Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:09 pm [his usual shallow mockery]
While you implore people to have interest in, and respond to, the questions and points you post -- you have no courage or depth to respond (in kind) to others' questions or points, unless it can be manipulated to validate yourself. Since you've already made it known that you are a selfish, self-involved man, with exaggerated self-importance, I wasn't surprised. 8) The fascinating part is how convinced you are by it.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:58 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:44 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:09 pm We've been at this well over a year! A wasted year
Surely not a total waste. You must have learned something, albeit an unwelcome something. :|
He has learned how to be more full of himself, which pleases him very much. That's really what it's all about, despite the continual charade of insisting that he has higher aspirations of great significance.
If he wants to be significant, he will need to spread his net a lot wider than this little backwater of a forum. He's never going to change the world if it depends on us lot going along with him. Not that anyone here seems to be tempted. :?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Diversions are funnnn. Let’s get back to the ideas.

Lace? Harbal? You’re up.

Take it from the top ….
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:07 pm Diversions are funnnn. Let’s get back to the ideas.

Lace? Harbal? You’re up.

Take it from the top ….
I'm not here to have ideas; I'm here to be belittled for my lack of them. :cry:
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:48 am
ThinkOfOne wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:04 am I wasn't asking for you to give further context. None of the above addressed the questions in other than a vague manner.
I'm sorry.

I understood that you were saying that you thought there were different interpretations, depending on the context. I was merely trying to respond to that concern in the most relevant way. But if I misunderstood your implication, I'm happy to revise.

Let's see if the following will help move things along.
John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved.
Jesus is not one of the ways, but the ONLY way to the cross where His blood was shed so that we can be saved. For without the shedding of His blood, there would be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

From <https://www.christianwalls.com/blogs/bi ... contents-6>
The bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief. It is also what they believe "believing in" Jesus entails. Do you think that they are correct? Why or why not?
I'm going to try to be very precise, so as to be sure to cover what you might really be asking here. If I miss, just say so, and I'll try again.

The first and second sentences are both entirely warranted by John 14:6, and the third is certainly implied, if not made explicit. The fourth ("This scripture...etc".) is also obviously true, and core to Christianity.

Now, I do fully agree with the third sentence," Our good works cannot save us...etc." However, I admit that I do not see that doctrine made fully explicit in this particular passage. It's implied, but not developed in that context. However, if one turned to Ephesians 2:8-9 or Titus 3:5, you'd find that doctrine very explicitly taught and explained. So it is also correct, and is a basic of Christianity.

The remaining sentences are a summary of doctrine, one also warranted by the passage in John, but as the writers have indicated, one would have to fill them out from other Scriptures like Hebrews 9:22 to be able to have the fulness of that doctrine in hand. There is, in John 14:6 or in the context, no mention of "the blood" for example, or of the doctrine of "remission." Nevertheless, they are also true and are parts of Christian core doctrine.

In short, yes, I believe it all...even the parts you can't find explicitly spelled out, but only implicit, in John 14:6 itself.

But then you ask if that is what "believing in Jesus" entails. And that's more problematic, because "believing in Jesus" is not the same as believing in a set of propositions or even a formal statement of particular doctrines. It's not even the same as saying, "I believe that what christianwalls.com has written is true." It's not trusting in facts; it's trusting in a Person. And that's a different thing.

Perhaps I can fill that out for you a bit. To "believe in Jesus" is more akin to what somebody is asking you to do when, say, you give them a task to do, and they sense you're nervous, and they say, "Have a little faith in me."

What they mean is, "Trust me personally. Consider who I am, and what you know about me, and rely on me to be what you need me to be, and to do what you need me to do, in this situation."

To "believe in Jesus" is the same: it's to consider who He is, and decide that you can rely on him to be what you need Him to be to you, and to do what needs to be done in your life. In particular, it means, as John 14:6 makes so clear, in the context, that you trust Him to be the one to get you to God. And it means that one agrees to follow Christ, to depend on the truth of His words and the integrity of His person, and to shape your own life accordingly.

And toward that end, you're going to have faith in Him to make the necessary changes in you, and in the face of judgment, to advocate for you so that you can be brought into a relationship with God...regardless of your own past sins and failures. And one need to have this faith in Him, even though the task of bringing fallen mortals into peaceful fellowship with a holy God seems far too much for anyone but Jesus Christ to do.

Now, that's as full an answer as I can fashion at the moment, given my current understanding of your questions, as written. Have I covered what you wanted me to cover? And do you have anything else you wish to ask or add? I'm open to that.
Somehow you managed to have failed to address the main thing I was asking in my post which is the following:
[Their] bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief… Do you think that [their "bottom line" is] correct"? Why or why not?
Can you address this?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:10 am Somehow you managed to have failed to address the main thing I was asking in my post which is the following:
[Their] bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief… Do you think that [their "bottom line" is] correct"? Why or why not?
Can you address this?
In full, you wrote:
ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:10 am John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved. Jesus is not one of the ways, but the ONLY way to the cross where His blood was shed so that we can be saved. For without the shedding of His blood, there would be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

From <https://www.christianwalls.com/blogs/bi ... contents-6>

The bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief. It is also what they believe "believing in" Jesus entails. Do you think that they are correct? Why or why not?
I went through each sentence and said yes, or no, and why. I don't know how you could have missed it, but it's all there, in very particular detail.

So it seems I'm not understanding whatever it is you're trying to ask me. I've been as full and frank as a person can be, given the understanding of the question I have. Perhaps you'd best reword, so I don't miss your question.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:30 am
ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:10 am Somehow you managed to have failed to address the main thing I was asking in my post which is the following:
[Their] bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief… Do you think that [their "bottom line" is] correct"? Why or why not?
Can you address this?
In full, you wrote:
ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:10 am John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved. Jesus is not one of the ways, but the ONLY way to the cross where His blood was shed so that we can be saved. For without the shedding of His blood, there would be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

From <https://www.christianwalls.com/blogs/bi ... contents-6>

The bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief. It is also what they believe "believing in" Jesus entails. Do you think that they are correct? Why or why not?
I went through each sentence and said yes, or no, and why. I don't know how you could have missed it, but it's all there, in very particular detail.

So it seems I'm not understanding whatever it is you're trying to ask me. I've been as full and frank as a person can be, given the understanding of the question I have. Perhaps you'd best reword, so I don't miss your question.
You went "through each sentence and said yes, or no, and why" of what I quoted from christianwalls which I did not ask you to do.

What I wanted you to do is address what the "bottom line" says which you failed to do. The key phrase (in bold) of the "bottom line" is that "coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. "


It's as if you create a narrative in your mind of what you think something "might" be saying and address that rather that what was actually written. You do this a lot. It makes having a meaningful discussion with you difficult.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:53 am The key phrase (in bold) of the "bottom line" is that "coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. "
I answered that, too. I said, essentially, "That's not what faith is." And I explained, it's not subscription to dogmatic belief, but active trust in a Person.

So there IS your answer, in two letters: "No."
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:08 am
ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:53 am The key phrase (in bold) of the "bottom line" is that "coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. "
I answered that, too. I said, essentially, "That's not what faith is." And I explained, it's not subscription to dogmatic belief, but active trust in a Person.

So there IS your answer, in two letters: "No."
The fact is that you went off on a tangent about "believe in Jesus" rather than address the bottom line. Now you're dishonestly trying to claim that you "essentially" said, "That's not what faith is" as a part of that tangent. What's more, even if you had said, ""That's not what faith is" it doesn't address the "bottom line".

Listen. You have poor reading comprehension skills, poor critical thinking skills, poor conceptual thinking skills and the lack of humility to admit it to yourself, much less to others. From what I've seen, I'm hardly the first person on this forum to point out those type of things to you. At least be honest with yourself. Think back to when you were at school. You were in no danger of being amongst the best and the brightest. That hasn't changed.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:07 pm Diversions are funnnn. Let’s get back to the ideas.

Lace? Harbal? You’re up.

Take it from the top ….
Song and dance number coming up, or just fancy tap dancing? :?:
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Christianity

Post by reasonvemotion »


RWStanding
wrote
Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.
Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.
Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.
Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.
Sculptor wrote:
The church and state are one, under the King dei gratia.
That's one reason why religion is so unpopular.
World leaders call for global unity.

World government buzz words.......
common good, solidarity, unity, fraternity, morality, humanity,  ONENESS

These words will be used to push a very specific agenda.
This one world mindset will be pushed to change the world's thinking.

Unity by what Means?

Church (Papacy) and State (Empire)

Who are these figure heads?

These key figures are: 
Pope Francis Head of the Catholic church (Christian unity is not optional)
Antonio Guterres Secretary General United Nations
Tedros Adhanon. Director World Health Organization
Arturo Sosa   Superior General. The Jesuit order

The solutions proposed by the Pope on these issues if fully adopted would represent a dramatic shift from current nationalistic structures of government to a global form of a very specific type of civil government and are these global forms of government actioned anywhere else, one example: 

Antonio Guterres Secretary General United Nations
Antonio Guterres states the very nature of work will change, governments may have to consider stronger safety nets and eventually universal basic income.

What do we know about Antonio Guterres?

He is the head of the UN
Extract from the Jesuit magazine
"Guterres joined the socialist party the year it was formed, underground, and soon after the collapse of the regime he dedicated himself fully to building a political career.  When elected prime minister in 1995 he was considered a natural leader of the Catholic wing of the Socialist party."

Many of his views on global affairs including rising inequality, terrorism, migration and climate change mirror those of Pope Francis whom he visited in December 2013.

Columnists and commentators at major publications have expressed serious concern about his extremism.   As president of Socialist International, Guterres envisaged a radical model of government led by a UN Parliamentary assembly that would facilitate the emergence of global citizens.
Jennifer Oriel in the Australia newspaper, among other extremism, SI declared that its goal was to parliamentarise the global political system by establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

Marx believed that a society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional state, which means the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the government nationalizes the ownership of the means of production from private and collective ownership.

 It is interesting to note given Guterres background, it may be fair to say that one of the world's leading  experts on Marx's socialism is now in a position to implement it on a global scale. 
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:28 am...it doesn't address the "bottom line".
Then what is "the bottom line"? I quoted all that you asked. I answered as fully and frankly as possible. There's no more.

Okay, well, I guess it's obvious...we're not communicating, for one reason or another. I won't bother assigning fault for that, on either side, because it's not useful to do so. I'm sorry you haven't found the answers you're looking for.

Best wishes.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:08 pm
tillingborn wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 2:33 pm120 on a good day. Get yourself a girlfriend; you get very wound up when you're unwinding.
You couldn't even wind up a clock at this rate...

Lets wrap this up. I agree with 120.

120 above yours.
Well 120 points of a useless metric is useless. I suggest a more accurate measure of mental acuity: wit. You lose.
Here's another example:
tillingborn wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:34 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:28 amIt's 2023 dude. This dichotomous thinking is so lame.

ALL moral arguments are appeals to authority or revelation.
It's 2023 dude. This dichotomous thinking is so lame.
Granted it didn't take any great genius, since you pretty much put it on a plate for me. No doubt it is an example of your successful manipulation of others. That being so, it is hard to fathom how your response shows any appreciable intellect:
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:16 amYou dumb, dismissive, uncharitable sophist! Why are you misinterpreting the meaning of my "OR? It's parametric function, not a dichotomous logical connective!
All it shows is that, whatever my clock winding skills, I can wind you up effortlessly.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

I believe it was Immanuel Can who posted the following, but I may have misunderstood the quotation boxes.
John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation.
Do you refer to what John himself meant, to what John said means to you, to what John said means for you, to what John said ought to mean for everyman, or to what John said means for everyman?

Please say which if any of the above apply.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:56 am I believe it was Immanuel Can who posted the following, but I may have misunderstood the quotation boxes.
John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation.
Do you refer to what John himself meant, to what John said means to you, to what John said means for you, to what John said ought to mean for everyman, or to what John said means for everyman?

Please say which if any of the above apply.
Well, that's not the exact quotation of the verse, of course, but rather a kind of short summation.

But in regard to John, why should I dictate what you decide? It's not necessary. If you look at the context, I think you'll know the answer to that. But if you think it means something different from what I think it means, that's up to you...you have the right to go by your own best lights. I'm a big believer in personal conscience; we have a right to go by what we genuinely think is true, according to the best truth revealed to us. And I'd never impinge on that for you.

Personally, I think it's very obvious. But feel free to make up your own mind.
Post Reply