I'm going to post that on my desk at work, FH! That is perfect!

In His arms.

Thanks, Believer. I appreciate it. God and I never get enough time to chat (and Jesus and I get almost no time together, though I enjoyed the last couple of visits we did have). So I like to send 'em greetings when I can.

And yeah, I think you're right about treating everyone like that. I try to.

I keep getting the feeling that once MM completely surrenders to his faith, he might not to talk about it anymore. I'm not sure why I have that feeling, but I do.

So, Mortarman doesnt like to chat? Not sure where you get that!!

So, JustJ...what did I miss? Maybe I missed a post of yours. If so, point me to it because I will surely respond. And I do apologize if I missed it.

In His arms.

JustJ...what are you talking about? I respond when I am on...and when I see a question asked of me or where I can make a contribution. As I said, if I missed a post that was meant for me, then please point me to it. But it is eerily strange that you make the ascertain that I dont respond to questions about my faith.

Shoot, NewBeginning just wrote above that I need to stop preaching!!

I cant win.

In His arms.

Hi MM! You missed this:

Sure you can! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

MM, you're a former military man and you're very, very serious about what you talk about. I know for a fact that you very much want to get through to the people you're conversing with.

I suspect that NB isn't worried about your content. I suspect that she's asking for a change of TONE. Or, at least, that would be my suggestion would be that you look at style, rather than content.

You can come across, when you're trying to explain a complicated point, in a somewhat lecturing and "my way or the highway" fashion. I've found in my own life that if I can say exactly the same things with humor and humility and joy, people are much more likely to hear and remember what I said.

With someone who's heard entirely too many fundamentalists, you're not going to catch their attention by sounding like a fundamentalist. They'll tune you out just like they have all the others. If you speak up louder, they'll just tune you out more. You'll catch their attention with a different approach. Gentle -- with compassion and laughter and much humility.

Hmmm. Go follow around Still Seeking for a while. He's really, really good at what I'm talking about. And I'm pretty sure he knows Jesus pretty well, too.

Thanks. I did miss that!

You do have that right to choose that (of course, it was God that gave you that right!!). But, what I have stated is that Jesus would say (and did say) that you would be wrong in yoru ascertain. He did NOT say there were other ways. He DID say that NO ONE gets to the Father except thru Him. Very plain speaking there.

So, your argument is not with Mortarman. I didnt say it...I am just repeating what He did say.

Now, you are free to choose to believe that He didnt say it. If He didnt...then no problem. But if He did say it...then you would be without excuse and it wont matter what your beliefs are. You will have rejected what He said.

You are also free to believe that there are other ways. But that would mean that you know more than Jesus. Because Jesus said there was but one way.

As FH so eloquently said above...Christians...myself included...wont take that right away from you to choose. It is the basis of the love that God provides you. I would be sinninng if I tried. I also know that I really have no "dog in the fight" when it comes to what you believe or where you end up upon your death. As I can neither make the decision for you, nor save you...then it really isnt my responsibility nor my concern. As a person that has seen where you are headed, I am concerned because a person with a heart would be concerned.

But, once I have done my part which is let you know what I have been told by Jesus...then I really am done with it. Sure, I can continue to explain and clarify. And even refute wrong statements.

So, you and I ...or anyone else for that matter...if they are really interested in knowing more...then we can discuss this. If a persons heart and mind are shut...then it really is a waste of time for me to say anything, isnt it?

I hope this answered you question.

In His arms.

Point well taken. Yes, because of my military experience, I do tend to cut to the chase. It was one of the things I needed to learn to chaneg with my wife. she wanted to walk thru her problems. I wanted to get to just solving them. Had to learn to slow down and smell the roses sometimes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

So, the point is well taken. As I have said, we all have something we need to work on. I think we can ALL agree on that!

In His arms.

*smile*

It answered most of it, yes, and thank you.

But....

Will you tell God and Jesus that I asked after them? Please? I would really appreciate it.

Hi J, nice to see you! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yes, this is exactly what I feel, though you said it much better than me...

Thank you...

Hi JustJ - Okay, you didn't use that exact terminology, but what you did say seemed to say the equivalent. Am I wrong?

The Scripture makes it quite clear that is ONE name, ONE person, that we look to for salvation. That name is Jesus. Yes, HE has many other descriptive names also, like "Son of Man" and "Word" and "Son of God," etc., but they all refer specifically to Jesus and to no one else. So I don't think those "other names" you were referring to are those sorts of names for Jesus. It is through Christ alone that we can have a relationship with God, by God's design post advent.

So when you state "It's all in how we name that connected relationship. I choose to believe that "Jesus" is not the only available name for the Entity and Relationship you speak of," you are being at the best obtuse and at the worst speaking of something other than a Christian relationship established by Jesus.

So in the interest of clarity, WHAT other names for this "Entity" we call God are you referring to? And what sort of "relationship" are you referring to? And finally, who DO you say that Jesus is?

Those answers will determine if what I said in the quote you objected to is correct or if I do, indeed, need to correct it.

I never said that any religion or no religion was fine and co-equal. Obviously as an atheist I believe that all religions are incorrect in their worship of god(s)/spirits, etc. There are quite a few religions/subsets of religions that are extremely harmful - including all those that advocate violence against those who believe differently, and all those that attempt to scare little children (or adults) into behaving in a certain way or believing a particular doctrine.

oh come on, Nellie, you are begin disingenuous. There are PLENTY of "atheists" who do despicable things to others, including children, including "scaring them into behaving in a certain way or believing a particular doctrine." It is not the "perview" of the statement I made, in response to your statement, to encompass BEHAVIOR rather than "spiritual truth."

As an atheist, NO belief is true (other than no ultimate "spiritual truth") regardless of what any religion might contend. Therefore, they are equally "meaningless" and "co-equal" in their "meaninglessness." The "belief" is fine, the actions of anyone regardless of their belief structure is NOT always "fine" because TRUTH exists independent of what any one individual may "sincerely believe." (either God exists or He doesn't, either Jesus is the ONLY way to be reconciled to God or He isn't, etc.)

We can choose to believe the earth is flat. We can choose to believe the Earth is the center of physical solar system and everything revolves around the Earth, we can choose to believe whatever we want to believe, and believe it "sincerely," yet it does NOT alter the "Reality," the "Truth."

We could not, and cannot "know God" apart from His choice to reveal Himself to us. It is God "intervening" in our "plane of existence" if you will, that provides revelation to us as to who He is and what He has done, and will do. We can choose to accept or reject, but it will NOT alter reality. The same holds true for Christians. If the "object" of our faith did NOT rise from the dead, then our "faith" is in vain and not founded on truth. On the other hand, if Christ did rise from the dead, all the contrary arguments are meaningless excercises in human bias and pompousness,...i.e., ego-centric and not the truth that all things are "God-centric."

Certainly. But as always, you could do that yourself.

In His arms.

FH -

I appreciate the distinction of the neophyte "evangelical jihad". Exactly. Approaches as this do not promote ideas, they promote skepticism. Of course, this affliction affects a multitude of firmly held "beliefs", whether religiously oriented or not.

It is my objective and honest view that much of the time, "attacks" are more perceived than intended. Often such tensions arise as reactions to not just "putting the facts out there" but putting the facts out there in your face. - when the line is crossed to preaching and proselytizing. Doing so contradicts "free to choose". Can't have it both ways.


Herein lies the source of the most tension, in my view.

"Proof" is the wrong word and thought to use, I believe. "Acceptance" might be a better term, for as you have already stated, it's our individual choice - "a command of God" - to determine our individual beliefs. Anyone who wants can choose to accept Biblical "proof." But those folks have to recognize that with that comes accepting "a command of God" for others to NOT choose to accept Biblical "proof." So, how can you, and why should you, "correct the record" when the "record" seems to be exactly as the Bible says? The answer, it appears, is that a certain "truth" is preferred over others. I propose that rather, no one's "truth" should carry the day when we have free choice.

"Ah Ha!" you say!! "But my truth," (let's use Genesis, for example), "is being censored in schools and I've been denied the right to choose what my kids learn! Further, that false "truth" of evolution is being forced upon me (my kids). I'm being denied free exercise!!!!"

Yes and no.

This gets to the heart of the matter on two fronts. First, it's the "truth" problem (as opposed to "acceptance"). I see this as requiring a distinguishment between "truth" and faith. There are precious few things that we have absolute "truth" about, there are many things we can have "faith" in. And besides, what is truth? (This is why I prefer "acceptance".) Similar to the "evangelical jihad", some misuse the word "truth" when referring to, using our example, evolution. Much of this misuse actually comes from the "evangelical jihad" when they make their claims of "attack." (Nothing could be further from the "truth." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) In the body of science, "truth" is not a usable term as it connotes "absolute". Especially in science, there is very little "absolute." Evolution is not presented by science as "truth." Rather, it's presented as the best natural explanation so far as a result of applying the scientific process. I guarantee you that when an alternative, better explanation comes out of the scientific process, it will replace evolution. Hence, "evolution" is not truth - the scientific process ensures that it's open to revision as more is learned.

If you want to have "faith" in Biblical "truth", have at it. Just recognize that you're mixing, in my view, two words that have no meaning in the scientific process and, in fact, we're back in the two different ballparks. The scientific process considers only natural phenomena and classifying the Bible as the literal "truth" requires acceptance of super natural occurences. Period. Discussions for two differernt venues.

So, are you being denied introduction of Genesis into public school science classes? Absolutely you are! Because it's not science (unless you live in Kansas - official state motto: "Maybe YOU evolved!"). Are you being denied free exercise? Absolutly not. If you want to home school your kids or place them in a non-publically funded school that poo poos evolution in favor of creationism, have at it. Further, if you want to promote a public school class that discusses creationism, you are free to do so and you will not be denied - as long as it's not presented as science and you also include discussion of other faith based concepts so that you offer sufficient balance to avoid endorsing one faith over others.*

Which brings us to the second front. Pluralism. The fact is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of religious faiths on this rock - amongst humans. I presume other creatures, not having cognitive abilities to human extent, do not have religious faiths in that they have no imagination. (Look at the conflicts they've avoided! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) So the obvious question that confronts us when we decide to allow (in U.S. society) sanction of a religious faith is, which one? Majority rule? This is exactly the question recognized by the framers and exactly the reason why no religions are placed above others. This is not rocket surgery. Fortunately for secularists, this results in a comfortable outcome, but which carries with it the responsibility to recognize and tolerate that many, many, many citizens would prefer their particular brand of faith as the alternative. Oh well. What's the alternative? Choose a different religion every year or week to recognize? Which one first?

I honestly don't know a better set up than what we have right now. Do you?

* This is, by the way, the central issue at odds in the recent lawsuit filed against the El Tejon Unified School District in California. A "philosophy" class was formed to teach the "controversy" of evolution vs creationism. Pains were taken to make sure the word "science" wasn't used in the course description to avoid the "Dover trap" (reference the Dover PA Kitzmiller decision.) The school district will surely lose this case because balance wasn't being applied - only one alternative to the "faith" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> of evolution was being presented. Watch and you will see my prediction come true.

WAT

Mini thread-jack alert:


WAT, I must respectfully disagree. I have a cat that I am absolutely certain worships the devil. Various behaviors displayed on his part make it abundantly clear that Satanism is his religion of choice. I've thought of renaming him Lucifer. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You may now return to your regular programming.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, sorta, on one of the many other message boards I read when I'm supposed to be doing more practical things, there is a man who wants to convert to Judaism, which is not easy if you want an Orthodox conversion, but his wife does not want to convert, and it would not work very well for him to convert and her not. At least there is a simple solution for religious differences that arise before people decide to marry, like deciding not to marry after all, but how do you POJA religious conversion after marriage? It can't be that uncommon a situation, either.

WAT,

What a great response! Very interesting reading... and thoughtful, too.


Hee hee hee... any cat lover will understand this! Ha ha ha... <giggling as I hit the send button> tee hee...

MM:

Interesting! I really had no idea that there were that many references 2 Jesus (albeit most of them post-dating his stay on Earth). I was aware of the Flavius Josephus citations, however. I think it's far more likely that he hadn't mentioned Jesus at all, but Emperor Constantine or someone added that after his death, as you said 2 paint Christianity in a more favorable light.

elspeth:

I find your quote of CS Lewis' very interesting here:

"Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

So, what exactly does "Son of God" mean? That Jesus IS God? WAS God? Why say 'Son' at all, then? Did he, or will he, replace God when he dies? (like the New York Times proclaimed in the 60s?) Or do we now have 2 Gods? Or was Jesus only God while he was in human form? And, if so, what's godlike about having an appendix?

See? I think the "King of the Jews" kinds of statements are more ti2lar than literal. Jesus himself spoke in parables - metaphors - much of the time he was 2uoted.

-ol' 2long

Very possible. Again, in the study of history, it is again hard to know what really happened or was said or written. But, out of any ancient historic figure, Jesus has more references and documentation to support the veracity of what the Bible says He was and did and said. Could they all be wrong, or made up? I guess. But if so, then we really have NO knowledge of ancient history because we have discovered history with far less evidence! I do have mroe references...but I will have to pull them up this weekend.


Of course, I do nto agree on this 2Long. Jesus had many other references to Himself than the Son of God. He was directly asked if He was the Son of God, which in Jewish terms meant that He was God (more on this in a sec). And they about lost their minds because here was this man claiming to be equal with...claiming to be God! It is why they killed Him!

The Old Testament is not a Christian document. It is a Jewish document. In Genesis, when we take the original meaning of the word "God" in Genesis, in the original language it was written, the erm means a being made up of three distinctive parts. That is the meaning of the word. Even before Jesus came onto the Earth, the Old Testament has spoken of God in three parts. God is God. That is true. but God is also made up of three distinct beings. Many more references in the OT refer to God being in three parts and referring to the coming Messiah (Son of God).

The other part I disagree with is that it is hard to understand Jesus' meanings because He used parables. It is VERy easy to know when Jesus was talking in parables, and when He was speaking literally. He used certain phrases to start his conversation when He was talking in parables. He did not use these phrases when He was talking literally. I did a study on that once...I will have to go get it and pull out the examples.

More soon if I can find my notes.

In His arms.