User Tag List

First 5131415

Results 141 to 146 of 146

Thread: Christianity

  1. #141
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    If Jesus is the Christ, why is he not accepted as the Christ by Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheists, Agnostics, and other religions?
    They don't understand what the scriptures speak of.
    Technically Muslims should accept Jesus as the Christ, as they are required to obtain and know the Injil, which is the true Christian Gospel.

    Some even search for it; because they understand this requirement compels them too.
    But generally this is limited to rich Arabian Muslims from the smaller Arab nations.
    The condition of the world is not something that can threaten the truth of the Gospel; the world is not of God; it is of man.

    Furthermore in answer to your question, there are these scriptures:

    2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
    2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
    2Co 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
    2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
    2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.


    2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.


    In 2Co 4:6 "in the face of Jesus Christ";- that is Gospel language, which you will not understand without proper testimony; which is something you are not asking for me for, presumably because you do not seek the Kingdom, even though the question of whether the Kingdom is real and somewhere inside your world is a very real question that is at least somewhat valid. The complete denial and forsaken hope of the chance to search for and find the Kingdom of God, is the kind of pessimism that is the exact description of the Anti-Christ given by John (in 1 John chapter 4- quote below).

    1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    this is not a description of the Jesus in History, Jesus Christ here means the son of God on earth right now ("is come in the flesh); the members in particular of the church community (more specifically: how they are to be known (of which the deed is an important component)).

    Your questions are a style of sophistry that is essentially a waste of time, your not going to find out about something by trying to attack it from a fringe perspective with no curiosity to sample the cogency of what you attack. I'm not trying to convince you to be curious, I just want to you to understand why I might just ignore futile retorts that just require me to forge defenses and shields against a force whose only interest is to conduct sabotage while side-stepping and ignoring all exposure to one's own ignorance and miss-understanding: because it is clear to me, you are not interesting in sampling an understanding in order to deconstruct and test; you are interested in presumptuous refutation; and simply disarming ignorance is not my aim on the internet, I wish to vanquish it with fire.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  2. #142
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default The Dousing

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Your questions are a style of sophistry that is essentially a waste of time, your not going to find out about something by trying to attack it from a fringe perspective with no curiosity to sample the cogency of what you attack. I'm not trying to convince you to be curious, I just want to you to understand why I might just ignore futile retorts that just require me to forge defenses and shields against a force whose only interest is to conduct sabotage while side-stepping and ignoring all exposure to one's own ignorance and miss-understanding: because it is clear to me, you are not interesting in sampling an understanding in order to deconstruct and test; you are interested in presumptuous refutation; and simply disarming ignorance is not my aim on the internet, I wish to vanquish it with fire.
    Ever since the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, we have approached religion with evidence and reason.

    So far we have been able to find no evidence of supernatural beings. And in examining the historical Jesus we find he was Judaic and not Christian. And we found the Christians gave the blood libel to the Jews, blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus, called the Jews deicides, and cursed their children.

    Your fire has been well and truly doused by evidence and reason.

  3. #143
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Ever since the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, we have approached religion with evidence and reason.

    So far we have been able to find no evidence of supernatural beings. And in examining the historical Jesus we find he was Judaic and not Christian. And we found the Christians gave the blood libel to the Jews, blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus, called the Jews deicides, and cursed their children.

    Your fire has been well and truly doused by evidence and reason.
    I'm not going to lay down testimony to combat all the inaccuracies of your slander, some of which only pertain to the dogma upheld by a few institutions, that I don't consider to be Christian.

    And just to avoid the petty answer that is no doubt looming in retort: If I told everyone I should be called an Atheist, with all my beliefs about the spirit and God intact; should that mean you must enlargen the definition and scope of "Atheist" to include me? (the tacit answer is of course: obviously NOT) [And so in the same way: don't expect you can push me to accept someone who merely uses the word "Christian" to describe themselves, to be a Christian].

    No person who believes in a God who lives above their head, or somewhere up in the sky [in other words: the natural heavens] is considered a Christian by my Church.

    The scriptures do not disguise the Jewish Character of Jesus...
    Jews believe that: the Emmanuel that Isaiah talks about is coming in the form of a Messiah that is yet to appear.
    Christians believe as the Jews; only that Emmanuel is come; this advent being declared by Christ Jesus, in the infinitive present according to the Gospel, as it was first declared by the historical Jesus Christ.

    ---
    On another point you raise:
    Are you attempting to raise the contention that Christianity was solely invented to shill guilt upon the Jewish people? So a libel of killing 'God with flesh' could be used to discredit them? Surely any issue regarding that association is merely an incidental issue and not worth examining-- but since you think it is worth examining:

    Attempting to answer such a contorted and ill-framed (ill-framed because you must know it presumes many things to be the result of conspiracies I do not accept, which you do not seek to ground and establish before making your point); Do you want to open the question: Why was Jesus killed? Or do you expect me latch onto your notion that his death was just some story made up by an incredibly politically-weak religious movement to try and exterminate Jews around 1900 years later?

    Your sophistry is incredibly thick and I must say; quite disgusting to tackle. So ill-framed that even if successful disarmed it leads again... no-where in my direction; because what you pose lacks no offer to actually test what it is your attacking: which is something you don't understand, and something you'r not interested in honestly testing. What you pose offers no hope of establishing anything in its refutation, just an opportunity for me to wipe off the mud you have decided to sling my way.

    This is not a discussion: and I cannot throw evidence at you in the hopes that it will connect the missing understandings and miss-understandings that must be bridged in order to believe on my Gospel.

    The Gospel is not purchased, and its definitely not purchased through slander, and those with no questions cannot hear answers.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 06-25-2014 at 09:33 PM. Reason: grammar and spelling + [ ] added for clarification
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  4. #144
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    those with no questions cannot hear answers.
    Islam uses the same proselytising technique. Ask me any question about Islam, they say. But the answers are already prepared before the question is asked. It's called mind control.

  5. #145
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Islam uses the same proselytising technique. Ask me any question about Islam, they say. But the answers are already prepared before the question is asked. It's called mind control.
    So the truth can only be the truth when it is stochastic and removed from any form and all degree of contemplative preparation? Because any form of preparation removes and obviates any reason/light and truth an answer might contain?

    Do you not realize you are confusing a generalized correlation, which is not necessarily true in every case (and perhaps pertinent to only certain groups of people), and using that poorly constructed generalization, you expect to swallow me up as you attack a group of people I have not claimed to belong to. [On a side note: are you only capable of assessment (although outwardly it just appears as presumption) by means of faulty generalizations? Because that seems to be a common theme of your style, at least in this exchange.]

    ----
    And now again; what a strange obtuse style you have for making your claim; are you inviting me to attempt to defend a particular form of intellectual culture held by a kind of Islam you cite?
    --
    As your charge pertains to me, I should then ask:

    What is your definition of mind control?

    And what characteristic of my understanding makes me subject to untoward control?

    ---But I suspect your definition of mind control will not be sophisticated enough to create a discussion of any merit when one considers the quality of reason you employ in your discernment.

    Really I see no difference between your type of A~theism and those fundamentalist types; just as close minded and attached to your sub-conscious scripts of 'how the world works': all held in the vacuum of any real understanding; just idols of what-is-presumed-to-be-knowledge;- because believing you possess that knowledge confers validation by the world to which you're captive.
    --

    I don't wish to continue because I feel it must look like I'm flogging a dead horse; so please know that when I don't continue to dismantle the childish discourse that is obviously designed to create reactions instead of discussion- is it not for lack of ability on my part.

    But perhaps we can agree together in this offer of mutual understanding: that you believe your captivation to be to enlightenment; and enjoy the subsequent form of liberty that provides. And I believe my captivation to be to the truth; and enjoy the subsequent freedom I am thereby entitled.

    If you are struggling to reconcile this assessment: let me add: I'm sure truth is said to be angel somewhere in the army of the enlightenment; but the spirit of truth is my God. (not truth itself: for that would just be the truth in philosophy--- note the sentence: THE TRUTH ITSELF (Philosophical); I AM THE TRUTH (truth in spirit). [And I honestly hope no-one tries to critique me by certain weird epidemiological grounds, for not attempting to fathom a truth that is beyond the awareness of mind and it's understanding, with my... um... mind and real understanding.]

    If you are not too grotesquely unfaithful if/when elaborating on my understanding regarding the offer of mutual understanding, I shall leave you with the last word.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  6. #146
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    So the truth can only be the truth when it is stochastic and removed from any form and all degree of contemplative preparation? Because any form of preparation removes and obviates any reason/light and truth an answer might contain?

    Do you not realize you are confusing a generalized correlation, which is not necessarily true in every case (and perhaps pertinent to only certain groups of people), and using that poorly constructed generalization, you expect to swallow me up as you attack a group of people I have not claimed to belong to. [On a side note: are you only capable of assessment (although outwardly it just appears as presumption) by means of faulty generalizations? Because that seems to be a common theme of your style, at least in this exchange.]

    ----
    And now again; what a strange obtuse style you have for making your claim; are you inviting me to attempt to defend a particular form of intellectual culture held by a kind of Islam you cite?
    --
    As your charge pertains to me, I should then ask:

    What is your definition of mind control?

    And what characteristic of my understanding makes me subject to untoward control?

    ---But I suspect your definition of mind control will not be sophisticated enough to create a discussion of any merit when one considers the quality of reason you employ in your discernment.

    Really I see no difference between your type of A~theism and those fundamentalist types; just as close minded and attached to your sub-conscious scripts of 'how the world works': all held in the vacuum of any real understanding; just idols of what-is-presumed-to-be-knowledge;- because believing you possess that knowledge confers validation by the world to which you're captive.
    --

    I don't wish to continue because I feel it must look like I'm flogging a dead horse; so please know that when I don't continue to dismantle the childish discourse that is obviously designed to create reactions instead of discussion- is it not for lack of ability on my part.

    But perhaps we can agree together in this offer of mutual understanding: that you believe your captivation to be to enlightenment; and enjoy the subsequent form of liberty that provides. And I believe my captivation to be to the truth; and enjoy the subsequent freedom I am thereby entitled.

    If you are struggling to reconcile this assessment: let me add: I'm sure truth is said to be angel somewhere in the army of the enlightenment; but the spirit of truth is my God. (not truth itself: for that would just be the truth in philosophy--- note the sentence: THE TRUTH ITSELF (Philosophical); I AM THE TRUTH (truth in spirit). [And I honestly hope no-one tries to critique me by certain weird epidemiological grounds, for not attempting to fathom a truth that is beyond the awareness of mind and it's understanding, with my... um... mind and real understanding.]

    If you are not too grotesquely unfaithful if/when elaborating on my understanding regarding the offer of mutual understanding, I shall leave you with the last word.
    If we were to share mutual understanding, we would have nothing to say.

    But as the meaning any communication is its response, mutual misunderstandings are a necessary condition of our conversation.

    So the necessary conditions of our conversation are two fold: mutual misunderstandings accompanied by no more personal insults, as insults are against the rules and may lead to banning.

Similar Threads

  1. types and christianity
    By Blackwater in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 04:12 PM
  2. Agnostic Devout (Christian)
    By Eileen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 05:28 AM
  3. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM
  4. Web Link: MBTI and Christianity?
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-28-2007, 03:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO