thanks for reply Sir. i agreed with 2/3'rds of it.
You're most welcome. I enjoy our conversation. I hope I've touched on what you consider most important above. If I've not addressed something you consider specially important, please feel free to say.
[/quote]
as do i, we both value discussion over 'scoring points"
i don't care about points, and as i said, and think you believe (rightly), do find value in the many religions on this earth, nor anti- any of them.
because i've valued them, i've informed myself about the major ones (I'm weak on Hinduism though - something i need to work on - its not well known in the Western World, and most of my self education of it lead to western new age mumbo jumbo (i do wish "The net" - and this forum, had some authetic Hindus, so i can learn more of it - but as yet no). of what little i've learned is about the encarnations of God - 7 of them i think - to date), via names, i know of only Rama and Krishna. Christians converted to Hinduism also include Jesus an one (so for them there have been 8 to dat encarnations).
sadly i am as weak per Buddism, but my mindset may be more aligned with that Faith than Hinduism. (just from my meager understanding of both - so i make no absolute claims about such, being moslty ignorant of both Faiths - and only knowing some stuff- not near as much as i should).
i do know quite a lot about Judiasm, and in the middle per your Faith Chrsitianity (I know more than most Atheists, and even half of the Christians out there) - if i do say so myself.
per your relies below i will address them to the best of my ability - in some parts you informed me of your mentality that i did not understand (and maybe vise versa - prior (i.e. we have fundementally different mentaliities per "sin, and good works" - i did not know this until now, now i do and will reply about them/it as best i can - so you can understand where i am coming from.
- and as you know, i am fine with agreeing to disagree - as i think you are too - but my reply may allow you to understand my mentality is not to be assumed by you to be yours - and instead you may understand my mentality, and in the future - knowing each other's mentality - will continue to agree to disagree in the spirit of mutual understanding.
.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:35 am
thanks for long reply, but instead of replying it each part, will just make a summary of what i agree with and dissagree with:
That's a good strategy for keeping things reasonably short. I'll do as you do too, okay?
sure, glad to offer something here in this forum. even this.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
5. ya I'm not happy ...you are right, i probably should strive for more positive thinking in general, to be happier than i am.
I think so. And I wish it for you.
The challenge, of course, is knowing how to do that. As I'm sure you realize, one can't become more positive simply by wanting to be positive; or at least, most people find that doesn't work for them. It takes a more profound change of life, usually.
we must agree to disagree here, negative thinking is habitual - its a feedback via a depressive personality, and so a habit of thinking (I can't change my nature of being a depressant introvert, but can remove the habitual isolation (by going out and being social, and by catching myself when is "think negatively" - like when i'm down, and drive by a homeless one legged man - then i say , fuck my negative thinking! - compared to that guy, i got it good! "misery love company" is a concept i live by, it serves me well - it corrects me, when i fall into the self pity game/neg thinking feedback loop.
with training, one can reject negative thinking - i have for these last 20 yrs (my mom is the queen of neg thinking, and me moving away from her 30 yrs ago helped me beyond words) - and since then i've been more self aware (I'm not my mom anymore) - and refuse to play the self pity/neg thinking game. But i know my limits, and know i cannot change my nature of my general core introversion/depressant type (nor try - not being a fool) - I'm fine with my nature, and do have limited ability, namely breaking the negative thinking habit after being aware of it 30 yrs ago. and this the latter i have done with success! and it has made my life good enough - compared to before when i was in that trap of neg thinking.)
its a habit, break the habit, and you are more free, and i am free enough now to be content (not happy).
that is good enough for me - esp when i think back to the state i was in 20 yrs ago.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
7. i remember true depression - 20 yrs ago
I grew up with a friend whose mother was seriously manic-depressive (bipolar). So I have had a great deal of first-hand experience with mental illness of that kind. She had crushing depressions that would incapacitate her for days. Yet she was also a fine, kind, thoughtful person. People do not understand how that can be possible, but it is.
I'm not bipolar - just tend to be unipolar - downer type, never "up" - but as i said above, my habitual thinking has been proper (objective) and so i can deal with it. my mom's fav saying is "never expect anything good, that way you will never be dissapointed" ya my mom's mentality, which i assumed was normal until i move out of state and had a chance to "Clear my mind" and think that maybe my mom's mentality was wrong.
I have a close Friend that is Bipolar - lives down the street from me (not my best buddy, but both live within 6 blocks of me - and we all have known each other since the mid 90's), he was on Lithuim, but his liver was rejecting it after 30 yrs of so, and so is now on other drugs.
John -our friend - is a pretty bad Manic (9/10th manic - only 1/10 depresant (lucky him! - lol - not he is not lucky, his mind races to the point that even though he is a smart guy, "the noise" of other thoughts invade his focus) - he can't hold down a job (even with the drugs that do help him). with the drugs he can think with the noise , without them, i can only imagine.......he can't.
He suffers from "push talk" - drives us crazy!!!!!, but some days/weeks he is almost normal and so 1/2 decent company.
outside of his mental illness, sadly he is immature (56 yr old 16 yr old) due to his parents spoiling him when he was a kid.
so 1/2 of is poor company is due to his immaturity, not his mental illness.
- but he is a friend, and a good one to me and Bob (though too immature to be a soulmate, and so not able to be a best friend to me nor my drink buddy Bob).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
8. Judiasm differs from Saul's Chrstianity in that it is like Jude/James/Marks christianity - it does not view that man must be perfect in order to be saved - only be good enough, go to the temple went you sin, and repent.
I think that's how people "read" Judaism when they're looking at the surface. But I would argue it was never really that.
and your argument is below.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
The system of temple sacrifices involved animals, you recall. And they all had to be without spot or blemish -- "perfect," if you will. No maimed or misshapen animals were ever acceptable. So perfection was still the standard.
agreed, perfection of the sacrifice - NOT the man offering the sacrifice!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
And not only that, but the Temple sacrifices were also only temporary. How do we know that's true? We know because they were also repeated. If the blood of bulls and goats had taken away sin, they would have been performed only once, and the matter would have been resolved. But in point of fact, in those repeated sacrifices was a reminder that sin was never finally dealt with. There would have to be another sacrifice, and another, and another...
YES OF COURSE, man repents and offers sacrifice (a perfect one if possible), then a day/week later commits a sin or two.
then goes back to the Temple with another offering, and repents
etc.............
that is Islam/Judaism!
---------------there is not concept of "future sinlessness" in either Religions!
surely you know this!?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
This is why Christians speak of Jesus as
"the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." He appeared once, forever, to put away sin forever, as God's perfect "Lamb." And after Him, the sacrifices ceased. The Great Sacrifice had been made. Messiah Himself had dealt with sin, and done away with it forever, for all who would do what OT Jews always did with a Lamb -- and that was to put their hands on it to identify themselves with it. By identification with God's Lamb, acceptance of the Great Sacrifice on our behalf, we have final freedom from guilt.
yes I KNOW THIS - and one of two things that make your Christianity different from Judaism/Islam.
the other of course is being that your Christ is God/son of.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
9. per Saul 8 is not enough, one must beleive in Christ as your personal Savior in order to not go to hell forever.
That's correct. And per Jesus Christ as well. He said the same. (John 3, for example, in which he tells a Jewish rabbi, Nicodemus, the same thing.)
no John said that Jesus said ............what Mark said what Jesus said is different.
Jesus never said anything personally (if he did it's lost as a written work).
all we have is what Jesus said:
via
Saul, Mark, Luke, Matt,John,gospel of Thomas (and the Didache (which is not in cannon, but core to Jesus mentality IMO))
Sual and John have the a near same Christology (only differences being Saul viewed Christ as not pre-existing God, only prexisting Jesus - and entering Jesus as sometime to fullfill Christs role as litterally God's son, author of John denies any concept of Christ as not existing prior to God - John's Preamable is clear) - also John (again refer to his preamble) - viewed that Christ was God, not his son.
so there is a dissagreement bet the nature of Christ per John and Saul.
- though overall they are both similar otherwise.
------unlike Luke/Matt, and esp Mark!!!!!!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
11. You say Saul valued good works, but that he did not think that was enough - i agree to the latter - but not the former (can you give a verse from Saul's letters claiming he value good works?)
Sure, tons. But just to start, the book of Romans, chapter 12 starts a long section on what good deeds are required of Christians. But what he points out is that the deeds do not produce salvation. Good deeds are what people are obligated to do
after they are saved, and
because they are saved, in gratitude for the salvation they
have received.
that sounds like Saul. his view of good works is an obligation/duty, not just a thing one does via their good nature.
got it, and why i never like the guy, the braggart.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
Good deeds do not,
all by themselves, save people. .
per Saul's view - i got that decades ago.
but ok
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
They must be produced by a person who has faith, and stands in a living relationship to God.
???
so good deeds by Athiests/Hindus/Ghandi are not good deads/do not do good deeds/should not even bother to do good deeds????????
WTF you talking about Willis (BTW that actor has been a Fundie for at least 30 now - sorry i do not know his name, but seems like a nice guy (brother to Kirt Cameron in my mind - kirt seems like a nice guy too) - both fundies, both seem like good guys, and if their converstion to fundie served them personally (and not hurt others - and i do not think either have hurt others - outside of their zeal for their God) i think its fine.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
For what are the so-called good deeds of a spiritually-dead kind of mankind,
???????????
deeds Ghandi (burning is hell forever for being a Hindu - that he prevented Civil War in India in 46 - "ignore, no good deeds move on" - means nothing for he did deeds (none good being a none Christian), non good though.
BTW I am a Secular Humanist!!!!!!!!!!!!
that means i have a higher view of the mankind you view as a worm (you share Saul's view).
funny, you being a Christian, and me being a burn forever Athiest, me having a higher value per the nature of man than you!
irony much?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
especially to a perfect God?
your god is irrelivent, i do good works because my nature is in general more good than bad (3/4 good BTW - all of us generally speaking), and i do good to fell good.
and i do good for other man and women that may find solice in the good i do, not for your god.
i don't give a shit for your god, as a man i am infinately smaller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (WTF do you equate me doing good with some sort of "equating myself with God" - you are too brainwashed in Saul's letters (saul was an asshole - that is the sad truth - other works by other authors (who were not assholes are there for you to read from).
I do good because i feel good inside when i do, and it also helps other people.
God is irrelivant for me.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
Should He be impressed? What is it to Him, and what are they to Him, since they care nothing for Him?
not care nor give a shit. i do good for me, and the byproduct is it helps others in need.
as for your God - if he is a dick and knowing he is a trillion times better than me, fine, he can play the dick, i do not do good for him, i do good for me - and the bi-product is helping other persons.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
This is why Jesus said,
"You must be born again," or another translation puts it,
"You must be born from above." Unless one is already in a living relationship with God, as His own child, then one's deeds are of no value to Him at all. They are simply the irrelevant deeds of those who hate Him.
so good deeds from persons that deny your god, but do good for others, are irrelivant to your God?
lovely, so much for your "God of love"
that is from "john" yes?
perchance author of Mark/Matt/Luke had a different view? (me being non Christian, allows me to pars the theologies - and affirm they do not fit one theology) - you however being a Christian, must force a fit - even when there is not one.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
That's why Isaiah the prophet says,
"All our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags." .
not a fan of Isaiah, neutral per it - but which part do you refer to? it was added on to 2-5 centuries later - so 3 isaiahs.
as there are sadly 2 Amos' - the last part added on, in effect rejecting the whole theme of the original work - that "God's chosen is a responsibility - and God will choose another people (Etheopions) if the jews do not get their shit together/fix their mentality) - so the last part of Amos - added centuries later negated the whole responsibility of being a chosen people, and instead fixed the promise of being God chosen as immutable.
and so negating Amos' entire book, and negating your God's will - "i promised my people, so a promise is a promise, if they rape and pillage and murder trillions of palistinians...they are still my chosen people"
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
12. Jesus never said "believe in me to be saved", he said believe in YHWH.
I hate to contradict so bluntly, but that's most certainly not the case. He did. And often.
John 3:16, for example, or John 8:24 --
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” And you can see that the Pharisees most certainly understood his claims that way
(John 10:33 -- "The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”)
John said that Jesus said that.
Mark never nor matt/luke said that Jesus said that.
Jesus = per what he said, if he said, is nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
13. IMO from reading what others said of Jesus (since Jesus left no record himself, and may not have been literate
Actually, he was quite literate. (Luke 4:17, for example) And so were all his followers, who recorded the gospels, obviously. Luke, for example, was not only literate but an formally-educated man, a physician. Paul, as you know, began as a Pharisee, and was trained by no less a rabbi than Gamaliel himself. So not only was he literate, but he had to have memorized and recited the entire Torah.
that is what Saul said about Gamaliel, i think Saul was an asshole/dick and what he had to say suspect.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
Literacy rates in Israel were much higher than in the rest of the ancient world, for the simple reason that every Jewish boy who is observant of the Law has to become what they call "a son of the Law" by reading Torah..so that's not at all surprising in Israel.
I'm calling bullshit on this - but welcome references.
Greece and Rome i suspect being more of an Empire - former and latter - had a higher literacy rate than the Israelis generally.
none of them more than 10 percent. (and probably more like 5 - since women are ignored in history and make up 1/2 of the pop and nearly none had a reason to be literate).
he hated all hypocrites
He hated
hypocrisy. I wouldn't say he hated hypocrites
as people. He just wanted them to stop being hypocrites.[/quote]
agreed, poor wording on my part.