened to such a degree and their souls corrupted to such an extent, the more you pray for them, the more the demons fight back, and what one does to try and help only causes them more damage. This is the main reason why I don't address your posts, because there is little for me to offer you. I simply am not strong enough to battle the demons which you yourself have become a slave to. 
> 
> What you need Robert is not a catechism, you need an exorcism, and I am not saying this to be mean to you or to offend or humiliate you, but honestly to help you. There is no better advice someone anonymous like me over the internet or even your close Orthodox Christian friends can give then for you to go to a priest for exorcism and confession.


TER, I believe you are spiritually bullying people.  Would you consider doing what you do best and send a daily Epistle reading, for which you are named?

----------


## RJB

> TER PM'd me the other day, and here's the part relevant to the thread topic. I've never PM'd him.


I usually ignore you because most of what you say about my faith has absolutely nothing to do with my experience, but because you have gone off topic to make this thread about YOU, I'll go there.

Most of the posts you've made in recent months seem to be hit and run off-topic shots at the Orthodox Church.  I have NOT (or rarely) seen you do the same with anyone else.  I'm curious, why?  What has happened to you that sets you off like this?  You claim it's historical but it seems personal.  I'm just curious what is your background and belief system that leads you to this?  Many here seem to be anti-others, yet seem to have no identity of their own-- you seem to typify this.

In another post you mentioned your many Orthodox friends.  To me it sounded like the man hiding his klansman sheets, saying, "some of my best friends are black."  Are your "friends" aware of your deep seated hatred?  Do you ever discuss your misgivings about them directly?  I would bet you don't.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"By their fruits ye shall know them."*

----------


## TER

> TER, I believe you are spiritually bullying people.  Would you consider doing what you do best and send a daily Epistle reading, for which you are named?


I am trying to help Robert the best I can.  As for my name, I chose it at the time I started in the forum when I was linking the daily Epistle reading in my sig. After time, I realized people like you would take it the wrong way and use it as an attack on me, so I shortened it to what people began to commonly call me at the time. 

Would you like to discuss anything further?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I am trying to help Robert the best I can.  As for my name, I chose it at the time I started in the forum when I was linking the daily Epistle reading in my sig. After time, I realized people like you would take it the wrong way and use it as an attack on me, so I shortened it to what people began to commonly call me at the time. 
> 
> Would you like to discuss anything further?


My goodness, TER.  You and Terry seem to be using the same tactics lately.  Consider reading a book about gaslighting.

----------


## TER

> My goodness, TER.  You and Terry seem to be using the same tactics lately.  Consider reading a book about gaslighting.


I am sorry if I seem a bit jumpy. It was a tough night last night arguing amongst people I care about. As for you however, you always seem to appear out of the woodworks in order to stick your dagger and then disappear again until the next time. 

Would you like to discuss the apostolic faith regarding the Holy Eucharist or some other theological topic?  How about the writings of St. Ignatius?  Any wisdom you would like to add about him?  Or have you done your usual work for today, jabbed the knife in, run behind others, and disappear again only until the next time Orthodox blood is being spilled in defense of the saints and Christ's Church?

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-5*

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I am sorry if I seem a bit jumpy. It was a tough night last arguing amongst people I care about. As for you however, you always seem to appear out of the woodworks in order to stick your dagger and then disappear again until the next time. 
> 
> Would you like to discuss the apostolic faith regarding the Holy Eucharist or some other theological topic?  How about the writings of St. Ignatius?  Any wisdom you would like to add about him?  Or have you done your usual work for today, jabbed the knife in, run behind others, and disappear again only until the next time Orthodox is being spilled in order to defend the saints and the Church?


Gaslighters usually use drama and cutting remarks to reduce their prey to sniveling victims.  I would not discuss anything theological with you because much of what you do is criticize and undermine.  Then you speak of love and forgiveness.

----------


## TER

> Gaslighters usually use drama and cutting remarks to reduce their prey to sniveling victims.  I would not discuss anything theological with you because much of what you do is criticize and undermine.  Then you speak of love and forgiveness.


Lol, you gaslight as well my dear with your drive by remarks and passive aggressive comments done in order to illicit anger.  I criticized last night because i was getting sick of an entire week of Orthodox bashing, something you yourself are quite adept in.   I held my tongue for a week, tried to spread peace and reminded people of forgiveness. I spoke with the parties involved by pm to stop the bickering.   Yes, I lost my cool last night because I got sick of the bashing. I fought back. Should have I kept quiet?  Maybe. God is my judge. 

But seriously, if you ever want to share with us your thoughts on such important things as the Holy Eucharist or the teachings of the early Saints, I would like to be a part of it. Because as far as I am seeing it, all I am getting for you is the quick ninja style stab in the back and then disappear in the woods again. And then you speak of forgiveness and love and accuse others of bullying and gaslighting.

----------


## moostraks

> *Judging Others
> 
> 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
> 
> 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
> 
> Matthew 7:1-5*


A+ for effort!!! GL getting anyone to listen

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Lol, you gaslight as well my dear with your drive by remarks and passive aggressive comments done in order to illicit anger.  I criticized last night because i was getting sick of an entire week of Orthodox bashing, something you yourself are quite adept in.   I held my tongue for a week, tried to spread peace and reminded people of forgiveness. I spoke with the parties involved by pm to stop the bickering.   Yes, I lost my cool last night because I got sick of the bashing. I fought back. Should have I kept quiet?  Maybe. God is my judge. 
> 
> But seriously, if you ever want to share with us your thoughts on such important things as the Holy Eucharist or the teachings of the early Saints, I would like to be a part of it. Because as far as I am seeing it, all I am getting for you is the quick ninja style stab in the back and then disappear in the woods again. And then you speak of forgiveness and love and accuse others of bullying and gaslighting.


A member can come and go as they please.  True, I am much more aggressive when I witness bullying.

----------


## acptulsa

> 'Every man’s religion is good. There is none of it bad. We are all trying to arrive at the same place according to our own conscience and teachings. It don’t matter which road you take.'--_Will Rogers_


Actually, it does matter which road you take.  If you're trying to get to Chicago, and you're in St. Louis, you need I-55.  If you're in Seattle, you need I-90.  If you're in Albuquerque, you need more than one road, now that they've confused the issue by 'deactivating' US66.

Not that Chicago is heaven at all, or even remotely similar.  But which is the path to the 'narrow gate' depends entirely upon where one starts the journey.  And the only wrong road is the one that doesn't get an individual in the 'narrow gate'.  Even then, it can still be the right road--for someone who takes it the right direction.

There is one narrow gate.  The right path to that one narrow gate is any path you can follow in the right direction _as an individual that God made unique in all the world._  Having made us individuals, and unique in all the world, I'm at a loss as to explain all this 'one true path' garbage.  Is believing that other individuals shouldn't be so different from oneself the kind of tolerance that Jesus made it clear is required of us in order for us to make heaven heaven?

TER, your church obviously has a lot to offer.  Is there any way someone can explain to you why it isn't the perfect thing for literally everyone without making you mad, or worse, making you afraid that someone is trying to shake your faith?  What does it take to convince you that the Orthodox path is not the only path to the 'narrow gate'?

Robert, is your problem with this church that you really think it can't lead _anyone_ to the 'narrow gate'?  Or is it that it can't do as much for you as an individual, and you're tired of people trying to tell you it can?  And if it's the latter, is that a reason to destroy it or to keep it going for the benefit of those who do, indeed, benefit from it?

It's odd to see this sort of 'my way or the highway to hell' rhetoric on a libertarian website, given that libertarianism is dedicated to respect for individuals and a celebration of the things that make us all unique...

How many more pages of this pointless strife will we energetically post up here, how intolerant will it wind up sounding, and how embarrassed by it will we be later?  The fact that one path does not fit all is no cause for those on another path to be belittled.

We are small.  God is big.  There are many little paths, and one big destination.  Some find their paths converge, and they can travel together from there forward.  Others are more unique than that, have to find their own way, and deserve to do so without being harassed--their paths are often rocky and lonely enough without that.  But it's better than going with 'the crowd' and losing them and the path to the narrow gate at the end.

To say that God can't help any of us through the narrow gate unless we follow the path He paved for _you_ is to give God one hell of a lot less credit than He is due.




> "Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--_Will Rogers 1923_


Is ending hatred and strife doing Jesus' work or isn't it?

And who knows?  If you're not careful, you might even learn one little something from that 'alien denomination' that can combine with what you already know to make your own personal journey easier.  But it takes an open mind to gain benefits like that.




> A member can come and go as they please.  True, I am much more aggressive when I witness bullying.


When I witness bullying, I wonder what's making that bully so painfully _insecure._

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> TER, I believe you are spiritually bullying people.  Would you consider doing what you do best and send a daily Epistle reading, for which you are named?


TER, I actually liked the daily Epistle reading and meant for this part of the comment to compliment you.

----------


## moostraks

> Actually, it does matter which road you take.  If you're trying to get to Chicago, and you're in St. Louis, you need I-55.  If you're in Seattle, you need I-90.  If you're in Albuquerque, you need more than one road, now that they've confused the issue by 'deactivating' US66.
> 
> Not that Chicago is heaven at all, or even remotely similar.  But which is the path to the 'narrow gate' depends entirely upon where one starts the journey.  And the only wrong road is the one that doesn't get an individual in the 'narrow gate'.  Even then, it can still be the right road--for someone who takes it the right direction.
> 
> There is one narrow gate.  The right path to that one narrow gate is any path you can follow in the right direction _as an individual that God made unique in all the world._  Having made us individuals, and unique in all the world, I'm at a loss as to explain all this 'one true path' garbage.  Is believing that other individuals shouldn't be so different from oneself the kind of tolerance that Jesus made it clear is required of us in order for us to make heaven heaven?
> 
> TER, your church obviously has a lot to offer.  Is there any way someone can explain to you why it isn't the perfect thing for literally everyone without making you mad, or worse, making you afraid that someone is trying to shake your faith?  What does it take to convince you that the Orthodox path is not the only path to the 'narrow gate'?
> 
> Robert, is your problem with this church that you really think it can't lead _anyone_ to the 'narrow gate'?  Or is it that it can't do as much for you as an individual, and you're tired of people trying to tell you it can?  And if it's the latter, is that a reason to destroy it or to keep it going for the benefit of those who do, indeed, benefit from it?
> ...


Wow! How superbly awesome of a post!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you again. I am not and have not judged anyone else's path and apparently not ripping on Gnostics has been my grave error because I dared to state that along with not condemning them I have misgivings about Orthodoxy. You cannot insult a person or terrorize them into agreement. Christians should really listen when the people they are talking at are saying why do they hate me so much?

----------


## robert68

For anyone who's wondering, I made a post the other day in response to some foul posts made by HB, that clearly broke the rules of this forum. One of those posts had 2 pictures of faces, each with “WTF” on them, one being a monkey’s face. Bryan removed my post because of something I said in my post (that wasn’t a swear word), and said I could redo it. Someone, it’s not hard to guess who it may have been, likely brought it to Bryans attention. When I brought to Bryans attention the 2 posts I was responding to, he said he hadn’t seen them before, and removed both of them.  TER is playing a game, don’t fall for it.

----------


## Terry1

> My goodness, TER.  You and Terry seem to be using the same tactics lately.  Consider reading a book about gaslighting.



You--- accusing someone else of being a bully here, who bounces in on occasion only to defend your friends like Nang, Kevin007 and moos?  You, Nang, and sola tag teamed me and the Catholics for months, calling us every devil, witch and demon in the book and then accused me of being in violation of a "woman preaching the gospel" along with an "abomination".  

You have the nerve--the gall to call someone else a bully when your friend and mentor, as you call her--Nang ran around this forum calling me a slut and the other women witches as well. Jeez-Louise is right--get a clue woman.  You Calvinists like to point fingers when people oppose your bull-crap.  Give me a break here.

----------


## TER

> For anyone who's wondering, I made a post the other day in response to some foul posts made by HB, that clearly broke the rules of this forum. One of those posts had 2 pictures of faces, each with “WTF” on them, one being a monkey’s face. Bryan removed my post because of something I said in my post (that wasn’t a swear word), and said I could redo it. Someone, it’s not hard to guess who it may have been, likely brought it to Bryans attention. When I brought to Bryans attention the 2 posts I was responding to, he said he hadn’t seen them before, and removed both of them.  TER is playing a game, don’t fall for it.


I don't know what you are babbling about. I haven't contacted Bryan or flagged any of your posts.

----------


## acptulsa

> TER is playing a game, don’t fall for it.


And I think TER has found The Path and wants to share it.  He shouldn't be persecuted for that any more than he should persecute those whose Path leads over different ground.

Ste. Theresa took a distinctly RC path to heaven, but she alone forged the exact path she traveled.  Maybe every other Catholic ought to follow her footsteps exactly, but I doubt any others can.  What a pity it would have been if she had been forced onto the path of another...




> You Calvinists like to point fingers when people oppose your bull-crap.  Give me a break here.


Define a group and demonize the whole 'group' with a broad brush.  The progs over at DU would be so proud.




> I don't know what you are babbling about. I haven't contacted Bryan or flagged any of your posts.


He seemed to be thinking it was HB that flagged it.  Why so defensive?  If one's heart is in the right place, it shows...

----------


## Terry1

> A member can come and go as they please.  True, I am much more aggressive when I witness bullying.


LOL---  You and moos are absolutely amazing!  I've never seen people so much in denial of their own crap and bullying that you actually have the audacity to point a finger and whine about someone else.   This seems consistent amongst those who subscribe to sola scripture.  Seriously---there's a pattern here.

----------


## RJB

> For anyone who's wondering, I made a post the other day in response to some foul posts made by HB, that clearly broke the rules of this forum.


It's funny how your experience with both the Orthodox Church and HB are vastly different from my own.  I'm still curious about your beliefs.  It's good to know where someone's thought process comes from.  It makes for better relations

----------


## RJB

An internet fast might be good for a lot of us.  This thread and others like it sometimes make me miss my days as an atheist/agnostic.

----------


## Terry1

> TER, I actually liked the daily Epistle reading and meant for this part of the comment to compliment you.



How gracious of you to compliment him and then bitch-slap him in the same breath.  Who couldn't appreciate that?  You're not fit to tie his shoe laces.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's funny how your experience with both the Orthodox Church and HB are vastly different from my own.  I'm still curious about your beliefs.  It's good to know where someone's thought process comes from.  It makes for better relations


A nice conversation to have--if there's no one within earshot who will spoil the conversation.

I'd be interested to hear myself.  But the discussion might have to be done via private message, unfortunately, lest it become uncivilized.




> "We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."--_Will Rogers 1923_

----------


## TER

> Actually, it does matter which road you take.  If you're trying to get to Chicago, and you're in St. Louis, you need I-55.  If you're in Seattle, you need I-90.  If you're in Albuquerque, you need more than one road, now that they've confused the issue by 'deactivating' US66.
> 
> Not that Chicago is heaven at all, or even remotely similar.  But which is the path to the 'narrow gate' depends entirely upon where one starts the journey.  And the only wrong road is the one that doesn't get an individual in the 'narrow gate'.  Even then, it can still be the right road--for someone who takes it the right direction.
> 
> There is one narrow gate.  The right path to that one narrow gate is any path you can follow in the right direction _as an individual that God made unique in all the world._  Having made us individuals, and unique in all the world, I'm at a loss as to explain all this 'one true path' garbage.  Is believing that other individuals shouldn't be so different from oneself the kind of tolerance that Jesus made it clear is required of us in order for us to make heaven heaven?
> 
> TER, your church obviously has a lot to offer.  Is there any way someone can explain to you why it isn't the perfect thing for literally everyone without making you mad, or worse, making you afraid that someone is trying to shake your faith?  What does it take to convince you that the Orthodox path is not the only path to the 'narrow gate'?


Your analogy about Chicago is nice, and I have never said there is no other path to God. I am simply repeating the teachings of the Apostle and the earliest Christians writers that there is one Church. This seems to be a scandal here.  It wasn't for the first 1600 years. Am I to ignore the teachings of the Church because it might be a scandal to someone's modern sensibilities?   It is not easy for me to ignore certain fundamental beliefs such as the apostolic faith regarding the Holy Eucharist. Perhaps for others, this is not a big deal. To each their own. 

I am sorry I have lost my cool, but I am not sorry for defending the Church, because I consider the Church the body of Christ and much greater then myself.

And no, it is not out of some insecurity whereby I defend the Church. I am willing to die for the Church and for the faith of the martyrs. I do so in the hopes that others might come to the truth and the fullness of the truth found only in the Church of Christ. If I do it the wrong way and cause others to flee, then it is because I am weak and I will answer for that. May God have mercy on me.

----------


## Terry1

> Gaslighters usually use drama and cutting remarks to reduce their prey to sniveling victims.  I would not discuss anything theological with you because much of what you do is criticize and undermine.  Then you speak of love and forgiveness.


Take a lesson from your own link then.  Need I dig up the old Nang & Louise gaslight posts.  Which is exactly what you're doing--which again proves my point that you and moos both do this $#@! and then make these long-winded dissertations and rants about how mistreated you are.  Own up to your own bullcrap or shut up.

----------


## TER

> You're not fit to tie his shoe laces.


Terry, please don't say such a thing. Louise and I have our issues going back, but I am not anything greater then her.

----------


## moostraks

> You--- accusing someone else of being a bully here, who bounces in occasion only to defend your friends like Nang, Kevin007 and moos?  You, Nang, and sola tag teamed me and the Catholics for months, calling us every devil, witch and demon in the book and then accused me of being in violation of a "woman preaching the gospel" along with an "abomination".  
> 
> You have the nerve--the gall to call someone else a bully when your friend and mentor, as you call her--Nang ran around this forum calling me a slut and the other women witches as well. Jeez-Louise is right--get a clue woman.  You Calvinists like to point fingers when people oppose your bull-crap.  Give me a break here.


Lol at the team mentality and how you remember your "facts". Anyone could do the research if they wanna go at it but the last words iirc Louise and I spoke up until the recent brouhaha here were harsh towards each other because of her having taken up Calvinism and I was an honorary member of team EOC because I didn't see the plank in my own eye.

Proverbs 26: 5Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
            That he not be wise in his own eyes.

      6He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence
            Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

      7Like the legs which are useless to the lame,
            So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

      8Like one who binds a stone in a sling,
            So is he who gives honor to a fool.

      9Like a thorn which falls into the hand of a drunkard,
            So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

      10Like an archer who wounds everyone,
            So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by.

      11Like a dog that returns to its vomit
            Is a fool who repeats his folly.

----------


## moostraks

> Take a lesson from your own link then.  Need I dig up the old Nang & Louise gaslight posts.  Which is exactly what you're doing--which again proves my point that you and moos both do this $#@! and then make these long-winded dissertations and rants about how mistreated you are.  Own up to your own bullcrap or shut up.


Bull. You were given the evidence of where your position went off the rails and _you_ made this a personal vendetta. You didn't want to discuss that issue. You were shown the words you were using to gaslight, but you didn't want to address that post. You may not create an alternate universe and command me as a god. I owned up to my errors but I ain't carrying the baggage you or TER have attempted to foist upon me. Walk your own way and be held accountable but by your fruits you are known.

----------


## moostraks



----------


## Terry1

> Terry, please don't say such a thing. Louise and I have our issues going back, but I am not anything greater then her.


I know that's how you feel TER and I commend you for it. 

 These clowns amaze me how they can sit on their asses and accuse everyone else and point fingers while doing exactly what they're whining about considering themselves such victims and calling us the "mafia" who bow down to demons.  Then they want to post crap about others "gaslighting" and "bullying" as if they're innocent.

----------


## Terry1

> Bull. You were given the evidence of where your position went off the rails and _you_ made this a personal vendetta. You didn't want to discuss that issue. You were shown the words you were using to gaslight, but you didn't want to address that post. You may not create an alternate universe and command me as a god. *I owned up to my errors* but I ain't carrying the baggage you or TER have attempted to foist upon me. Walk your own way and be held accountable but by your fruits you are known.


You don't own up to sheeeeeeeeeit!  You live in denial of very same damn things you accuse everyone else of.  Whatever's been "foisted" upon poor moos--you foisted upon them first.  We're the "mafia" who "bow down to demons"---riiiiiiiiight and you foist nothing upon anyone else do you.  You are a very sad pitiful individual who can't see your own crap, but only that which you feel has been "foisted" upon you by the "bullies".  Get a clue moos--have some self respect if nothing else.

----------


## robert68

> Robert, is your problem with this church that you really think it can't lead _anyone_ to the 'narrow gate'?  Or is it that it can't do as much for you as an individual, and you're tired of people trying to tell you it can?  And if it's the latter, is that a reason to destroy it or to keep it going for the benefit of those who do, indeed, benefit from it?


My remarks on the history of the OC were a lot to do with TER’s massive and constant number of postings of OC articles and use of this forum to evangelize his religion.  He’s dialed it back since. Check the thread history of this sub-forum if you don’t know about this. Also, because few people know about its history and he was exploiting their ignorance. 

I happen to know some Orthodox Christians, they’re not like 3 certain ones in this forum. They don’t evangelize and proselytize like them, and aren’t arrogant, hateful or foul mouthed.  I’ve also met Orthodox priests, and they weren’t like that. One told me years ago, “we aren’t like that”, referring to how protestants often promote their religion.

----------


## Terry1

> Lol at the team mentality and how you remember your "facts". Anyone could do the research if they wanna go at it but the last words iirc Louise and I spoke up until the recent brouhaha here were harsh towards each other because of her having taken up Calvinism and *I was an honorary member of team EOC because I didn't see the plank in my own eye.
> *


You see people as "teams" instead of right or wrong and you'll go with whatever team seems to be winning and support them.  Then when you think they're losing--you'll abandon them in a one-shot dash for the other side.

All you do is appeal to popularity to serve moos-herself.  You have no loyalty to anyone or anything but moos-herself.  Whatever seems to have the leg-up at the time is where moos will go and who'll you'll stand with.  I'd trust someone like you at my back as much as I'd trust the devil with a large knife.

All anyone has to do to get you on their side is to have the majority at their back and that's where you'll follow.  Right and wrong means nothing to you.  

The best thing about you lying about me is me knowing now that you're not worth the truth.

----------


## erowe1

> I happen to know some Orthodox Christians, they’re not like 3 certain ones in this forum.


That's not just an OC thing. I assume that your interactions with most people in the real world differ a great deal from the way people interact on internet forums. No?

----------


## jmdrake

> An internet fast might be good for a lot of us.


^This




> That's not just an OC thing. I assume that your interactions with most people in the real world differ a great deal from the way people interact on internet forums. No?


And ^this.

----------


## moostraks

> You don't own up to sheeeeeeeeeit!  You live in denial of very same damn things you accuse everyone else of.  Whatever's been "foisted" upon poor moos--you foisted upon them first.  We're the "mafia" who "bow down to demons"---riiiiiiiiight and you foist nothing upon anyone else do you.  You are a very sad pitiful individual who can't see your own crap, but only that which you feel has been "foisted" upon you by the "bullies".  Get a clue moos--have some self respect if nothing else.


You want me to apologize for things I earnestly am not guilty for but they are delusions of your own perceptions. They are your demons and I will need feed your wolf. They have not been foisted upon me because I am not going to take them. They are only a burden when I give them validity by conceding to your commands for the sake of a false peace. That's what this has been between me with my issues with your path _for me_. Mull over the term integrity for a bit and keep your eyes open to whom you choose to associate with as your team. All may not be as it seems and no one should be an unwitting pawn.

If you want to be effective at proclaiming your truth is THe truth then listen to what people are taking away from the manner you approach them. If you think your church is the mafia because of the similarity in tactics then maybe something is amiss. If you see no similarity then why be insulted by something you feel doesn't apply to you? The feelings are valid for me who sees the various churches that operate this way which is why I am claiming it as my viewpoint. Try listening instead of talking at people and telling them what they think.

Now on this subforum I have had the same tactics used by both Calvinists/Reformed and the EOC. I have been told what I think and how arrogant I am for not complying with BOTH viewpoints. Both have had representatives that tell me I am pagan and have no faith. Each one has posted reams of information to convince people of the earnestness of their mission and the wisdom of their path. Neither can be reconciled with the other. I am not judging either path for others and have made that abundantly clear even if I have serious disagreements of issues for purposes of _my path_. So slander me with all the ridiculousness you can possibly dish up because I am not where you are and call necessary for enlightenment, by your fruits you will be known.

----------


## moostraks

> You see people as "teams" instead of right or wrong and you'll go with whatever team seems to be winning and support them.  Then when you think they're losing--you'll abandon them in a one-shot dash for the other side.
> 
> All you do is appeal to popularity to serve moos-herself.  You have no loyalty to anyone or anything but moos-herself.  Whatever seems to have the leg-up at the time is where moos will go and who'll you'll stand with.  I'd trust someone like you at my back as much as I'd trust the devil with a large knife.
> 
> All anyone has to do to get you on their side is to have the majority at their back and that's where you'll follow.  Right and wrong means nothing to you.  
> 
> The best thing about you lying about me is me knowing now that you're not worth the truth.



Nope you are the one who was putting us on teams. I was attempting to reach you by the manner in which you were thinking and commanding others to choose sides such as everyone against Kevin even if they think you are wrong because he is not worthy, or how now all the sudden I am with nang, S_F, and Louise. I don't think that way at all. You cannot believe in the right to each to follow their faith and then make teams and hate on them. I don't hate anyone here. I am aware of methods and personalities but I have no malice for anyone. What's done is done. It is what it is.

 Integrity means everything to me which is why is I am so done with what I have witnessed here regarding the EOC. You don't know the half of it. 

I am not worth the truth am I? So you say...

Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

----------


## Terry1

> You want me to apologize for things I earnestly am not guilty for but they are delusions of your own perceptions. They are your demons and I will need feed your wolf. They have not been foisted upon me because I am not going to take them. They are only a burden when I give them validity by conceding to your commands for the sake of a false peace. That's what this has been between me with my issues with your path _for me_. Mull over the term integrity for a bit and keep your eyes open to whom you choose to associate with as your team. All may not be as it seems and no one should be an unwitting pawn.
> 
> If you want to be effective at proclaiming your truth is THe truth then listen to what people are taking away from the manner you approach them. If you think your church is the mafia because of the similarity in tactics then maybe something is amiss. If you see no similarity then why be insulted by something you feel doesn't apply to you? The feelings are valid for me who sees the various churches that operate this way which is why I am claiming it as my viewpoint. Try listening instead of talking at people and telling them what they think.
> 
> Now on this subforum I have had the same tactics used by both Calvinists/Reformed and the EOC. I have been told what I think and how arrogant I am for not complying with BOTH viewpoints. Both have had representatives that tell me I am pagan and have no faith. Each one has posted reams of information to convince people of the earnestness of their mission and the wisdom of their path. Neither can be reconciled with the other. I am not judging either path for others and have made that abundantly clear even if I have serious disagreements of issues for purposes of _my path_. So slander me with all the ridiculousness you can possibly dish up because I am not where you are and call necessary for enlightenment, by your fruits you will be known.



All bull$#@!--  proof that you'll stand with anyone who supports your crap whether they're right or wrong.  Kevin007 made the comment that I'd fell off my meds.  I made a counter comment just as rude to that.  Who do you support?  You claimed that Kevin's comment was innocent, when anyone with a clue reading knew otherwise.  This is what I'm talking about.  So don't sit there on your ass claiming that you stand for what you believe is right.  That's a flat out lie.  You'll stand with whomever is either winning the argument or whoever supports you in your effort to assassinate their character with lies and bull$#@!.

You're simply a diabolical person that no one should trust under any circumstance and that's good advice.  Also at this point--I wouldn't expect or want you to apologize for anything--nothing you say is truth.  Everything that's flowing from your brain to your fingertips to the keyboard are lies and denial.

----------


## moostraks

> All bull$#@!--  proof that you'll stand with anyone who supports your crap whether they're right or wrong.  Kevin007 made the comment that I'd fell off my meds.  I made a counter comment just as rude to that.  Who do you support?  You claimed that Kevin's comment was innocent, when anyone with a clue reading knew otherwise.  This is what I'm talking about.  So don't sit there on your ass claiming that you stand for what you believe is right.  That's a flat out lie.  You'll stand with whomever is either winning the argument or whoever supports you in your effort to assassinate their character with lies and bull$#@!.
> 
> You're simply a diabolical person that no one should trust under any circumstance and that's good advice.  Also at this point--I wouldn't expect or want you to apologize for anything--nothing you say is truth.  Everything that's flowing from your brain to your fingertips to the keyboard are lies and denial.


Keep it up...

I intervened with Lily and jmdrake not because it was the popular argument but because the EOC were not trying to talk you off the ledge of being such an ugly, mean spirited person to anyone who disagrees with your unique beliefs. You rule by fear not by friendship. Everyone has been too tired of the attacks that occur when they cross you and I am shamed of my own silence which has seemed to some as support. Bring it on if you must but you are not condemning me with all this ridiculousness.

----------


## Terry1

> Nope you are the one who was putting us on teams.


What did you *just say here:




> Originally Posted by *moostraks* 
>  *I was an honorary member of team EOC because I didn't see the plank in my own eye.*


It's getting tiring forcing you to see yourself as everyone else does.





> Integrity means everything to me


LOL  And here comes the scripture again.  I won't drag Gods word into this hellacious mire to support anything in this argument between you and I.  This is the difference between you and I.  You'll use Gods word to support the evil crap that you perpetrate being in denial of what you're doing and accusing everyone else of.  I won't do that because I know that right now--I'm not acting in belief--I'm acting out of pure anger and frustration with you--because there are people like you who want to drag God down to your level and call themselves "Christians".  I'll just have to pray for forgiveness and repentance after I'm done with you here.





> Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Jesus wept.

----------


## Terry1

> Keep it up...
> 
> I intervened with Lily and jmdrake not because it was the popular argument but because the EOC were not trying to talk you off the ledge of being such an ugly, mean spirited person to anyone who disagrees with your unique beliefs. You rule by fear not by friendship. Everyone has been too tired of the attacks that occur when they cross you and I am shamed of my own silence which has seemed to some as support. Bring it on if you must but you are not condemning me with all this ridiculousness.


Yeah, and this is exactly what I've been saying all along.  You'll try to rally support by naming names of people you know have been offended and drag them into this to support you, while I've never tried to drag my fellow brethren into this all all, in fact I've said that I don't want to suck my fellow brethren into this because I don't require their help with the likes of you.  

What you're doing here is crying out for your friends to run to your rescue.  And if they had a clue--they'd also understand that you don't and never have had their best interest at heart--you just want to drag them into your fight for support.  Good luck with that.

Like I said--this is all about poor moos with no regard or loyalty to God, anyone or anything.  You are a completely selfish person who thinks of no one and nothing but herself.

----------


## moostraks

> Yeah, and this is exactly what I've been saying all along.  You'll try to rally support by naming names of people you know have been offended and drag them into this to support you, while I've never tried to drag my fellow brethren into this all all, in fact I've said that I don't want to suck my fellow brethren into this because I don't require their help with the likes of you.  
> 
> What you're doing here is crying out for your friends to run to your rescue.  And if they had a clue--they'd also understand that you don't and never have had their best interest at heart--you just want to drag them into your fight for support.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Like I said--this is all about poor moos with no regard or loyalty to God, anyone or anything.  You are a completely selfish person who thinks of no one and nothing but herself.


Did Lily ask me to get involved? Did jmdrake? No. Who have I asked to get involved? No one for me. I asked for clarification from anyone as to the original question days ago which you never explained, but never for support. When someone is acting like a tyrant and mistreating another person people have a tendency to try and stop conflict. I detest confrontation and let the silence seem to be approval of your methods until you just became so monotonous and were harming others continuously and conflicting with some of the more gentle folks on the board. My intentions were to find a middle ground so you would stop. It blew up because you don't listen to what people say to you and now you are going full blown attack because of your need to succeed. 

I have no loyalty to God or anyone or anything? I am the completely selfish person commanding others to support me or else? 

Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

----------


## acptulsa

> Did Lily ask me to get involved? Did jmdrake? No. Who have I asked to get involved? No one for me. I asked for clarification from anyone as to the original question days ago which you never explained, but never for support. When someone is acting like a tyrant and mistreating another person people have a tendency to try and stop conflict. I detest confrontation and let the silence seem to be approval of your methods until you just became so monotonous and were harming others continuously and conflicting with some of the more gentle folks on the board. My intentions were to find a middle ground so you would stop. It blew up because you don't listen to what people say to you and now you are going full blown attack because of your need to succeed. 
> 
> I have no loyalty to God or anyone or anything? I am the completely selfish person commanding others to support me or else? 
> 
> Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.


I don't know which is more unrecognizable--the straw man you created and named 'moostraks' or the straw saint you created and are calling 'terry1'.

Neither bears any particular resemblance to anyone I've ever seen post on this forum...

----------


## Terry1

> Did Lily ask me to get involved? Did jmdrake? No. Who have I asked to get involved? No one for me. I asked for clarification from anyone as to the original question days ago which you never explained, but never for support. When someone is acting like a tyrant and mistreating another person people have a tendency to try and stop conflict.


You've called TER a bully and me a tyrant?  Who's the "tyrant" here?  Shall we keep score on how many insults, accusations and mischaracterizations have been made on both our parts here?  I'd say you win hands down there.  Again--you're in denial of your own $#@!.





> I detest confrontation


Who else is laughing at this besides me here.  Again--in denial of your own rotten $#@!.  You "detest confrontation" as much as you do playing the victim.






> . My intentions were to find a middle ground so you would stop.


Your intentions were to assassinate my character--plain a simple.  How's that working out for you now?




> I have no loyalty to God or anyone or anything? I am the completely selfish person commanding others to support me or else?


If the shoe fits and I'd say it's a perfect fit in your case.  Here comes you dragging God into your rotten pile of manure again attempting to justify yourself.




> Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

----------


## Terry1

> Originally Posted by *moostraks* 
> Did Lily ask me to get involved? Did jmdrake? No. Who have I asked to get involved? No one for me. I asked for clarification from anyone as to the original question days ago which you never explained, but never for support. When someone is acting like a tyrant and mistreating another person people have a tendency to try and stop conflict. I detest confrontation and let the silence seem to be approval of your methods until you just became so monotonous and were harming others continuously and conflicting with some of the more gentle folks on the board. My intentions were to find a middle ground so you would stop. It blew up because you don't listen to what people say to you and now you are going full blown attack because of your need to succeed. 
> 
> I have no loyalty to God or anyone or anything? I am the completely selfish person commanding others to support me or else? 
> 
> Matthew 12: For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
> 
> 
> I don't know which is more unrecognizable--the straw man you created and named 'moostraks' or the straw saint you created and are calling 'terry1'.
> ...


Well the plain truth is that *you are what and whom you support--dualy noted.  BTW--you quoted moos when you made this post, which I find ironic and amusing at the same time.

----------


## robert68

> That's not just an OC thing. I assume that your interactions with most people in the real world differ a great deal from the way people interact on internet forums. No?


To an extent. However, the Orthodox Christians I know don’t post in forums like this or general religious forums. Also, I don’t think being on the internet changes people, but rather brings out more of what they already are.

----------


## jllundqu

AAaaaaaannnnnnddddd  Once again the OP is disregarded and thread derailed.   Just like clockwork.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not just an OC thing. I assume that your interactions with most people in the real world differ a great deal from the way people interact on internet forums. No?


+rep

----------


## jllundqu

This entire thread just solidifies my belief that I could never EVER call myself a Christian.  Thank all of you for reaffirming my faith or lack thereof in a Christian worldview.

----------


## Dr.3D

> This entire thread just solidifies my belief that I could never EVER call myself a Christian.  Thank all of you for reaffirming my faith or lack thereof in a Christian worldview.


Is that what you wanted Christians to hear?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Thank all of you for reaffirming my faith or lack thereof in a Christian worldview.


 Don't be confused!  We all actually agree with erowe -- as do you, actually! -- and are just experiencing varying degrees of hatefulness and denial.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well the plain truth is that *you are what and whom you support--dualy noted.  BTW--you quoted moos when you made this post, which I find ironic and amusing at the same time.


And yet you knew exactly who I was talking to, didn't you...?




> Don't be confused!  We all actually agree with erowe -- as do you, actually! -- and are just experiencing varying degrees of hatefulness and denial.


John 13:34  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Unless that's too much trouble; otherwise just count on being forgiven and don't even try.

----------


## Terry1

> This entire thread just solidifies my belief that I could never EVER call myself a Christian.  Thank all of you for reaffirming my faith or lack thereof in a Christian worldview.


Christians are just like you and everyone else--the only difference is that we believe in a higher power than ourselves named God and Jesus.  We're all supposed to act like Jesus, but we all have that same human attribute that causes us to stumble, called human weakness.

One thing I learned over the years is--don't ever go to church thinking you're going to find *better people*--go there understanding that everyone there is looking for the same thing you are and that everyone is at different levels of faith and belief.  If you go to church with great expectations of finding people with glowing halo's above their heads---you will be sorely disappointed.

The only thing that separates me from any unbeliever on the street is that I do believe and have hope in Christ.  It doesn't mean that I'm better or more able to resist temptation.  It means that I believe I have the power through Christ to do that---which I don't always practice.   Because I have seen people who don't even believe in God that show more Christian love than those who profess Christ and that includes myself.  I'm not always the person I should be and I realize that--at least I can admit it to myself which I thank God for.

----------


## Terry1

> And yet you knew exactly who I was talking to, didn't you...?


Well it was sort of obvious who you were biased against and have been.  I don't think anyone needed to be an Einstein to have a clue there.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Christians are just like you and everyone else
> 
> One thing I learned over the years is--don't ever go to church thinking you're going to find *better people*
> 
> The only thing that separates me from any unbeliever on the street is that I do believe and have hope in Christ.  It doesn't mean that I'm better or more able to resist temptation.


If taking Course X does not demonstrably lead to a better life, it's difficult to see why any thoughtful person would be highly motivated to take it.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well it was sort of obvious who you were biased against and have been.  I don't think anyone needed to be an Einstein to have a clue there.


And am I biased against you?  I seem to remember being on the 'same side' as you from time to time.

Or am I just wishing that we could love one another in the way that the Wisest Teacher wants us to do?  And show it, too?

But, you know, don't _listen_ to what I think and want.  So much more fun to make a straw man in your own image and hang my name on it...

----------


## Jamesiv1

> AAaaaaaannnnnnddddd  Once again the OP is disregarded and thread derailed.   Just like clockwork.


right?

We could start an over/under on how many posts to derailment --> then escalation to petty bickering --> and finally to hurt feelings, personal insults and resentment.

Cherry on top is couple of people saying 'This is why I will never become a Christian.'

Nice witness.  (not)

----------


## Terry1

> If taking Course X does not demonstrably lead to a better life, it's difficult to see why any thoughtful person would be highly motivated to take it.


"A better life" is relative to whatever your frame of reference is though--is it not?  If a better life denotes *better people*, it begs the question then--by whose standards are we held to and the judgment thereof?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> "A better life" is relative to whatever your frame of reference is though--is it not?


The only frame of reference each man has is his own.

----------


## Terry1

> The only frame of reference each man has is his own.


Correct

----------


## Terry1

> And am I biased against you?  I seem to remember being on the 'same side' as you from time to time.
> 
> Or am I just wishing that we could love one another in the way that the Wisest Teacher wants us to do?  And show it, too?
> 
> But, you know, don't _listen_ to what I think and want.  So much more fun to make a straw man in your own image and hang my name on it...


Pretty hard to build a strawman using one's own quotes wouldn't ya think?

----------


## acptulsa

> Pretty hard to build a strawman using one's own quotes wouldn't ya think?


I never said you weren't talented.

----------


## Terry1

> I never said you weren't talented.


So now it takes talent to be honest?  I thought someone just had to know the difference between a lie and a truth.  If you want to call that talent, then I guess honesty can be a talent to some people.

----------


## acptulsa

> So now it takes talent to be honest?  I thought someone just had to know the difference between a lie and a truth.  If you want to call that talent, then I guess honesty can be a talent to some people.


Takes talent to spin something that hard without getting dizzy, for one thing...

----------


## Terry1

> Takes talent to spin something that hard without getting dizzy, for one thing...


Like I said--it's hard to build a strawman or spin anything using one's own quotes. You're going nowhere with these accusations ya know. 

 I can't help the fact that some people aren't too bright or smart enough to get out of their own way and end up hoisting themselves on their own petard.  If you really want to be helpful--then witness to your friend who's been lying and accusing people for days now and then turns around claiming that she's nothing but a victim.  Help her by doing the right thing, if it's your stated goal with all of that scripture you like to post.  You're not helping her by supporting her crap lies, denial and accusations about others.  What you are doing is proving yourself to be an enabler of the same.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you really want to be helpful--then witness to your friend who's been lying and accusing people for days now and then turns around claiming that she's nothing but a victim.


Thought I was.

But, you know, you can lead a horse to water...

----------


## Terry1

> Thought I was.
> 
> But, you know, you can lead a horse to water...


You're supposed to lead a horse head first not ass first.  A horse can't drink from it's ass.  I should add that one to those Confucius quotes.

Maybe it would go something like "always lead horse head first as horse can not drink from ass"--or maybe "leader of horse must be smarter than horse itself--otherwise--leader and horse walk off cliff."  You can play with that one if you like.

----------


## tommyrp12

Definitely apropos.

----------


## acptulsa

> You're supposed to lead a horse head first not ass first.  A horse can't drink from it's ass.  I should add that one to those Confucius quotes.


Why not?  Then you can add a straw Confucius to your collection.

----------


## otherone

TIME FOR A FORUM

GROUP HUG!

----------


## Kevin007

> Keep it up...
> 
> I intervened with Lily and jmdrake not because it was the popular argument but because the EOC were not trying to talk you off the ledge of being such an ugly, mean spirited person to anyone who disagrees with your unique beliefs. You rule by fear not by friendship. Everyone has been too tired of the attacks that occur when they cross you and I am shamed of my own silence which has seemed to some as support. Bring it on if you must but you are not condemning me with all this ridiculousness.


thank you Moos.

----------


## Kevin007

> Christians are just like you and everyone else--the only difference is that we believe in a higher power than ourselves named God and Jesus.  We're all supposed to act like Jesus, but we all have that same human attribute that causes us to stumble, called human weakness.
> 
> One thing I learned over the years is--don't ever go to church thinking you're going to find *better people*--go there understanding that everyone there is looking for the same thing you are and that everyone is at different levels of faith and belief.  If you go to church with great expectations of finding people with glowing halo's above their heads---you will be sorely disappointed.
> 
> The only thing that separates me from any unbeliever on the street is that I do believe and have hope in Christ.  It doesn't mean that I'm better or more able to resist temptation.  It means that I believe I have the power through Christ to do that---which I don't always practice.   Because I have seen people who don't even believe in God that show more Christian love than those who profess Christ and that includes myself.  I'm not always the person I should be and I realize that--at least I can admit it to myself which I thank God for.


now, a post even I can agree with... (applies to myself too).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> TIME FOR A FORUM
> 
> GROUP HUG!


Indeed!   ~hugs everyone~

----------


## Crashland

> TIME FOR A FORUM
> 
> GROUP HUG!


Are you sure? You might catch a disease or something

----------


## otherone

> Are you sure? You might catch a disease or something


or...GIVE...one...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you sure? You might catch a disease or something


hugz r healthy! 




> People are forgetting what love means nowadays. They  stopped hugging, kissing and showing affection to each other. By doing  this they start leading life that is empty and that brings sadness.
> Hugs  are the most natural way to show love, affection, understanding or  comfort to someone. Sincere hug will show someone that you care about  him or her. By hugging someone you will say hello and you will accept  someone.
> Juan Mann is a man that started with an interesting  project called ‘’free hugs’’. This project can help anyone who is lonely  to feel good again.
> Hugging is a powerful way to get rid of  stress and to connect with people. It is our natural urge to love and  connect to each other. By giving free hugs you will make anyone’s day.
> The  research has been conducted showing that hugs produce oxytocin, a  "bonding" hormone. Oxytocin influences social recognition, bonding, and  building trust among people. By hugging we lower cortisol, the stress  hormone. Cortisol is responsible for high blood pressure and slowing of  metabolism. Combination of these two lead to gaining weight. 
> Dr.  Charmaine Griffiths claims that people who are supported, loved and  hugged by loved ones stand better chances to prevent or cure all  illnesses connected with heart.
> Dr. Karen Grewen said that hugging  and showing affection are beneficial for all people, especially women.  Hugging increases level of oxytocin bringing emotional stability and  physical health.
> A study from UNC-Chapel Hill was conducted on 100 adults showing that hugging protects heart from damaging influence of anger. 
> David  Bresler did an amazing test on a woman who suffered from different  types of pain in the body. After her husband gave her four hugs every  day, her physical condition started improving.
> ...


http://ic.steadyhealth.com/health_benefits_of_hugs.html

----------


## Terry1

> TIME FOR A FORUM
> 
> GROUP HUG!


Which one are you?  I want to hug you first.   I like that cute lil shy one at about 9:00 in the pic.

----------


## Kevin007

I'm the one in the middle.

----------


## RJB

> To an extent. However, the Orthodox Christians I know dont post in forums like these or general religious forums.


I think you may be talking about the Amish.

----------


## otherone

> Which one are you?  I want to hug you first.   I like that cute lil shy one at about 9:00 in the pic.


awww.
I'm the one off-camera saying, " If life ain't fun you're doin' it wrong."
_peace, y'all_

----------


## Terry1

> awww.
> I'm the one off-camera saying, " If life ain't fun you're doin' it wrong."
> _peace, y'all_

----------


## TER

I want to apologize to everyone. I was a complete ass.  I can be over zealous and use bad manners when I get passionate about something.  

Robert is right that most Orthodox Christians keep the faith to themselves, in terms of advertising it and promoting it.   They live it to the best of their abilities and know that it is something special, but don't go around yelling it from the hilltops like I sometimes do. This is perhaps a great fault of mine, but it is hard for me to help it.   And that is because my greatest joy is to see a person come to Orthodoxy.  Perhaps this is selfish of me?  Maybe.  I do feel peace and joy to see it. But my joy is that the one comes back home in the unity of the faith with every century's assembly of faithful, the ekklesia. Because in truth, the Church knows through her collective experience that within the sacramental life as a member of and in the Church, the very parousia of Christ is actualized, Christ is encountered.  This is my experience and the experience of every believer who approaches in faith. The Holy Spirit giving His life, which is the life of Christ Himself. 

My intention, as horribly as I attempt to express it, is so that all people I meet and know can share in this life.   

But my zeal often gets me into trouble, and then I realize how blessed a life it is to stop trying to win hearts and start dying to my passions and living in Christ. I have way too many sins I need to work on ridding, and I waste time in arguments and fighting. And with many I care about even.  This is no good. 

So I want to apologize first to Robert for the PM.  I am also sorry that you feel I am trying to 'hide' certain things and being deceitful. You proving that the Orthodox Church has many sinners does not negate the great good the Church has done since the first century. But you are right that I can be a jerk, and for that too I ask forgiveness.

And to everyone else, I ask for your forgiveness.  I can understand if you hold things against me.

----------


## Terry1

> I want to apologize to everyone. I was a complete ass.  I can be over zealous and use bad manners when I get passionate about something.  
> 
> Robert is right that most Orthodox Christians keep the faith to themselves, in terms of advertising it and promoting it.   They live it to the best of their abilities and know that it is something special, but don't go around yelling it from the hilltops like I sometimes do. This is perhaps a great fault of mine, but it is hard for me to help it.   And that is because my greatest joy is to see a person come to Orthodoxy.  Perhaps this is selfish of me?  Maybe.  I do feel peace and joy to see it. But my joy is that the one comes back home in the unity of the faith with every century's assembly of faithful, the ekklesia. Because in truth, the Church knows through her collective experience that within the sacramental life as a member of and in the Church, the very parousia of Christ is actualized, Christ is encountered.  This is my experience and the experience of every believer who approaches in faith. The Holy Spirit giving His life, which is the life of Christ Himself. 
> 
> My intention, as horribly as I attempt to express it, is so that all people I meet and know can share in this life.   
> 
> But my zeal often gets me into trouble, and then I realize how blessed a life it is to stop trying win hearts and start dying to my passions and living in Christ. I have way too many sins I need to work on ridding, and I waste time in arguments and fighting. And with many I care about even.  This is no good. 
> 
> So I want to apologize first to Robert for the PM.  I am also sorry that you feel I am trying to 'hide' certain things and being deceitful. You proving that the Orthodox Church has many sinners does not negate the great good the Church has done since the first century. But you are right that I can be a jerk, and for that too I ask forgiveness.
> ...


My dear brother--no one and I do mean no one has done and given more towards peace and love than you have in this forum.  You are the least of all offenders here, yet you're always the first to humble yourself.  God sees everything and knows every heart.

I too apologize for my anger and frustration and ask for forgiveness from those I have offended in any way.  I have wrestled and rolled with moos from thread to thread here--LOL  Sometimes I feel something just has to be said being a free woman in Christ--sometimes I say them knowing full well that there was a better way--yet and still something good might still come from it all.

The passion that you have for the church and our Lord is not easily matched in this world amongst those who call themselves Christians.  Your light has shined so much brighter than so many and in so many ways and led many to Christ church.  God bless you dear brother always and may I someday come to be as loving and humble as you are.

----------


## TER

Thank you for the kind words Terry, but please don't ever post such things, and I ask you sincerely. I have been more of an ass than most if not all, and posts like the one above, which I know you do in love, do not help me or anyone else.

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you for the kind words Terry, but please don't ever post such things, and I ask you sincerely. I have been more of an ass than most if not all, and posts like the one above, which I know you do in love, do not help me or anyone else.


I understand how you feel, but don't beat yourself up too much TER--sometimes people need a strong rebuke to wake them up from their slumber in denial, deceit and the lies they've come to believe.  God works through us as well to do these things.  While at the same time, I don't want to try and justify my methodology--I don't want to passively sit complacent and say nothing when I see a great offense by someone calling their self a "Christian" either.

----------


## RJB

> I’ve also met Orthodox priests, and they weren’t like that. One told me years ago, “we aren’t like that”, referring to how protestants often promote their religion.


This is the odd thing.  When I first saw a religion section on this forum, I naively expected to see people post a bible verse, a philosophical pondering, or a point of view from an outlook different from my own.

Instead, I mostly saw people posting threads in an attempt to pick a fight with another group of people.  That bummed me out a bit.

TER for the most part was posting what he saw as the beauty of his faith.  I greatly appreciate that.  Annie, moostraks, JMDrake and some others do that as well.  Even if I disagree, I do appreciate a different outlook.  I wish more people would do that.  Instead of just posting "anti-everybody else's point of view" threads that seems to be the norm on RPFs.

I don't see that as proselytizing, it's more of giving a glimpse of their outlook. That's what this section is here to do.  If you don't like it, simply don't click on the religion section and you won't see religion.  No one is knocking at your door or shouting at you from a street corner.

----------


## moostraks

> I want to apologize to everyone. I was a complete ass.  I can be over zealous and use bad manners when I get passionate about something.  
> 
> Robert is right that most Orthodox Christians keep the faith to themselves, in terms of advertising it and promoting it.   They live it to the best of their abilities and know that it is something special, but don't go around yelling it from the hilltops like I sometimes do. This is perhaps a great fault of mine, but it is hard for me to help it.   And that is because my greatest joy is to see a person come to Orthodoxy.  Perhaps this is selfish of me?  Maybe.  I do feel peace and joy to see it. But my joy is that the one comes back home in the unity of the faith with every century's assembly of faithful, the ekklesia. Because in truth, the Church knows through her collective experience that within the sacramental life as a member of and in the Church, the very parousia of Christ is actualized, Christ is encountered.  This is my experience and the experience of every believer who approaches in faith. The Holy Spirit giving His life, which is the life of Christ Himself. 
> 
> My intention, as horribly as I attempt to express it, is so that all people I meet and know can share in this life.   
> 
> But my zeal often gets me into trouble, and then I realize how blessed a life it is to stop trying to win hearts and start dying to my passions and living in Christ. I have way too many sins I need to work on ridding, and I waste time in arguments and fighting. And with many I care about even.  This is no good. 
> 
> So I want to apologize first to Robert for the PM.  I am also sorry that you feel I am trying to 'hide' certain things and being deceitful. You proving that the Orthodox Church has many sinners does not negate the great good the Church has done since the first century. But you are right that I can be a jerk, and for that too I ask forgiveness.
> ...


Love doesn't mean you always like the condition of your relationship with people. I am sorry for any bad feelings anyone may come away from this with in regards for my position on things. I don't enjoy fighting with people. It makes me physically ill to get into these types of arguments with anyone which is why I try to avoid confrontation. Sometimes it is necessary for each person to establish their own boundaries and when you have such a diverse group it gets a bit messy. May we all move forward with a measure of forgiveness for others and ourselves and remember that Love can do all things.

I Corinthians 13:13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

----------


## acptulsa

> I was raised predominantly a Methodist but I have traveled so much, mixed with so many people in all parts of the world, I don't know just now what I am.  I know I have never been a non-believer, but I can honestly tell you that I don't think that any one religion is _the_ religion.--_Will Rogers_


If someone finds something that works, that person _should_ be passionate about it.  And it's a great kindness if that person tries to spread the word, hey, this really does me good, and _could_ do as much for you.  A great kindness.

But God in His Wisdom did not make us all the same.  God may be the same, but He did not make us all the same.  And like a _good_ Father (the best) He's big enough to love us all on our own terms.  It's strange to think something as good as zeal for something that truly works (for many) can be a stepping stone to something bad like intolerance.  That's what allows certain evils to sneak up on us, despite our diligence.

Which is why most of us are here fighting for liberty.  When it comes to the infinite variety of humankind, one size can never fit all.

I hate to see anyone make themselves sick or self-flagellate to death over any of this.  If by the time the dust settles we all have new respect for each other and each other's beliefs, we've all grown, and we've all won.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## Terry1

This will be my post in this thread because frankly--I'm tired of it.  What I want to say here in this last post is that as Christians--no matter what church affiliation or doctrine we subscribe to, there are some very basic intrinsic and necessary attributes that qualify anyone to be called *Christ-like* or Christian.  While I may be the least qualified to say this---still it needs to be said here.

Honesty to me is one, if not the very most important attribute a Christian can have.  Being honest allows us to see clearly those things we need to see, not just in others but ourselves as well.  Being truthful to ourselves and others is not only respecting others, but ourselves.  There's nothing more evil than a lie itself when it's used to harm someone else.  We not only do damage to another person, but we also do damage to ourselves.  

I can have a lot of respect for a person if they're honest and consistent in what they believe and do--even if it's evil.  Even Jesus commended the dedicated thief on the cross because there are Christians less dedicated to their own cause than that thief was to his.  He was committed and dedicated to what he believed in.  This is what Jesus was trying to say.  

Then we have people who claim to believe in something that are not dedicated, they have no consistency or record to show that they are who they say they are and believe what they say they believe by their actions and deeds towards others.  They're people who lie about others--people you can not trust--people who will say and do anything to convince someone that they are who they say they are despite what they do to prove the exact opposite.  They go to great lengths to perpetrate acts of deceit and lie to harm someone else they've targeted.  Once you get in their crosshairs, they will not stop unless they have been exposed--the lie must be exposed in order for the devil to flee.  

Biblically--the word of God says--expose the lie and the demon of lies must flee.  A dedicated thief will never stop until they're caught--neither will the demon of lies until he's caught and exposed.  

A truly repentant heart that wants truth and honesty in their life will willingly see where they err and repent of it, while a proud dedicated liar will continue to cover up and protect the lie that they've chosen instead of the truth.  While it can be said that many of us struggle with the truth at times--there are some that have absolutely no respect for the truth whatsoever.  They will continue to try and convince everyone around them that they're not what their actions prove they are indeed.

It's not easy for the target of someone like this to overcome the harm that's being perpetrated upon them.  There are two things we can do in such a case.  We can either simply ignore them and pray for them or we can try to expose the lie at the risk of losing ourselves in effort to right a wrong trying to make them see themselves as God and everyone else does.  It's always a choice, but as people who want to claim the title of "Christian"--we are to correct one another when we see these things.  

Gods word talks about James and John, whom Jesus called the "sons of thunder".  John struggled with his anger even more than James did as the story goes.  John would literally beat the crap out of unbelievers who disrespected Jesus.  Jesus rebuked John many times for this also.  James and John wanted many times to just call fire down from heaven and burn these people to a crisp too.  Jesus rebuked them telling them that when they do this that they're not of the spirit of God.  John finally did harness his anger to the point where he became one of the greatest Apostles of Christ--but not without a struggle.

This is my problem as well.  I still struggle with liars--I can not abide a liar who seeks to harm someone else with their lies.  It's one of those things that I struggle with all of the time.  You can't trust them, you can't believe anything they say and you can not reason with a liar because they are dedicated to their cause being that they have come to believe their own lies.  You don't want to associate with a person like this or do business with them--they will inevitably take you for a ride in the long run because they live to serve themselves and no one else.

This is why a business person can not and should not be friends with those they employ.  Want to ruin your business--then fall prey to those working for you that seek to be your friend.  You can treat them good and fair, but never--never try to be friends with them. I learned this the hard way myself and lost tens of thousands of dollars because of it once.

Trust is something that is earned after being proven with a long history of being honest in our endeavors from day to day.  If a person can't be trusted in the small things--as well as the big things--they are not to be trusted at all in anything.  Integrity is a rare quality that speaks for itself.  Fortitude is the courage to be honest in all that we put our hands and our hearts to every day.  If we want to call ourselves "Christians", honesty is above all an attribute that reveals it.

----------


## acptulsa

> To thine own self be true.


Bastard made it sound downright _easy_, didn't he?  Better if he had told us how...

----------


## RJB

> Bastard made it sound downright _easy_, didn't he?  Better if he had told us how...


Ah, the tragedy of the human condition.

----------


## TER

Below is a prayer by St. Nikolai Velimirovich who was a Serbian bishop in the last century who spoke out courageously against Nazism until he was arrested and taken to Dachau.  It is a reminder of what it means to pray for those who fight against us, who we may perceive to be our enemies, when in actuality, it is we ourselves and our lack of self-awareness of our own sins which is the greatest enemy in our lives:


Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.

Enemies have driven me into your embrace more than friends have.

Friends have bound me to earth, enemies have loosed me from earth and have demolished all my aspirations in the world.

Enemies have made me a stranger in worldly realms and an extraneous inhabitant of the world. Just as a hunted animal finds safer shelter than an unhunted animal does, so have I, persecuted by enemies, found the safest sanctuary, having ensconced myself beneath your tabernacle, where neither friends nor enemies can slay my soul.

Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.

They, rather than I, have confessed my sins before the world.

They have punished me, whenever I have hesitated to punish myself.

They have tormented me, whenever I have tried to flee torments.

They have scolded me, whenever I have flattered myself.

They have spat upon me, whenever I have filled myself with arrogance.

Bless my enemies, O Lord, Even I bless them and do not curse them.

Whenever I have made myself wise, they have called me foolish.

Whenever I have made myself mighty, they have mocked me as though I were a dwarf.

Whenever I have wanted to lead people, they have shoved me into the background.

Whenever I have rushed to enrich myself, they have prevented me with an iron hand.

Whenever I thought that I would sleep peacefully, they have wakened me from sleep.

Whenever I have tried to build a home for a long and tranquil life, they have demolished it and driven me out.

Truly, enemies have cut me loose from the world and have stretched out my hands to the hem of your garment.

Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.

Bless them and multiply them; multiply them and make them even more bitterly against me:

so that my fleeing to You may have no return;

so that all hope in men may be scattered like cobwebs;

so that absolute serenity may begin to reign in my soul;

so that my heart may become the grave of my two evil twins, arrogance and anger;

so that I might amass all my treasure in heaven;

ah, so that I may for once be freed from self-deception, which has entangled me in the dreadful web of illusory life.

Enemies have taught me to know what hardly anyone knows, that a person has no enemies in the world except himself.

One hates his enemies only when he fails to realize that they are not enemies, but cruel friends.

It is truly difficult for me to say who has done me more good and who has done me more evil in the world: friends or enemies.

Therefore bless, O Lord, both my friends and enemies.

A slave curses enemies, for he does not understand. But a son blesses them, for he understands.

For a son knows that his enemies cannot touch his life.

Therefore he freely steps among them and prays to God for them

----------


## TER

Also by St. Nikolai:

How can we overcome the enmity of our enemies? By renunciation, meekness and prayer. Renunciation in everything, except in faith and purity of life, meekness and prayer, always and always. St. Ambrose writes: "This is the weapon of the righteous ones, that in retreating they conquer, just as the skillful archers have the custom that by fleeing, they shoot those stronger than themselves."

A brother was offended by his friend but, nevertheless, desiring peace with him, went to him to be reconciled. However, his friend did not even want to open the door for him and scolding him from within, chased him away from his house. The brother then complained to a spiritual father who said to him: "Going to your friend to be reconciled, all along the way, you condemned him in your thoughts and justified yourself. I counsel you, even though your friend sinned against you, establish the thought in yourself that you have sinned against him and, in this manner, go to him and in your thoughts justify him and condemn yourself." Thus, the brother proceeded. And what happened? Just as the brother approached the house of his friend, he opened wide the door, ran up to him and embraced the offended brother and made peace with him.

Lord Jesus Christ,

Who didst command us to love our enemies,

and those who defame and injure us,

and to pray for them and forgive them;

Who Thyself didst pray for Thine enemies,

who crucified Thee:

grant us, we pray,

the spirit of Christian reconciliation and meekness,

that we may heartily forgive every injury

and be reconciled with our enemies.

Grant us to overcome the malevolence and offences of people

with Christian meekness and true love of our neighbor.

We further beseech Thee,

O Lord, to grant to our enemies true peace and forgiveness of sins;

and do not allow them to leave this life without true faith and sincere conversion.

And help us repay evil with goodness,

and to remain safe from the temptations of the devil and from all the perils which threaten us,

in the form of visible and invisible enemies.

Amen.

----------


## TER



----------


## jmdrake

Three very good reads TER.  Thank you for posting them.

----------


## moostraks



----------


## moostraks



----------


## Terry1

Yes TER--thank you for reminding us all that we should love our enemies.  At the same time--I'd also like to say that "love" and "respect" are not the same thing.  We can love them, forgive them and pray for them--but one thing we are not required to do is to respect them.

Respect is an admiration that is elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.  Love and forgiveness is something we do in spite of their lack of them.  Still--it's my belief that we are to correct and rebuke those things that are not of God when we see someone claiming the title of Christ who is not behaving or acting according to that same title.  This is when we have to separate and sacrifice *friendship in order to be what we've been called to be.  

It's a long hard journey of suffering and sacrifice in this life---may we all be led of the spirit of the Lord in truth and honesty with others and ourselves as well.

----------


## TER

Do you not see, brethren, that we toil for nothing when we pray, if we have enmity against someone? And again the Lord says, ‘If you offer your gift at the altar, and there you remember that someone has something against you, leave your gift before the altar, and go first and be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift’. Therefore, it is clear that if you do not do this first, all that you offer will be unacceptable, but if you do the Master’s bidding, then implore the Lord with boldness, saying, ‘Forgive me my debts, Master, as I have forgiven my brother, so fulfilling your commandment. I, weak though I am, have forgiven’. For the Lover of mankind will answer, ‘If you have forgiven, I too will forgive. If you have pardoned, I too will pardon your sins. For I have authority on earth to forgive sins. Forgive and you will be forgiven’.  

- St Ephrem the Syrian

----------


## RJB

What's funny is we are calling fellow libertarian-leaning folks enemies.  I really don't see anyone on this forum as my enemy.

----------


## TER

For an offense, whatever kind may have been given, one must not only not avenge oneself, but on the contrary must all the more forgive from the heart, even though it may resist this, and must incline the heart by conviction of the word of God: "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:15).  

- St Seraphim of Sarov

----------


## TER

Imagine the vanity of thinking that your enemy can do you more damage than your enmity.

- St. Augustine

----------


## TER

Rightly did the Lord say, ‘My burden is light’. For what sort of weight is it, what sort of toil is it to forgive one’s brother his offences, which are light and of no importance, and to be pardoned for one’s own, and immediately justified? 

He did not say, ‘Bring me money, or calves, or goats, or fasting, or vigils’, so that you could say, ‘I have none, I cannot’, but he ordered you to bring what is light and easy and immediate, saying, ‘Pardon your brother his offences, and I will pardon yours. You pardon small faults, a few halfpennies, or three pennies, while I give you the ten thousand talents. You only pardon without giving anything, I nevertheless both grant you pardon and give you healing and the Kingdom. 

And I accept your gift, when you are reconciled to the one who is your enemy, when you have enmity against no one, when the sun does not go down on your anger. 

When you have peace and love for all, then your prayer is acceptable, and your offering well-pleasing, and your house blessed and you blessed. But if you are not reconciled with your brother, how can you seek pardon from me? You trample on my words, and do you demand pardon? I, your Master, demand, and you pay no attention, and do you, a slave, dare to offer me prayer, or sacrifice, or first fruits, while you have enmity against someone? Just as you turn your face from your brother, so I too turn my eyes from your gift and your prayer.’  

- St Ephrem the Syrian

----------


## Terry1

> What's funny is we are calling fellow libertarian-leaning folks enemies.  I really don't see anyone on this forum as my enemy.


Not calling them "enemies"--just rather calling them wrong if they want to claim the title of Christ.  This is where we have to understand that our friendships or political affiliations should never usurp what we know is right.

----------


## moostraks



----------


## TER

What are you saying? "Shall I forgive him?" Christ is saying, "Yes!" This sacrifice was instituted for the sake of peace with your brother. Accordingly, if the sacrifice was instituted for the sake of peace with your brother, but you do not establish peace, you partake of the sacrifice in vain, the work has become of no profit to you. Do first, then, that for the sake of which the sacrifice is offered, and then you will properly enjoy its benefits. The Son of God came down for this purpose, to reconcile our human nature to the Lord. But He did not come down for that purpose alone, but also for the purpose of making us, if we do likewise, sharers of His title. For He says: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Mt. 5:9). You, according to human capacity, must do what the Only begotten Son of God has done, be an agent of peace, for yourself and for others. For this reason, at the very time of sacrifice He recalls to us no other commandment than that of reconciliation with one’s brother, showing that it is the greatest of all.  

- Father Anthony M. Coniaris

----------


## RJB

> "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."
> - St Seraphim of Sarov


This quotation literally gave me goosebumps.  True peace comes from full faith in God.

When I chose him as my patron for my Chrismation, my priest smiled wisely and said, "And it's scary to consider what the opposite could bring about.  (Tying in with the OP.)

----------


## acptulsa

> This will be my post in this thread ...


Lord, give me strength not to say it...  

I don't see anyone here claiming the 'title of Christ'.  Speaking for myself, I'm not worthy of it, not capable of wearing it, and too selfish to want the pain in the ass (or hands and feet and side) of it.

As for sacrificing friendship, that is to deprive oneself of the best lever one can have to leverage a friend closer to Him.

And it's arrogant to assume one can understand instantly what are, and what are not, the 'mysterious ways' in which God moves.  I know of no better way to lose step in our walk with God than to be too arrogant and uptight to 'play along' with His plan.  For it has been my experience is that God isn't much for full frontal assaults with a full briefing in advance.  Some of His best work is subtle as can be, and in order to help Him pull it off we have to remain open minded and stay on our toes.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

When there has been emotional, personal, spiritual abuse and bullying, only time will tell if the heart of the abuser has permanently changed.  This is true repentance.

To those whose hearts are being softened by the Lord, to come to faith in Him, look to Him alone.

----------


## TER

Considering all these things then, and counting the recompense which is given in this case and remembering that to wipe away sins does not entail much labor and zeal, let us pardon those who have wronged us. For that which others scarcely accomplish, I mean the blotting out of their own sins by means of fasting and lamentations, and prayers, and sackcloth, and ashes, this it is possible for us easily to effect without sackcloth and ashes and fasting if only we blot out anger from our heart, and with sincerity forgive those who have wronged us.

- St. John  Chrysostom

----------


## moostraks



----------


## TER



----------


## TER



----------


## TER

couldn't resist

----------


## acptulsa

TER, tell the creator of that 'motivational poster' to sharpen up _his_ math.  70 X 7 > 77  

I think Jesus made it clear that the way to win the ball game is not to take your Louisville Slugger into the opposition's dugout and run amok.

Jesus, when He chose to be crucified, seems to have chosen to bunt.  But how many tens of millions of RBIs did He score with that sacrifice?

----------


## jmdrake

> What's funny is we are calling fellow libertarian-leaning folks enemies.  I really don't see anyone on this forum as my enemy.


True.  "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and against spiritual wickedness in high places."  Sometimes it's easy to forget who and what the real enemy is.

----------


## acptulsa

> True.  "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and against spiritual wickedness in high places."  Sometimes it's easy to forget who and what the real enemy is.


Especially when they're so good at conquering us by dividing us.

Even God's house, if divided against itself, cannot stand.

----------


## moostraks

> Lord, give me strength not to say it...  
> 
> I don't see anyone here claiming the 'title of Christ'.  Speaking for myself, I'm not worthy of it, not capable of wearing it, and too selfish to want the pain in the ass (or hands and feet and side) of it.
> 
> As for sacrificing friendship, that is to deprive oneself of the best lever one can have to leverage a friend closer to Him.
> 
> And it's arrogant to assume one can understand instantly what are, and what are not, the 'mysterious ways' in which God moves.  I know of no better way to lose step in our walk with God than to be too arrogant and uptight to 'play along' with His plan.  For it has been my experience is that God isn't much for full frontal assaults with a full briefing in advance.  Some of His best work is subtle as can be, and in order to help Him pull it off we have to remain open minded and stay on our toes.


Good post! What an odd phrase anyways, "title of Christ", to proclaim for oneself. I would be looking for lightening to strike my sorry self were I to try such a thing.

----------


## Dr.3D

70 x 7 = the number of years the people of Israel ignored the Jubilee years.   They didn't let the land rest nor *forgive* debts.  This is why they were sent into captivity for 70 years.

----------


## acptulsa

> Even God's house, if divided against itself, cannot stand.


No, hb, I wasn't talking about heterodoxy.

What I was talking about fear of heterodoxy.

We don't cause problems for our own selves when we ask questions like, did God make the earth round and put it in orbit of the sun? or would God not prefer that we print His Word and distribute it to the masses?  I don't think God wants us to stop growing and stagnate.  We cause ourselves at least as much trouble being too rigid as we do being too flexible.

Ask not, is this person opposing me?  Ask, _why_ is this person opposing me?  For if that person has a good reason to do so, you won't win the debate until you address that concern.  You won't even know if you really _want_ to win that debate until you address that concern.

----------


## jmdrake

> Especially when they're so good at conquering us by dividing us.
> 
> Even God's house, if divided against itself, cannot stand.





> No, hb, I wasn't talking about heterodoxy.
> 
> What I was talking about fear of heterodoxy.
> 
> We don't cause problems for our own selves when we ask questions like, did God make the earth round and put it in orbit of the sun? or would God not prefer that we print His Word and distribute it to the masses?  I don't think God wants us to stop growing and stagnate.  We cause ourselves at least as much trouble being too rigid as we do being too flexible.


_John 9:49,50 

49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us._

----------


## jmdrake

Hmmmmm....could it be that what non-Christians want Christians to hear is that they should be loving and forgiving to each other?

----------


## acptulsa

> Hmmmmm....could it be that what non-Christians want Christians to hear is that they should be loving and forgiving to each other?


I know I've heard tell of a certain Jew giving us that very advice.

And not just _any_ old Jew, either...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, hb, I wasn't talking about heterodoxy.
> 
> What I was talking about fear of heterodoxy.
> 
> We don't cause problems for our own selves when we ask questions like, did God make the earth round and put it in orbit of the sun? or would God not prefer that we print His Word and distribute it to the masses?  I don't think God wants us to stop growing and stagnate.  We cause ourselves at least as much trouble being too rigid as we do being too flexible.





> 3*4* *Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
> a man against his father,
>     a daughter against her mother,
> a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
> 36     a mans enemies will be the members of his own household.[a]*
> 
> 37 Anyone  who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;  anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
> 40 Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever  welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophets reward, and  whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a  righteous persons reward. 42 And  if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones  who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not  lose their reward.


It's going to take a lot to heal the many schisms and divisions among Christians.  This was foreseen.  Depending on what you mean by "flexible" this may or may not be practical.  The ancient Churches (RCC and EOC) are not going to give up ancient tradition, dogma, etc.  That defeats the point of having Churches.  Ecumenism as healing between them is certainly within reason, and recent popes have taken more interest in it.  Now creating unity among Protestants, non-denominationalists, etc, is going to be a far bigger task.  Not impossible, but very difficult.  Unity among Christians is certainly a worthy goal, and it's been an ongoing project for generations now.  Let us hope and pray it can happen one day.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's going to take a lot to heal the many schisms and divisions among Christians.  This was foreseen.  Depending on what you mean by "flexible" this may or may not be practical.  The ancient Churches (RCC and EOC) are not going to give up ancient tradition, dogma, etc.  That defeats the point of having Churches.  Ecumenism as healing between them is certainly within reason, and recent popes have taken more interest in it.  Now creating unity among Protestants, non-denominationalists, etc, is going to be a far bigger task.  Not impossible, but very difficult.  Unity among Christians is certainly a worthy goal, and it's been an ongoing project for generations now.  Let us hope and pray it can happen one day.


On what basis are you trying to find unity?  Unity in organization?  Not necessary.  In the example I gave Jesus lifted up someone from outside His organization that His disciples sought to condemn.  Unity in belief?  Only possible through the new covenant of the heart where the Holy Spirit write the laws on our hearts so that we aren't going around telling each other what the other should do to "know the Lord."  (In other words, that's God's job.)  Unity in action?  Well that's actually possible and happens all the time.  Martin Luther King Jr. had a coalition among various groups.  I'm pretty sure there were some Catholics in the mix.  There were abolitionists of all faiths thought the Quakers seemed particularly vocal against slavery.  Various Christians spoke out in their own countries against Hitler and Stalin.  And I don't think the homeless man cares about the creeds of the people that feed him.

----------


## Terry1

> On what basis are you trying to find unity?  Unity in organization?  Not necessary.  In the example I gave Jesus lifted up someone from outside His organization that His disciples sought to condemn.  Unity in belief?  Only possible through the new covenant of the heart where the Holy Spirit write the laws on our hearts so that we aren't going around telling each other what the other should do to "know the Lord."  (In other words, that's God's job.)  Unity in action?  Well that's actually possible and happens all the time.  Martin Luther King Jr. had a coalition among various groups.  I'm pretty sure there were some Catholics in the mix.  There were abolitionists of all faiths thought the Quakers seemed particularly vocal against slavery.  Various Christians spoke out in their own countries against Hitler and Stalin.  And I don't think the homeless man cares about the creeds of the people that feed him.



1  Thes 5:
*14*Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all _men_.  *15*See that none render evil for evil unto any _man_; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all _men_.

*Correction is not judgment, as the Bible says that we should correct, rebuke and be bold to those who are sinning.* It is to be done in an act of caring for them in the hope that they will believe. That way we could contribute to the saving of a soul. If we don't, we could be responsible for suppressing the truth which could mean eternal death instead of eternal life for that person. _"James 5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

_No one likes to be told that what they're doing is wrong and especially those who have no intention of changing their minds and repenting of it.  They will continue on the same path justifying themselves every step of the way.  They will also continue to attack the one correcting them claiming they are being "judged" instead of corrected.  Again--denial and lies.

If you value your friendships above the truth, honesty and correction--you're just as much guilty with your silence or defense of them.  Nothing good comes from our silence for fear of losing a friend or defending what and whom you know is wrong.  What good is a cause without a voice and an action to support it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> On what basis are you trying to find unity?  Unity in organization?  Not necessary.  In the example I gave Jesus lifted up someone from outside His organization that His disciples sought to condemn.  Unity in belief?  Only possible through the new covenant of the heart where the Holy Spirit write the laws on our hearts so that we aren't going around telling each other what the other should do to "know the Lord."  (In other words, that's God's job.)  Unity in action?  Well that's actually possible and happens all the time.  Martin Luther King Jr. had a coalition among various groups.  I'm pretty sure there were some Catholics in the mix.  There were abolitionists of all faiths thought the Quakers seemed particularly vocal against slavery.  Various Christians spoke out in their own countries against Hitler and Stalin.  And I don't think the homeless man cares about the creeds of the people that feed him.


This book: http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Hete...and+heterodoxy 

explains the differences and commonalities between orthodoxy and all the major heterodox religions and denominations.  It is a good introduction to the obstacles preventing unity and communion in the Christian world.

----------


## acptulsa

> 1  Thes 5:
> *14*Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all _men_.  *15*See that none render evil for evil unto any _man_; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all _men_.


Evil does not reject love as a weapon because it isn't very powerful.  They just don't happen to have it in their arsenal.

Why would we choose the inferior weapons of evil--division, bitterness and strife--instead of fighting evil with love, which is stronger?

I don't think the portion you underlined is the whole message, or even divisible from the rest.  By itself, it's nothing but an excuse for doing something that might feel good, but clearly doesn't work.




> explains the differences and commonalities between orthodoxy and all the major heterodox religions and denominations.  It is a good introduction to the obstacles preventing unity and communion in the Christian world.


And does it explain that orthodoxy often winds up concerning itself with drawing circles that keep people out?  I say orthodoxy needs heterodoxy.  Otherwise, who will keep them from drawing a circle that keeps _God_ out?

I don't think God will.  He _wants_ to separate the wheat from the chaff.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And does it explain that orthodoxy often winds up concerning itself with drawing circles that keep people out?


It explains differences and commonalities, as I said.  This inherently explains what keeps heterodox from being Orthodox.  It's not really the same as "keeping people out".  Anyone can join the Church.  They just have to confess the Creed and devote themselves to Orthodox dogma/doctrine.  You can attend as many liturgies as you want!  Meet the people and clergy and enjoy yourself.  You just can't take communion.  I've never belonged to a church community that does more for the community as mine does.  There are things like Hearts to hands (feeding the poor downtown almost weekly), free classes for anyone in the community, and much more.




> I say orthodoxy needs heterodoxy.  Otherwise, who will keep them from drawing a circle that keeps _God_ out?


Disagree.  It is the laity's responsibility to keep clergy from keeping God out.

----------


## Terry1

> Evil does not reject love as a weapon because it isn't very powerful.  They just don't happen to have it in their arsenal.
> 
> Why would we choose the inferior weapons of evil--division, bitterness and strife--instead of fighting evil with love, which is stronger?
> 
> I don't think the portion you underlined is the whole message, or even divisible from the rest.  By itself, it's nothing but an excuse for doing something that might feel good, but clearly doesn't work.


*Correction is not judgment, as the Bible says that we should correct, rebuke and be bold to those who are sinning. It is to be done in an act of caring for them in the hope that they will believe. That way we could contribute to the saving of a soul. If we don't, we could be responsible for suppressing the truth which could mean eternal death instead of eternal life for that person. "James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

No one likes to be told that what they're doing is wrong and especially those who have no intention of changing their minds and repenting of it. They will continue on the same path justifying themselves every step of the way. They will also continue to attack the one correcting them claiming they are being "judged" instead of corrected. Again--denial and lies.

If you value your friendships above the truth, honesty and correction--you're just as much guilty with your silence or defense of them. Nothing good comes from our silence for fear of losing a friend or defending what and whom you know is wrong. What good is a cause without a voice and an action to support it?*

----------


## jmdrake

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anything I posted but okay.  As the fires of this thread die down I will not throw any more gasoline on it.  Praying.




> 1  Thes 5:
> *14*Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all _men_.  *15*See that none render evil for evil unto any _man_; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all _men_.
> 
> *Correction is not judgment, as the Bible says that we should correct, rebuke and be bold to those who are sinning.* It is to be done in an act of caring for them in the hope that they will believe. That way we could contribute to the saving of a soul. If we don't, we could be responsible for suppressing the truth which could mean eternal death instead of eternal life for that person. _"James 5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
> 
> _No one likes to be told that what they're doing is wrong and especially those who have no intention of changing their minds and repenting of it.  They will continue on the same path justifying themselves every step of the way.  They will also continue to attack the one correcting them claiming they are being "judged" instead of corrected.  Again--denial and lies.
> 
> If you value your friendships above the truth, honesty and correction--you're just as much guilty with your silence or defense of them.  Nothing good comes from our silence for fear of losing a friend or defending what and whom you know is wrong.  What good is a cause without a voice and an action to support it?

----------


## Terry1

As soon as Bryan gets around to it--I have respectfully asked to be unsubscribed from here.  At this point--I don't feel that it's productive or expedient for me to remain considering that my life is so busy and I'm neglecting far more important needs and concerns.

May you all be blessed and see the truth and come to know and understand what it means to be honest and how important that is in the life of anyone who chooses the title of "Christian".  

Peace and love to all,
In Christ always,
Terry

----------


## acptulsa

> *Correction is not judgment, as the Bible says that we should correct, rebuke and be bold to those who are sinning. It is to be done in an act of caring for them in the hope that they will believe.*


I wasn't talking about what.  And I wasn't talking about why.  I was talking about how...

----------


## Dr.3D

"We Are All Just Prisoners Here, of Our Own Device"

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As soon as Bryan gets around to it--I have respectfully asked to be unsubscribed from here.  At this point--I don't feel that it's productive or expedient for me to remain considering that my life is so busy and I'm neglecting far more important needs and concerns.
> 
> May you all be blessed and see the truth and come to know and understand what it means to be honest and how important that is in the life of anyone who chooses the title of "Christian".  
> 
> Peace and love to all,
> In Christ always,
> Terry


You could just quit logging in too, (less drama that way).

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Riddle of the World*
> 
> *Alexander Pope*
> 
> Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
>  The proper study of mankind is man.
>  Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
>  A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
>  With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
> ...


www.davidpbrown.co.uk

----------


## moostraks

> "We Are All Just Prisoners Here, of Our Own Device"





> You could just quit logging in too, (less drama that way).

----------


## Terry1

> You could just quit logging in too, (less drama that way).


Yeah I could do that, but unfortunately for me--it's too tempting not to post when I see a smart ass remark by a dumb-ass trying to jerk my chain.  This is why I've asked to be unsubscribed.  I'm weak.  

Maybe I'll see ya on the porch someday.

----------


## TER

> As soon as Bryan gets around to it--I have respectfully asked to be unsubscribed from here.  At this point--I don't feel that it's productive or expedient for me to remain considering that my life is so busy and I'm neglecting far more important needs and concerns.
> 
> May you all be blessed and see the truth and come to know and understand what it means to be honest and how important that is in the life of anyone who chooses the title of "Christian".  
> 
> Peace and love to all,
> In Christ always,
> Terry


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!


It is good to take a break, plus the Nativity Fast is around the corner.  We can both start a little early.

But if you choose to unsubscribe, then I am unsubscribing too.

----------


## Terry1

> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> It is good to take a break, plus the Nativity Fast is around the corner.  We can both start a little early.
> 
> But if you choose to unsubscribe, then I am unsubscribing too.


TER, I love my brothers and sisters in the Lord, but I need a change of scenery here--you know what I mean--I've already told you.  At some point I need to be around like minded Christians and recharge at the well of life and living water.  I'm severely wore out and parched here, plus I'm lagging behind in so many other things.  It's the only way for me at this point. 

I sent you the link and I gave it to hb too.  I won't be online that much, but I'll be around over there more than anywhere---keep the secret. 

In Christ always brother,
Terry

----------


## RJB

A temp ban for a month or two might give you the break you need without the permanency.  Sometimes we all need to step away.




> TER, I love my brothers and sisters in the Lord, but I need a change of scenery here--you know what I mean--I've already told you.  At some point I need to be around like minded Christians and recharge at the well of life and living water.  I'm severely wore out and parched here, plus I'm lagging behind in so many other things.  It's the only way for me at this point. 
> 
> I sent you the link and I gave it to hb too.  I won't be online that much, but I'll be around over there more than anywhere---keep the secret. 
> 
> In Christ always brother,
> Terry

----------


## TER

> TER, I love my brothers and sisters in the Lord, but I need a change of scenery here--you know what I mean--I've already told you.  At some point I need to be around like minded Christians and recharge at the well of life and living water.  I'm severely wore out and parched here, plus I'm lagging behind in so many other things.  It's the only way for me at this point. 
> 
> I sent you the link and I gave it to hb too.  I won't be online that much, but I'll be around over there more than anywhere---keep the secret. 
> 
> In Christ always brother,
> Terry


I understand Terry. I will see you there.

----------


## Terry1

> A temp ban for a month or two might give you the break you need without the permanency.  Sometimes we all need to step away.


I'm sure my detractors would love seeing that title under my username. LOL  Nah--I don't think I want to give that to them. I'd rather be unsubscribed and then when I'm ready I can reverse that if ever I choose to.  In fact I'm begging Bryan at this point.

----------


## Terry1

> I understand Terry. I will see you there.


Thank you TER.  We'll meet on that porch brother.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

I've asked for an unsubscribe, too, and it seems that is usually not how it goes.  Other forums just keep the member's info and posts active and if the member takes a break, so be it.

It is really good to take a break from forums.  I sleep better and do not have continuous conversations going on in my head.  One's pride always wants to retort to a hurt and explain everything and anything....it is exhausting.

So, enjoy your porch and may all the saints enjoy rest in the Lord.

----------


## Terry1

> I've asked for an unsubscribe, too, and it seems that is usually not how it goes.  Other forums just keep the member's info and posts active and if the member takes a break, so be it.
> 
> It is really good to take a break from forums.  I sleep better and do not have continuous conversations going on in my head.  One's pride always wants to retort to a hurt and explain everything and anything....it is exhausting.
> 
> So, enjoy your porch and may all the saints enjoy rest in the Lord.


I have to hand it to you Louise, you hit the nail on the head.  It's unsettling to try and go to bed with all of this nonsense rolling around in there.  It truly does rob ones peace.  I decided it just wasn't worth it at all.  I'm still here, so you must be right about that.

Anyway--I'm going to do my best to stay away for a while, as hard as that may be.  I've already made progress here catching up on my paperwork and some much needed cleaning that had to be done.  I've just got way too many real life responsibilities here to be wasting this much time sitting on my ass and arguing over crap.

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell and you're right about that.  I've been meaning to clean out the fridge all week and finally got it tonight--progress.  I've got a list of *to-do's* a mile long here.

Thanks, I will enjoy the porch from here on.  May you enjoy yours as well, God bless you and yours.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Yeah I could do that, but unfortunately for me--it's too tempting not to post when I see a smart ass remark by a dumb-ass trying to jerk my chain.  This is why I've asked to be unsubscribed.  I'm weak.  
> 
> Maybe I'll see ya on the porch someday.


turn computer offturn modems and/routers offdo worthwhile things insteadgive yourself 30 minutes, maybe an hour a day onlinedon't beat yourself up too badly if you screw up on this

----------


## moostraks



----------


## moostraks



----------


## Kevin007

see ya.....................don't let the door..................

----------


## jmdrake

> 


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again._

----------


## bunklocoempire

A Doctor told me I was sick, what my cure would be, and I got offended.

  Well, _I didn't really get offended_ because a lot of folks had suggested to me early on that the Doctor knew what he was doing and that I was indeed sick. 

 It was more like I _ignored_ the Doctor's diagnosis and remedy. 

 I figured I wasn't _that_ sick, and that the remedy was something that seemed to involve a lot of work on my end (it really didn't).  Being sick takes a lot of work too, but you get used to it.

It got to the point where I was _really_ sick (it was even obvious to me), and I had also helped others to stay sick as well.  Those folks had a choice for sure, but I certainly wasn't helping them get better.

I eventually listened to the Doctor's advice (not just those pushing the Doctor) and got busy getting well.  It's a struggle because I've been sick all my life and staying on the path to wellness takes some practice -practice everyday.  Knowing that the Doctor knew me,_ and knows me_ better than myself, gives me great peace because I know I can lean on that Doctor -I lean on that guy a LOT.

++++++++++++++++

Just a common modern parable -and absolutely true in my own case.    

Folks tend to have an aversion to bad news.  I sure did... and just look at the freakin' state of this country.

Folks _may_ react better if there is good news given along with the bad news.  In my case I knew of the good and the bad and I *still* chose to ignore the bad news.  

Folks _may_ wholeheartedly dig the good news *once they accept the bad news. * Absolutely true in my case.  I'm a work in progress of course.

I can't speak for some of the other scenarios, but I know folks who have come to faith in many ways different from my own idiotic but _blessed_ journey.  lol  


IMO _and knowing what I know now_, _there is no bad way_ to tell *me* that *I* was/am sick and that *I* should be listening to my Doctor's diagnosis.  But that's just *me*.
Got some bad news for me?  Let me have it!  We'll worry about your presentation later.

----------


## moostraks



----------


## Ronin Truth

> 


Many folks have been burned at the stake for much lesser institutional heresies.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The only frame of reference each man has is his own.





> Correct


Then we are agreed.  My point, then, was that as far as I can tell you stated that you have found that no advantage results in following the course you advise.

"Christians are just like you and everyone else"

"One thing I learned over the years is--don't ever go to church thinking you're going to find *better people*"

"The only thing that separates me from any unbeliever on the street is that I do believe and have hope in Christ. It doesn't mean that I'm better or more able to resist temptation."

If someone does what you advise, then, by your own account:

They will not become better people.

They will, instead, be just like everyone else.

They will not even act any better (be better able to resist temptation, etc.).

This looks awfully unattractive as a lifestyle option.  And indeed, it's not just your own impression and personal experience that says this, the data back it up.

91 percent of Americans - the vast majority of them Christians - lie on a regular basis. In fact, one in five Americans cant get through a single day without lying.  75 percent of American employees - the vast majority of them Christians - have stolen at least once from their employers and most of them are actually stealing on a regular, consistent basis.  95% of Americans - the vast majority of them Christians - have engaged in premarital sex; even among those who abstain from sex before age 20, over 80% engaged in premarital sex by middle age.  These trends are not new, but date back at least to those born in the 1940s, and possibly even earlier.  77% of male and 66% of female U.S. high school students nationwide, the large majority of which are Christians, report having premarital relations.  Sectarian Christians are more likely to have experienced a divorce, less likely to exercise weekly, and in a whole broad range of metrics just the same as non-Christians.  Researcher George Barna has concluded after extensive research that sectarian American Christians "think and behave no differently from anyone else."

From my perspective, based on the _results_ (that is, based and grounded in reality), sectarian Christianity (and that includes born-agains, Baptists, Catholics, and all manner of mainline denominations and non-denominationals) looks like it offers very little in the way of results.

Just a thought.  You can't blame people for being rational.  If you offer nothing of value -- and you even explicitly admit its lack of value -- don't be surprised if they don't accept your offer.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Paulinism no worky.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *Paulinism no worky.*


 Ahh, I figured out what you meant: the Apostle Paul.  I thought at first you were referring to Ron Paul-inism

----------


## jmdrake

Yes.  Clearly Christianity has had no effect on anyone.  We were much better off when the Romans thought that throwing people to the lions or having gladiators kill each other for sport was entertainment.  Clearly life was better in certain countries where headhunting and cannibalism were part of the culture.  The Spartan culture of exposing unfit babies to die and having young Spartan men sneak up on a slave and strangle him to death as a right of passage is far superior to modern Christian culture.  Yes.  Clearly your statistics, which include no control or comparison group, proves your point....whatever your point is.




> Then we are agreed.  My point, then, was that as far as I can tell you stated that you have found that no advantage results in following the course you advise.
> 
> "Christians are just like you and everyone else"
> 
> "One thing I learned over the years is--don't ever go to church thinking you're going to find *better people*"
> 
> "The only thing that separates me from any unbeliever on the street is that I do believe and have hope in Christ. It doesn't mean that I'm better or more able to resist temptation."
> 
> If someone does what you advise, then, by your own account:
> ...

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Clearly life was better in certain countries where headhunting and cannibalism were part of the culture.


I chuckle when people make comments like this when America is bombing innocent people all around the planet.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> proves your point....whatever your point is.


Actually, your own unorthodox (non-mainline) faith has some results showing significant deviation from the mainline results.  That is: it produces good results.  You want to live longer?  Be less likely to get cancer?  Not get heart disease?  Raise kids who are less likely to smoke or get drunk?  Join JMDrake's team.  Seriously.

----------


## otherone

> I chuckle when people make comments like this when America is bombing innocent people all around the planet.


oh yeah?
AT LEAST we ain't eating them, pal.  That would be unchristian.

----------


## erowe1

> *Paulinism no worky.*


What is Paulinism?

----------


## jmdrake

> I chuckle when people make comments like this when America is bombing innocent people all around the planet.


Yes.  Because pagan Rome with the power of modern technology would be so much less imperialistic.  And the Communists were so much more gentler when they invaded Afghanistan.  (Seriously I LOL every time I here some idiot on talk radio say "We'd be able to beat them terrorists if the liberal media would let our soldiers be tough with em!"  What did they think the Soviets were doing?)




> Actually, your own unorthodox (non-mainline) faith has some results showing significant deviation from the mainline results.  That is: it produces good results.  You want to live longer?  Be less likely to get cancer?  Not get heart disease?  Raise kids who are less likely to smoke or get drunk?  Join JMDrake's team.  Seriously.


Okay.  That was not expected.  Thanks.  Seriously.

----------


## RJB

> What is Paulinism?


The love of a former Alaskan Governor and former running mate of John McCain?

----------


## otherone

> What is Paulinism?


internet down, brah?

----------


## HVACTech

> see ya.....................don't let the door..................


that was rude. dipstick. 

normally I stay out of "Religious" discussions on RPF's.  you seem to deserve an exception.
which "book" do you purport to understand? King James "version"...  
how many "faiths" are based on Abraham?
7 or 9?  
what is the difference between a Pagan and a heathen?   
why are you $#@!ing with the Religious people on here? hell, I like them!
no, I do not know how to unite them in the cause of Liberty. 
what is your goal? (agenda)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What is Paulinism?


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=paulinism

----------


## erowe1

> internet down, brah?


No, why? Is that like a meme or something?

----------


## erowe1

> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=paulinism


This definition was at the second link there (it wasn't clear to me which of those hits you wanted me to see):
"the teachings of the apostle Paul, who believed that people should be emancipated from Jewish law and allowed to follow the faith and spirit of Christ."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Paulinism

Is that what you meant by the word? If so, what do you see as wrong with that?

----------


## otherone

> No, why? Is that like a meme or something?


One of the benefits of the internet is the ability to research unfamiliar words or ideas instantly.  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that someone with your background has never been exposed to "Paulinism", but theology is a vast topic, I suppose.

----------


## erowe1

> One of the benefits of the internet is the ability to research unfamiliar words or ideas instantly.  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that someone with your background has never been exposed to "Paulinism", but theology is a vast topic, I suppose.


It's not that it's an unfamiliar word, it's that it doesn't mean anything without any context. The internet can provide me with tons of meanings for paulinism I'm sure. But it won't tell me what Ronin meant to denigrate. Only he can do that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's not that it's an unfamiliar word, it's that it doesn't mean anything without any context. The internet can provide me with tons of meanings for paulinism I'm sure. But it won't tell me what Ronin meant to denigrate. Only he can do that.



First Google link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism...rsus_Paulinism

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> First Google link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism...rsus_Paulinism


You have a rather unique style of "discussion".  Instead of simply stating your opinions or facts you cite, you link to long-winded websites.  You should take the advice of someone you once quoted (IDR who it was) and make things "as simple as possible, but not simpler".

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You have a rather unique style of "discussion".  Instead of simply stating your opinions or facts you cite, you link to long-winded websites.  You should take the advice of someone you once quoted (IDR who it was) and make things "as simple as possible, but not simpler".


One line is much simpler than a wall 'o text.  Just pick the link(s) you want and then argue with them.  Very often I'm just the messenger.  

BTW, the quote was from Einstein.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...le+as+possible

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This definition was at the second link there (it wasn't clear to me which of those hits you wanted me to see):
> "the teachings of the apostle Paul, who believed that people should be emancipated from Jewish law and allowed to follow the faith and spirit of Christ."
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Paulinism
> 
> Is that what you meant by the word? If so, what do you see as wrong with that?


Just the links that answered your question: 


> What is Paulinism?

----------


## erowe1

> Just the links that answered your question:


I don't understand.

So is that definition what you meant? If so, what do you see as wrong with it?

----------


## erowe1

> First Google link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism...rsus_Paulinism


Again, what do you mean by referring to this link? I don't get what you're saying. Could you just come out and say whatever it is that you mean to say?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Again, what do you mean by referring to this link? I don't get what you're saying. Could you just come out and say whatever it is that you mean to say?


 You get what you get.

(Obtuse is NOT an attractive characteristic.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse?s=t )

----------


## erowe1

> You get what you get.
> 
> (Obtuse is NOT an attractive characteristic.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse?s=t )


So that's a no?

What is it about Paulinism that you disagree with?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So that's a no?
> 
> What is it about Paulinism that you disagree with?


 Paul the Roman.

----------


## erowe1

> Paul the Roman.


But what about Paulinism do you disagree with?

Recall that the definition, according to your Google query is:



> "the teachings of the apostle Paul, who believed that people should be emancipated from Jewish law and allowed to follow the faith and spirit of Christ."


Do you believe that people should follow the Jewish law and not the faith and spirit of Christ?

----------


## otherone

> (Obtuse is NOT an attractive characteristic.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse?s=t )


Again, what do you mean by referring to this link? I don't get what you're saying. Could you just come out and say whatever it is that you mean to say?

"Obtuse"?
What does that mean?
I know what it means, but I  don't know what _you_ mean by it...

----------


## erowe1

> I know what it means, but I  don't know what _you_ mean by it...


If he knows what he's talking about, and not just throwing around vocabulary and Google searches, then he should be able to say what he means. Don't you think?

----------


## otherone

> If he knows what he's talking about, and not just throwing around vocabulary and Google searches, then he should be able to say what he means. Don't you think?


I think the question mark on your PC must be worn off.

----------


## erowe1

> I think the question mark on your PC must be worn off.


Your bias is so transparent. Facts and reasons don't matter, as long as you end up with the conclusion that Christianity no worky.

----------


## otherone

> Your bias is so transparent. Facts and reasons don't matter, as long as you end up with the conclusion that Christianity no worky.


What are "facts and reason"?

----------


## erowe1

> What are "facts and reason"?


Something like, "Paul said, 'X.' (citation provided)."

X is wrong because of A, B, and C.

I get it though. I'm supposed to give you a Google search for facts and reason, so we can play ping-pong with websites and never have to think for ourselves.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But what about Paulinism do you disagree with?
> 
> Recall that the definition, according to your Google query is:
> 
> 
> Do you believe that people should follow the Jewish law and not the faith and spirit of Christ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

I like Jesus.  I do not like Paul, and neither did the REAL Apostles.

----------


## erowe1

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity
> 
> I like Jesus.  I do not like Paul, and neither did the REAL Apostles.


How can you like Jesus and not Paul? Did Paul say something that contradicted something Jesus said?

It's easy to prove that the real apostles did like Paul. What's your reason for thinking they didn't?

----------


## otherone

> I get it though. I'm supposed to give you a Google search for facts and reason.


No, you don't.  You make a pretense of ignorance so you may twist others arguments. 
You're the theologian...why would Jesuism appeal to some as opposed to Paulinism?
Enlighten us, Rabbi. 







> I like Jesus.  I do not like Paul, and neither did the REAL Apostles.


Where did the anti-paul stuff come from, Eric?  Did Ronin just make it up? Or is he not erudite enough to know the "Truth"tm.?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How can you like Jesus and not Paul? Did Paul say something that contradicted something Jesus said?
> 
> It's easy to prove that the real apostles did like Paul. What's your reason for thinking they didn't?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

----------


## erowe1

> No, you don't.  You make a pretense of ignorance so you may twist others arguments. 
> You're the theologian...why would Jesuism appeal to some as opposed to Paulinism?


It wouldn't. Paulinism and Jesusism are the same thing. Hence my questions.

If you or Ronin think they're not, then by all means, enlighten me. My guess is that it's not that I'm pretending to be ignorant, but that you're pretending to be knowledgable.

If you two don't like being put in this position, the solution is simple. Just learn how to say, "I don't know," instead of pretending that something must be the case because someone on the internet said so.

----------


## erowe1

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity


You realize that that doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you. Right?

Do you have any reasons to support your position? Or are you just throwing around trendy baseless things you saw other people say on the internet?

----------


## acptulsa

> It wouldn't. Paulinism and Jesusism are the same thing. Hence my questions.
> 
> If you or Ronin think they're not, then by all means, enlighten me. My guess is that it's not that I'm pretending to be ignorant, but that you're pretending to be knowledgable.


Jesusism?

Jesusism?

I guess I'll have to take your word what it means, since I'm pretty sure you just made the word up.




> You realize that that doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you. Right?
> 
> Do you have any reasons to support your position? Or are you just throwing around trendy baseless things you saw other people say on the internet?


I haven't seen him state any position at all.  All I've seen is you following him around with a chip on your shoulder and an evil gleam in your eye trying to get him to state one.

I would say it was an attempt to hijack this thread, but in fact it's just exactly the sort of thing that has made many people turn to calling themselves atheists in self defense.

----------


## otherone

> It wouldn't. _Paulinism and Jesusism are the same thing_. Hence my questions.


Interesting. How did you draw this conclusion? Enlighten us, please.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, you don't.  You make a pretense of ignorance so you may twist others arguments. 
> You're the theologian...why would Jesuism appeal to some as opposed to Paulinism?
> Enlighten us, Rabbi. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the anti-paul stuff come from, Eric? * Did Ronin just make it up? Or is he not erudite enough to know the "Truth"tm.*?


http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/paulinis.htm

----------


## erowe1

> Interesting. How did you draw this conclusion? Enlighten us, please.


I would begin with 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, where Paul reminds the Corinthians what the Gospel is, which formed the center of his teachings. We learn from that that his Gospel was the same as that of Jesus's original apostles and his brothers. We also find that Paul's Gospel is the same as that message which forms the central ideas of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, including Jesus's teachings as recorded in them.

----------


## erowe1

> Jesusism?
> 
> Jesusism?
> 
> I guess I'll have to take your word what it means, since I'm pretty sure you just made the word up.


I take it that you didn't see the posts I was replying to, where others used the word before I did.




> I haven't seen him state any position at all.


The post of his that drew me into this was his claim that "Paulinism no worky."

----------


## Ronin Truth

http://www.beyondreligion.com/su_meditations/paul.htm

----------


## acptulsa

> I would begin with 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, where Paul reminds the Corinthians what the Gospel is, which formed the center of his teachings. We learn from that that his Gospel was the same as that of Jesus's original apostles and his brothers. We also find that Paul's Gospel is the same as that message which forms the central ideas of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, including Jesus's teachings as recorded in them.


Ah, but there is nonetheless a difference.  Jesus spoke clearly and unambiguously.  It's nearly impossible to lawyerize what He said into something it isn't.

St. Paul never had that problem.

----------


## erowe1

> Where did the anti-paul stuff come from, Eric?  Did Ronin just make it up? Or is he not erudite enough to know the "Truth"tm.?


For Ronin, it came from crank websites and google searches.

Unless of course either you or he have any actual reasons to support any claims you want to make.

I could mention F. C. Baur here. But who are we kidding? Neither of you have read anything of his, or anyone else worth mentioning from the 1.5 centuries that have passed since his day.

And is that really how you should reach conclusions? Just by pointing to someone else who said whatever it is that you would like to conclude? Never mind that you could just as easily point to someone else who said the opposite? There's no need for any actual reasons?

----------


## erowe1

> Ah, but there is nonetheless a difference.  Jesus spoke clearly and unambiguously.  It's nearly impossible to lawyerize what He said into something it isn't.
> 
> St. Paul never had that problem.


Source?

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 looks pretty clear and unambiguous to me. And it's easy enough to find quotes from Jesus clearly and unambiguously teaching the same gospel.

Furthermore, if degree of clarity were the only difference, we'd still end up with Jesusism being the same as Paulinism.

----------


## acptulsa

> Source?


I can't post a mirror on the internet.

But maybe I can show you anyway.  Got a webcam?

----------


## otherone

> I would begin with 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, where Paul reminds the Corinthians what the Gospel is, which formed the center of his teachings. We learn from that that his Gospel was the same as that of Jesus's original apostles and his brothers. We also find that Paul's Gospel is the same as that message which forms the central ideas of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, including Jesus's teachings as recorded in them.


You are showing that Paul's teachings are in concert with Jesus'. My question to you, as a theologian, is why some would believe that Paul's message corrupts Jesus'.
Paulinism is a reaction...to what?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Jesusism?
> 
> Jesusism?
> 
> I guess I'll have to take your word what it means, since I'm pretty sure you just made the word up.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen him state any position at all.  All I've seen is you following him around with a chip on your shoulder and an evil gleam in your eye trying to get him to state one.
> ...


https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...Q1S4#q=Jesuism

----------


## erowe1

> You are showing that Paul's teachings are in concert with Jesus'. My question to you, as a theologian, is why some would believe that Paul's message corrupts Jesus'.
> Paulinism is a reaction...to what?


Paulinism meaning what? I'm not the one who injected that idea into this thread and reified it.

Do you actually have something in mind when you use that word? Or are you just asking me to parrot the erroneous thinking of someone else who came up with this category of "Paulinism" and decided it was a reaction to something?

At any rate, that Paul's teachings were in concert with Jesus's (which they clearly were) undermines exactly what Ronin was trying to say.

----------


## otherone

> I could mention F. C. Baur here. But who are we kidding? Neither of you have read anything of his, or anyone else worth mentioning from the 1.5 centuries that have passed since his day.


Omniscient AND arrogant!
...and the OP asks:
_What-Non-Christians-Want-Christians-To-Hear
_

----------


## erowe1

> I can't post a mirror on the internet.
> 
> But maybe I can show you anyway.  Got a webcam?


Yes.

----------


## erowe1

> Omniscient AND arrogant!
> ...and the OP asks:
> _What-Non-Christians-Want-Christians-To-Hear
> _


But I'm right about that, aren't I?

So it's not arrogant.

And it doesn't take omniscience to see it either.

But stop and consider this. It's you and Ronin who insist on pretending to have knowledge that you don't have. Simply not doing that wouldn't be too hard. But somehow you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

----------


## otherone

> Paulinism meaning what?
> 
> Do you actually have something in mind when you use that word?


No. I'm asking YOU for the origin of the error.

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...6125022AAOeoU4

----------


## otherone

> But stop and consider this. It's you and Ronin who insist on pretending to have knowledge that you don't have. Simply not doing that wouldn't be too hard. But somehow you just can't bring yourself to admit it.


ok. I admit it. What is Paulinism?  How can it be used as a pejorative?

----------


## Ronin Truth

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recomm...-examples.html

----------


## acptulsa

> But stop and consider this. It's you and Ronin who insist on pretending to have knowledge that you don't have. Simply not doing that wouldn't be too hard. But somehow you just can't bring yourself to admit it.


Now here's something for you to consider.  'Experts' on the Middle East use degrees and mentions of obscure tribes and whatnot to sell good people on wars and other bad decisions on all three networks every Sunday morning.

Filling one's head with trivialities might lead people to consider one an expert, but it does not make one automatically correct.  Especially, particularly and obviously when the conversation goes along these lines...

Person:  That doesn't work for me.

Expert:  Yes it does.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> ok. I admit it. What is Paulinism?  How can it be used as a pejorative?


https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...S4#q=paulinism

----------


## otherone

> https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...S4#q=paulinism


The internet doesn't know $#@!...erowe does.  He's learned.  He reads _chapter books_. He'll break it down for us.

----------


## acptulsa

> The internet doesn't know $#@!...erowe does.  He's learned.  He reads _chapter books_. He'll break it down for us.


He hasn't used any of that book learning to educate so far.  He has simply worn it as a chip on his shoulder and dared everyone to knock it off...

Which is pretty much _exactly_ what has made many a non-Christian of former altar boys over the decades.

----------


## otherone

> He hasn't used any of that book learning to educate so far.


You don't understand his instructional style...he asks questions to expose others ignorance, thereby demonstrating his erudition!
Forget paulinism; he teaches us how AWESOME _he_ is!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Statistical Analysis Proves Jesus Ignored*One of the most troubling thoughts is that Paul has so supplanted Jesus that when we study a Bible topic, most modern pastors quote Paul 90% of the time, and Jesus less than 5%. For 5 years, I kept charts of sermons as I listened, and found it averaged _13 quotes of Paul to 1 of Jesus per sermon_. This was shockingly true even when a parable of Jesus was being discussed. And we do this unconsciously because Paulinism is so saturated into the evangelical church. We do not perceive it because we are conditioned to think Paul's doctrines are just as valid as those from Jesus, and there is thus no harm to this subservience of Jesus to Paul.
> For example, here is an evangelical article -- "Scriptures on Marriage" -- giving advice for married persons. There is no Pauline slant to the doctrine expressed. But still, there is an enormous weight given to Paul. It is *as if Jesus never spoke about Love, kindness, forgiveness, seeking to make things right with one angry at you*, _the nature of marriage_, etc. All NT principles on these topics are solely quoted from Paul with few exceptions where Jesus gets a word in edgewise.
> In the article, there are *111* citations of Scripture, 95% quotes._ Paul is quoted 38 times_, often with long explanations. Of the quotes, _Jesus is only quoted 6 times_. And barely an explanation of His words appear. See below. In equal distance almost is James and Apostle John's letters which are each quoted 3x. Solomon does well, as we might expect, and Proverbs is quoted 27 x.
> Let's review how Jesus' words were used to help on this important topic of marriage.
> First, Jesus is cited but not quoted from Matthew talking about God's plan that man and woman would form one flesh. An important passage, but not quoted and briefly mentioned. The article "Scriptures on Marriage" simply cites Matt. 19:4-6.
> Second, Jesus is cited in a long string cite, referencing Matt. 6:23. There is no indication of what Jesus says there. Must be not be very important, it appears.
> Third, without a quote, we learn: "As you read Matthew 5:31-32 you can see that 'Jesus is trying to move us from easy divorce to a deeper commitment to marriage.' _(_quoting_ Dr. Roger Barrier)_
> Sadly this verse is not discussed or quoted even though it is apparently about marriage!
> Next Jesus is quoted 2x but it is the same verse -- John 17:23, as part of this author's prayer -- "my prayer for marriages." May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me._(John 17:23)_ 
> ...


http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recomm...-examples.html

----------


## acptulsa

> In the article, there are 111 citations of Scripture, 95% quotes. Paul is quoted 38 times, often with long explanations. Of the quotes, Jesus is only quoted 6 times. And barely an explanation of His words appear.


And still I say pastors love Paul because he is seldom clear, while Jesus took the time and trouble to fastidiously cut and dry the ambiguity from His statements.

Wandering down the garden path can be quite nice.  Being so familiar with the garden path that you can amaze people with your ability to avoid getting lost can be a stroke to the ego.  But people who are intent on getting where they need to be are well advised to stay where there are street signs available.

----------


## otherone

> Jesusism?
> 
> Jesusism?
> 
> I guess I'll have to take your word what it means, since I'm pretty sure you just made the word up.


It does appear that he is not familiar with "Jesuism".  No shame in that; neither was I until this thread...thanks, Ronin.
As an aside; is it possible to be an apologist if one is ignorant of the objections?

----------


## acptulsa

> As an aside; is it possible to be an apologist if one is ignorant of the objections?


Yes, though I think that moves you over the line from 'apologist' to 'sycophant'...

----------


## otherone

> Yes, though I think that moves you over the line from 'apologist' to 'sycophant'...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Origin of Paulinist and Catholic Christianity
>  
> 
> 
>                       Written by Administrator
> 
>          Monday, 11 May 2009 11:27
> 
> The  Catholic Christianity has slowly emerged from the original paulinist  movement which was first established in Syrian Antioch where the  followers of Paul were first named Christians.  It is the  opinion and conviction of virtually all independent and critical  biblical scholars that Paul was the first Christian and that it was he  who in a real sense actually founded Christianity as an independent and a  new religion from Judaism. 
> ...


http://bewaredeception.com/index.php...icles&Itemid=3

----------


## Ronin Truth

Can the state religion of a Satan ruled and controlled empire be anything other than Satan ruled and controlled? 

 I think not.

*"By their fruits ye shall know them."


**The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmkwcGAt3XQ

----------


## acptulsa

> Can the state religion of a Satan ruled and controlled empire be anything other than Satan ruled and controlled? 
> 
>  I think not.
> 
> *"By their fruits ye shall know them."
> 
> 
> **The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmkwcGAt3XQ


Now, see, this is the kind of rhetoric that makes the whole conversation useless.

St. Paul was clearly not the devil, and clearly not a witting tool of the devil.  To infer that he was is to give the faithful permission to snort derisively and walk out of the debate.

Paul simply and *un*wittingly did the devil a favor by ensuring the Pharisees job security...




> 'Every time a lawyer writes something, he is not writing for posterity, he is writing so that endless others of his craft can make a living out of trying to figure out what he said.'--_Will Rogers_


I don't know if Peter knew he was writing for posterity or not.  But Jesus quite obviously _chose His words for posterity_, and He worked to ensure that He left no wiggle room.  So, it's no wonder the theololawyers much prefer Paul.

The question is, how is God such an imperfect messenger that we need to look beyond Him and turn to Paul?  And if Paul's 'further elucidation and illumination' _creates_ gray areas, how can we then _not_ turn back to Jesus for clarification?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Now, see, this is the kind of rhetoric that makes the whole conversation useless.
> 
> St. Paul was clearly not the devil, and clearly not a witting tool of the devil.  To infer that he was is to give the faithful permission to snort derisively and walk out of the debate.
> 
> Paul simply and *un*wittingly did the devil a favor by ensuring the Pharisees job security...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if Peter knew he was writing for posterity or not.  But Jesus quite obviously _chose His words for posterity_, and He worked to ensure that He left no wiggle room.  So, it's no wonder the theololawyers much prefer Paul.


You watched the video, right?

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Proof That Paul Is An Apostle Of Satan

* *Published on May 24, 2013* 
                        A extensive study of the evidence proving Paul (Saul of Tarsus) to be a ravenous wolf and apostle of Satan.

Index

1.    INTRO a)  No evidence for God orchestrating the canon process or the  bible     b)   Irrelevant that some of Paul's teachings line up with  Yeshua and the true apostles
2.   Evidence that the bible does NOT include all of God's inspired word 4:30
3.   Falsehoods in scripture serve a purpose 5:20
4.   Protestant bible's occult connection 7:25 
5.   Paul's different conversion stories 8:40
6.   Paul acts differently depending on who he is with 12:50
7.   Paul was taught directly from Yeshua himself 13:30
8.   Compare Paul with Simon the magician 14:40 and 21:00
9.   First stop - House of Judas 15:25
10. Pharisee (yeast), Roman (beast), tribe of Benjamin (wolf) 16:50
11. Claims for having seen Yeshua 20:45
12. Brags of; having superior knowledge; chosen by God; his gospel; works harder than the other apostles; tore the law down 23:00
13. Spiritual Father 26:10
14: Philemon owes Paul his ver soul 28:00
15: Apostle to the Gentiles 29:20
16. Martin Luther; dispensationalism; 2 Christ's; 2 Gospels; 2 paths to salvation; man of mockery; lying waters 30:50
17. We do NOT automatically recieve the Holy Spirit 36:50
18: Compare Paul's teachings to Yeshua and the true apostles 38:00
19.  Paulinists; apostle of Satan; Damascus Document; Rev 12 (the dragon);  protestant bible used to include the apocrypha; Paul worse than the  Pharisees 42:00
20. Paul's Rotten Fruit; insults and attacks the other apostles 52:10
21: Food sacrificed to idols and Pauls connection to prophetess in Thyatira; promotes adultery 1:01:15
22. Unable to confess Christ as our Lord except by the Holy spirit is a lie (1 Cor 12:3) 1:11:20
23: 2 Peter 2:15,16 - Peter does NOT endorse Paul 1:18:35
24. Men no longer under the law, but women still remain under it 1:29:46
25. Final word; God breaks his covenant with the Church; recommended noncanonical books 1:34:23




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jVBoPCnQ7c

----------


## acptulsa

> You watched the video, right?


Can't say I'm having a lot of luck with that.  I don't know which is crappier, my sound card or the closed captioning.  But from what I can see, they're saying that Paul purposely left the door open to the devil with his ambiguity, and they're attributing every misinterpretation of Paul's interpretations to Paul himself.

I don't buy that, as that's a lot of credit to give a First Century rube, and I don't see how attempting to assassinate Paul's character helps to sweep the devil out of those lawyerly details.  Paul did what he had to do to nurse the christian church through its infancy.  And if I ever want to nurse a christian church through its infancy, then I just might hang on Paul's every word.  Until then...

I'm all for putting Paul in his place.  I just have doubts that on the devil's right hand is his proper place, and if we don't put him in his proper place then we're as much propagandists as the people on the other side of the debate.

Jesus may be pure as the whitest snow, and the devil may be dark as the blackest night.  But when we look at mere humans and fail to see shades of gray, we are fools.

----------


## erowe1

> No. I'm asking YOU for the origin of the error.


Which error? Do you have something more specific than just the word "paulinism"?

----------


## erowe1

> Now here's something for you to consider.  'Experts' on the Middle East use degrees and mentions of obscure tribes and whatnot to sell good people on wars and other bad decisions on all three networks every Sunday morning.
> 
> Filling one's head with trivialities might lead people to consider one an expert, but it does not make one automatically correct.  Especially, particularly and obviously when the conversation goes along these lines...
> 
> Person:  That doesn't work for me.
> 
> Expert:  Yes it does.


But see, in this case, following that dialogue, I'm the person, and the people pretending to be experts are Ronin and OtherOne. I'm still waiting for them to say what their position is and why.

----------


## erowe1

> It does appear that he is not familiar with "Jesuism".  No shame in that; neither was I until this thread...thanks, Ronin.
> As an aside; is it possible to be an apologist if one is ignorant of the objections?


What objections?

If you or Ronin actually have any, then by all means present them.

----------


## otherone

> Which error? Do you have something more specific than just the word "paulinism"?


WHY, do you believe, drawing on your vast knowledge, was the word "paulism" coined to differentiate from the term "christianity"?

----------


## erowe1

> He hasn't used any of that book learning to educate so far.  He has simply worn it as a chip on his shoulder and dared everyone to knock it off...
> 
> Which is pretty much _exactly_ what has made many a non-Christian of former altar boys over the decades.





> You don't understand his instructional style...he asks questions to expose others ignorance, thereby demonstrating his erudition!
> Forget paulinism; he teaches us how AWESOME _he_ is!


Am I supposed to be teaching something here? What am I supposed to teach?

Others have made claims. I challenged them. It turned out that they were talking out of their butts. And that's that.

If any of them actually had something coherent to say, and could provide reasons for why "Paulinism no worky," then I could get into those reasons, and what's right or wrong with them and actually teach something. At this point the ones pretending to have knowledge by throwing around words they read from other anonymous people on the internet haven't presented an opportunity for that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Can't say I'm having a lot of luck with that.  I don't know which is crappier, my sound card or the closed captioning.  But from what I can see, they're saying that Paul purposely left the door open to the devil with his ambiguity, and they're attributing every misinterpretation of Paul's interpretations to Paul himself.
> 
> I don't buy that, as that's a lot of credit to give a First Century rube, and I don't see how attempting to assassinate Paul's character helps to sweep the devil out of those lawyerly details.  Paul did what he had to do to nurse the christian church through its infancy.  And if I ever want to nurse a christian church through its infancy, then I just might hang on Paul's every word.  Until then...
> 
> I'm all for putting Paul in his place.  I just have doubts that on the devil's right hand is his proper place, and if we don't put him in his proper place then we're as much propagandists as the people on the other side of the debate.
> 
> Jesus may be pure as the whitest snow, and the devil may be dark as the blackest night.  But when we look at mere humans and fail to see shades of gray, we are fools.


So I guess that must make you an aPAULogist too.  So be it.  You've got a lot of company.

----------


## erowe1

> WHY, do you believe, drawing on your vast knowledge, was the word "paulism" coined to differentiate from the term "christianity"?


What are you talking about? According to the definition I quoted earlier, which came from the google search Ronin gave us, paulinism isn't different from Christianity, it's just another word for it.

This is why definitions are important. If you mean to use some other definition of "paulinism" then it would help if you would provide that.

----------


## otherone

> At this point they ones pretending to have knowledge by throwing around words they read from other anonymous people on the internet haven't presented an opportunity for that.


You don't learn things from the web?

----------


## erowe1

> You don't learn things from the web?


Yes I do. All the time. But there's a difference between learning and pretending to know things that you have no clue about.

----------


## otherone

> This is why definitions are important. If you mean to use some other definition of "paulinism" then it would help if you would provide that.


Have you ever heard it used as a pejorative?

----------


## erowe1

> Have you ever heard it used as a pejorative?


Yes, by Ronin. I asked him what he meant by it. I'm still waiting for his answer and his reasons.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It does appear that he is not familiar with "Jesuism".  No shame in that; neither was I until this thread...thanks, Ronin.
> *As an aside; is it possible to be an apologist if one is ignorant of the objections?*


No, you don't have to be, but it certainly helps.

----------


## Ronin Truth

//

----------


## otherone

> Yes, by Ronin. I asked him what he meant by it. I'm still waiting for his answer and his reasons.


Have you ever heard it used as a pejorative before Ronin?

----------


## erowe1

> Have you ever heard it used as a pejorative before Ronin?


Yes, but only by other hacks on the internet. I would have asked them the same questions. I can't recall if any did a better job of explaining their position.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes, but only by other hacks on the internet. I would have asked them the same questions. I can't recall if any did a better job of explaining their position.


  All sources are hacks, except for your's.  It must be divine providence at work.</SARC>  (Or something.) You may wish to review thread page #17 from the top, (but probably don't and won't).

----------


## otherone

> Yes, but only by other hacks on the internet. I would have asked them the same questions. I can't recall if any did a better job of explaining 
> their position.


The hacks didn't invent it; they parroted it.  I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it.  Instead of jousting with hacks, can you explain why it's disparaged?
wiki:

_
As a concept distinct from Christianity, the terms Jesuism, Jesusism and Jesuanism have been referenced by philosophers, theologians, and writers for over a century. In 1878, freethinker and former Shaker D. M. Bennett wrote that "Jesuism", as distinct from "Paulism", was the gospel taught by Peter, John and James, and the Messianic doctrine of a new Jewish sect.[9] In 1894, American pathologist and atheist Frank Seaver Billings defined "Jesusism" as the "Christianity of the Gospels" and a philosophy which "can be attributed directly to the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene".[10][11] In 1909, the Seventh-day Adventist newspaper Signs of the Times, in an issue titled "Modern Christianity Not Jesusism", the question is posed: "Christianity of today is not the old original Christianity. It is not Jesusism, for it is not the religion which Jesus preached. Is it not time to make Christianity the religion which He personally preached and which He personally practiced?"[12] Harvard theologian Bouck White, in 1911, also defined "Jesusism" as "the religion which Jesus preached".[1] Lord Ernest Hamilton in 1912 wrote that "Jesuism" was simply to love one another and love God.[13] The philosophy of Jesusism was described in the book The Naked Truth of Jesusism from Oriental Manuscripts, penned by theologian Lyman Fairbanks George in 1914, as follows:_

----------


## erowe1

> All sources are hacks, except for your's.  It must be divine providence at work.  (Or something.) You may wish to review thread page #17 from the top, (but probably don't and won't).


Not all are hacks. Nor do all sources use the word "paulinism" as a perjorative. In fact, so far in the thread, the only actual definition of "paulinism" that I've seen was the one that I quoted, which came from the first one I found following the google search that you linked us to, didn't use the word as a perjorative. And I still haven't seen you say if that's the definition you mean to use, and if so, what you see as wrong with it.

----------


## erowe1

> The hacks didn't invent it; they parroted it.  I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it.  Instead of jousting with hacks, can you explain why it's disparaged?
> wiki:
> 
> _
> As a concept distinct from Christianity, the terms Jesuism, Jesusism and Jesuanism have been referenced by philosophers, theologians, and writers for over a century. In 1878, freethinker and former Shaker D. M. Bennett wrote that "Jesuism", as distinct from "Paulism", was the gospel taught by Peter, John and James, and the Messianic doctrine of a new Jewish sect.[9] In 1894, American pathologist and atheist Frank Seaver Billings defined "Jesusism" as the "Christianity of the Gospels" and a philosophy which "can be attributed directly to the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene".[10][11] In 1909, the Seventh-day Adventist newspaper Signs of the Times, in an issue titled "Modern Christianity Not Jesusism", the question is posed: "Christianity of today is not the old original Christianity. It is not Jesusism, for it is not the religion which Jesus preached. Is it not time to make Christianity the religion which He personally preached and which He personally practiced?"[12] Harvard theologian Bouck White, in 1911, also defined "Jesusism" as "the religion which Jesus preached".[1] Lord Ernest Hamilton in 1912 wrote that "Jesuism" was simply to love one another and love God.[13] The philosophy of Jesusism was described in the book The Naked Truth of Jesusism from Oriental Manuscripts, penned by theologian Lyman Fairbanks George in 1914, as follows:_


They didn't invent it. But they are the ones who disparage it and use it as a perjorative. Notice that in the quote you provide (and I'm not quite sure why) the word "paulinism" is not used a perjorative, nor is it distinguished from Christianity. One author distinguishes paulinism from jesusism (supposedly, albeit we don't even have that distinction presented in a quote using that authors own words), while all the others seem to define jesusism in a way that would apparently be the same as paulinism.

I'm not the one disparaging paulinism. If you wish to disparage it, then why don't you say why?

It seems like the strategy you want to follow is to say essentially, "I don't know what's wrong with Paulinism. But I know there must be something wrong with it. So I'm going to insist that this guy who doesn't think there's anything wrong with it tell me what's wrong with it."

Meanwhile, we have Ronin here who's just certain that there's something wrong with it and says so, but when I ask him what that is he can't come up with anything.

----------


## otherone

> They didn't invent it. But they are the ones who disparage it and use it as a perjorative.
> 
> I'm not the one disparaging it. If you wish to disparage it, then why don't you say why?
> 
> It seems like the strategy you want to follow is to say essentially, "I don't know what's wrong with Paulinism. But I know there must be something wrong with it. So I'm going to insist that this guy who doesn't think there's anything wrong with it tell me what's wrong with it."


forget the hacks. Look at the wiki entry I posted.  Why would some theologians create a distinction between Jesuism and Paulism?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Not all are hacks. Nor do all sources use the word "paulinism" as a perjorative. In fact, so far in the thread, the only actual definition of "paulinism" that I've seen was the one that I quoted, which came from the first one I found following the google search that you linked us to, didn't use the word as a perjorative. And I still haven't seen you say if that's the definition you mean to use, and if so, what you see as wrong with it.


https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...evid=380612882

It appears there are more than a few THOUSANDS to choose from.  Pick your favorite ones.  Or have you already, to the exclusion of the rest?

----------


## erowe1

> https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...evid=380612882
> 
> It appears there are more than a few THOUSANDS to choose from.  Pick your favorite ones.  Or have you already, to the exclusion of the rest?


Sure. We've already been over this. Let's just take that definition right at the top. I don't see anything perjorative about it. Likewise with the next four links after it. So I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Do you accept that definition? If so, what do you see as wrong with it? If not, do you like any of the next four definitions in a row after that one any better?

The ball's in your court.

----------


## otherone

> the people pretending to be experts are Ronin and OtherOne. I'm still waiting for them to say what their position is and why.


HAH.
Missed this post!
Criminy...I'm no expert!  
I was hoping you could break this down:
_Why would some theologians create a distinction between Jesuism and Paulinism?
_

----------


## acptulsa

> But see, in this case, following that dialogue, I'm the person, and the people pretending to be experts are Ronin and OtherOne. I'm still waiting for them to say what their position is and why.





> So I guess that must make you an aPAULogist too.  So be it.  You've got a lot of company.


Bull$#@!.

What non-Christians want Christians to hear is what anyone who attempts to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into his mouth.

Ptooie.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sure. We've already been over this. Let's just take that definition right at the top. I don't see anything perjorative about it. Likewise with the next four links after it. So I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> Do you accept that definition? If so, what do you see as wrong with it? If not, do you like any of the next four definitions in a row after that one any better?
> 
> The ball's in your court.


We come back around once again to my, still inadequately resolved by you, view of the differences between the religions "of Jesus"(Jesuism [for lack of a better word]) vs. "about Jesus" (Paulinism/Christianity). 

 As a non-Christian, I still come down heavily on the side of Jesus' sermons and teachings.

----------


## otherone

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> What non-Christians want Christians to her is what anyone who attempts to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into his mouth.
> 
> Ptooie.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> What non-Christians want Christians to her is what anyone who attempts to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into his mouth.
> 
> Ptooie.


Ah, a self-appointed shepherd and spokesman for the non-Christians, I see.  Who's next, the anarchists?

----------


## acptulsa

> Ah, a self-appointed shepherd and spokesman for the non-Christians, I see.  Who's next, the anarchists?


More bull$#@! stuffed into my mouth.

You'd now I'm right about that if you had ever stopped shoving your words into the mouths of others long enough to actually listen to them...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> More bull$#@! stuffed into my mouth.
> 
> You'd now I'm right about that if you had ever stopped shoving your words into the mouths of others long enough to actually listen to them...


Not at all, as usual I'm only speaking for myself.  Others can speak for themselves as well, of course.

----------


## acptulsa

> Not at all, as usual I'm only speaking for myself.  Others can speak for themselves as well, of course.


So you were speaking only for yourself when you told the world for whom I have appointed myself spokesman.

Ptooie.

Why _is_ this incredibly insulting tactic so common in religious discussions, anyway...?

----------


## erowe1

> HAH.
> Missed this post!
> Criminy...I'm no expert!  
> I was hoping you could break this down:
> _Why would some theologians create a distinction between Jesuism and Paulinism?
> _


Name a theologian who does. I'm not familiar with that, apart from what's been posted in this thread, where none of the people who talked about Jesusism were theologians as far as I can tell. I'm also not a theologian. My field is more in the historical study of early Christianity and Judaism and their literature. But in this field as well, I am not used to seeing people refer to anything called Jesusism and contrast it with Paulinism.

----------


## erowe1

> We come back around once again to my, still inadequately resolved by you, view of the differences between the religions "of Jesus"(Jesuism [for lack of a better word]) vs. "about Jesus" (Paulinism/Christianity). 
> 
>  As a non-Christian, I still come down heavily on the side of Jesus' sermons and teachings.


What is the difference between Jesus's sermons and teachings and the teachings of Paul concerning which you side with Jesus over Paul? Please give me some specifics in your own words.

That "of Jesus" versus "about Jesus" distinction doesn't hold up. Jesus's teachings are full of claims he made about Himself, and Paul's letters are full of the teachings of Jesus.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So you were speaking only for yourself when you told the world for whom I have appointed myself spokesman.
> 
> Ptooie.
> 
> Why _is_ this incredibly insulting tactic so common in religious discussions, anyway...?


Nah, your post did that all by itself.




> Bull$#@!.
> 
> What non-Christians want Christians to hear is what anyone who attempts  to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed  to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into  his mouth.
> 
> Ptooie.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What is the difference between Jesus's sermons and teachings and the teachings of Paul concerning which you side with Jesus over Paul? Please give me some specifics in your own words.
> 
> That "of Jesus" versus "about Jesus" distinction doesn't hold up. Jesus's teachings are full of claims he made about Himself, and Paul's letters are full of the teachings of Jesus.


You still just don't get it.........on purpose.

In my own words, THREAD PAGE #17 from the top.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nah, your post did that all by itself.


Did it?  Or did I appoint myself spokesman for everyone who ever attempted to have a conversation?

How about I stick some words in your mouth now?  Are you conceding that your 'of Jesus' vs. 'about Jesus' distinction really does hold up?  Is that why you're seeking cover behind these meaningless semantics?

----------


## erowe1

> You still just don't get it.........on purpose.
> 
> In my own words, THREAD PAGE #17 from the top.


I don't get it, but not on purpose.

As far as I can tell, the number of posts in this entire thread, including page 17, where you present specific differences between Jesus's teachings and Paul's and say why you prefer Jesus's over Paul's, is zero.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't get it, but not on purpose.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the number of posts in this entire thread, including page 17, where you present specific differences between Jesus's teachings and Paul's and say why you prefer Jesus's over Paul's, is zero.


Sorry, I really just don't give a flying crap about your thread agenda either.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Did it?  Or did I appoint myself spokesman for everyone who ever attempted to have a conversation?
> 
> How about I stick some words in your mouth now?  Are you conceding that your 'of Jesus' vs. 'about Jesus' distinction really does hold up?  Is that why you're seeking cover behind these meaningless semantics?


No problem, I learned 'of' and 'about' differences several decades ago from Alan Watts.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...4#q=Alan+Watts

Next!

----------

