No, that trip was the return flight from Tijuana. I guess it was two years ago now. I'd gone down with some people from my wife's church to build houses for the poor in Mexico.
That's a whole 'nother story but suffice it to say, I won't be doing that again. It said something like "WYWAM" on the sides of the van we rode in ("World Youth - something or other - Ministries") but it might as well have said "Ugly Americans". I was never so ashamed of myself in my entire life. A REALLY disgusting venture. That's NOT the way to run a charity.
After I came to on the plane I was painfully cold (extremely uncharacteristic for me) and I still couldn't sit up. So they just wrapped me up in blankets and let me lay there on the floor for the rest of the flight. When the plane landed in Seattle they took me off in a wheelchair and had some paramedics waiting for me at the terminal. They looked me over and asked me what I wanted to do. I told them to let me go home, which is what I did.
The next morning I went to see a doctor. She took blood, looked in or at all the normal items, and all she could come up with is that I was probably dehydrated. That didn't seem likely to me, as I was careful to drink lots of liquids while in TJ, but that's where it was left.
I flew to NYC a few weeks later (that was a rather anxious trip - wondering if I was going to keel over any minute), and had no problems. Then I went to China and Japan, and a few weeks after that went to Cambodia, then I went back to Japan a few weeks after that, and still no trouble. I dunno what it was, besides unsettling. Just one of those fun moments in life.
I think I'm going to make another trip to Japan this fall (me and a couple of members of the "good 'ol boys" club). You got your passport warmed up yet?
"I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper"
I think people would be very suprised at what they learned if they simply did this one thing. In a sense it is exactly what I have been doing, though it wasn't what I set out to do, and it has been very enlightening. Gives one a very different perspective on Jesus, Paul, and the writings of the N.T.
Well, in the first paragraph of your post dated Aug 28, 4:38 PM you describe American Christianity (and by default, American Christians) as "sickeningly contrary" to the reality of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as you understand those concepts. In fact, you say that the "masses" (of those who identify themselves as Christian) are too ignorant, too arrogant, too greedy, too irresponsible, too violent, too disgustingly Christian to begin to understand, much less live, in virtue. (FYI, neither "atonement" nor "purification" are virtues.) You say that these same Christians use Jesus as a scapegoat, having no genuine faith.
In answer to your question, you have condemned those who identify themselves as Christian, as not being genuinely Christian. And you didn't stop there. You went on and on and on and on, as if you know their motivations (none of them good). You insult those who take their faith seriously.
"At whose expense have I elevated myself?"
Christians.
"I can understand why Zix doesn't offend you.
You obviously share many of the same beliefs.
Seems natural then, right?"
What is obvious to you isn't so obvious to me. I don't understand most of Zix's beliefs, so I don't know if I share them or not. Having said that, I appreciate his straightforwardness as opposed to your deviousness.
"When I speak of this Christianity,
I speak from a lot of ugly and wonderful experiences with it.
How can you honestly deny me that?"
If you were speaking only for yourself, and relating your own experience, I would "deny" you nothing. Instead, you first misrepresent, then ridicule, the faith of others, as if you are in a position to know.
"Someone asked "why not Christianity."
Seems an important ex-way discussion.
Nothing personal. Why make it so?"
I have no objection to the thread topic. Yes, it is an important question. But you are the one who made it personal when you judged the faith and the conscience of those who identify themselves as Christian. Maybe you should answer your own question: Why make it personal?
Case in point:
"I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper. Cuz its probably never going away, and right now, its making a lot of people real sick and dead (or is simply incapable of helping as effectively as Christ himself taught)."
You indicate here that you have a truer, better, deeper understanding of Christ and Christianity than do professing and practicing Christians, who are promulgating sickness and death. This is arrogance.
Also, you are speaking for Jesus in your posts. Has he authorized you to do so?
I hope you're keeping a journal at home as a rough draft for your travel book, or at least hanging onto your posts, to give you inspiration later when its time to start sending out query letters in pursuit of a publisher.
I'd love to go to Japan. Honest. But the older I get the more I'm turning into my grandmother, who contentedly stayed close to home in her later years. Except her "later years" began in her eighties, so I'm getting a head start. Actually, before then she traveled extensively.
This fall is out of the question. My 83 year-old father-in-law is facing by-pass surgery in a couple of weeks, so we're going up to stay with him for awhile, after we take our daughter back to school. Don't you have kids in college? How can you afford to go out to eat, much less travel the world?
"How can you afford to go out to eat, much less travel the world?"
Well, last year was kinda over-the-top for traveling. But I only paid for two of those trips. The trip to NYC and one of the trips to Japan was paid for by employers or business associates. The trip to Tijuana was paid for by airmiles and then the "ministry" put us up and fed us.
The other trips really weren't all that expensive. Traveling can be pretty economical if you don't want to spend all your time in a 5-star hotel (a MAJOR waste IMHO). I have friends in Japan who are always happy to have me over (Honest!) and feed me and take me anywhere I want to go (in exchange I do take care of any repairs to their houses that may come up).
The last plane ticket, RT to Beijing (from Seattle), with layovers in Tokyo, cost me $725. Meals, lodging, and all the sidetrips I took only added another four or five hundred to the tab. The plane fare to Phnom Penh, RT, was only $900. And hotel accomodations and meals are ridiculously cheap there ($8./day for an air-conditioned double room, breakfast for $1.25, supper for $3.00)
So, yeah, it cost, but wasn't THAT overwhelming. A lightweight drug addiction (or a penchant for tithing) would be far more spendy.
My mother gave me some sage advice a couple of years ago, "Don't wait till you're too old to do some traveling. I'd love to do it now, but my knees and hips won't let me."
Words that ring in my ears.
So if you can possibly swing it, I say "Go now!"
October or November are great months for Japan. Or else wait till spring (sakura time, ne?), say, late March or early April. Summertime is to be avoided, way too hot and sticky. Fly into Tokyo and spend a day or two (do the Kabukizaa, Rippongi, and a few museums, take the train to Nikko for a day or so, then head down to Kyoto, see a few of the temples (Kinkakeji, Kyomizu, Toji, and maybe Ryuanji and Ginkakeji) and maybe a museum or two there. Eat lots of sushi, drink lots of sake, maybe take a day trip to Miyajima (see the Kintai bridge while you're there, it's close), and if you've got time, definitely go to Nara for the day. Then, when you're all Japaned-out, hop on the train for Narita and you're home in a matter of hours. Amazing!
Oh yeah, I did have a "deathbed" experience, except it was in a car.
Last November an idiot who was looking at the map on his lap instead of the road (the road which contained a red light, by the way) blasted through an intersection and "t-boned" me.
As I looked out the window at the car heading toward my very small car at a fairly high rate of speed directly at the driver's side door I was convinced that I would be dead within seconds.
I did not convert/revert; I did not call out to God or Jesus. On the other hand I didn't curse God or reject him either. I remained in the same state of agnosticism that I was in when I left the house that morning. The one thought that I remember forming before the impact was "Oh well, it's been a nice life".
quote:It seems to me that what Zixar is saying is that belief in God is something that is visceral or primal.
I second Oak's statement that your giving Zix too much credit. Though I see where you get that idea. It seems to me that many of his posts are contradictory. He makes statements like "They guess, but they have no good answer, because natural deduction is null without a nature to work with" but then pulls out his natural deduction and uses it as if it is his spiritual numbchucks. He comes true only after much proding and probing when he says, "The only difference is in the questions--our understanding of the answers is equally foggy, if we're honest." But prior to that statement and pretty much ever since he berates those of differing opinions, trying to justify his belief system and trying prove his superior logic. IMO This is his the only motive. He does it by using analogies or comparisons that many times people are unfamiliar with, all the while using language that is deceptive and disingenuous. Any points made by others are dismissed out of hand or are overshadowed by every minor mistake of which he decides to capitalised on.
At the risk of beating a dead horse....(die horse die!)
But hopefully being a little more clear.
Zix,
By "natural fact" I did not mean it occured in nature, so perhaps I mis-spoke. I was certainly misunderstood. Nor was my use of "jump" literal. In your example, "teleporting" does not guess at WHY an electron disappears in one orbit and reappears in another. The reasons are known, the perameters are set up by those setting up the experiment. Set up by people that have already "teleported" a photon (but not really in the sense that most trekies would think). It is all done by NATURAL means and is observable. Maybe not by the naked eye but at the very least is measurable. "Teleporting" is an eduacated guess at WHAT is happening. It is only plausible because we know a few things about electrons, like they exist as particles, as waves, as well as something like a haze of energy. It is a WHAT is happening claim. God is a not only a WHAT is happening but a WHY its happening, and a WHO is doing it claim. All of which are not educated guesses, because, as you pointed out, "natural deduction is null without a nature to work with". So it is just a guess. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)-->
quote:Consequently, Christ could come back tomorrow and your certainty over God not being a "fact" would be just as ill-conceived.
At the point of your death if God is not true, so could your notion of God being de facto. So we are back to your best statement ever which was
quote:The only difference is in the questions--our understanding of the answers is equally foggy, if we're honest.
I like you much better when your honest. You may think you will be better off if you are right and I am wrong but if the Bible is true or at least one interpretation of the Bible is true, there will be a "second death" of which there is no return. Which is what I already believe happens after our first death, and I am totaly fine with that. If you are right, my first death will only be a sort of "near death experience" only to be followed by an actual death.
That is of course if one version of Christianity is true. As SirG said there are so many different brands.
So I ask you again, On your death bed would you plea for your life to all the other possible gods? There are a lot to consider and I doubt you know them all, so why not cover all your bases?
If you don't you are no different than the rest of us clinging to one unverifiable belief in the face of infinite possiblilities. Only the agnostic assumes that that they could be wrong and that it is most likely not possible to know which is right.
The question leads to Abigails other thread "Why Faith". We always end up here. It is Faith, no more no less. Why bother with all the attempts at verification of sudo-similarities. It all boils down to a belief in the invisible, unproovable, unverifiable. We all do it to some degree. No need to say mine is better than yours. Untill the cat is let out of the box we are all equally blind, equally right, and equally wrong.
I don't object to any of the points you have made. I'm not so sure of Zixar's point either. Oakspear gave a good summary a page or two ago, and pointed out some things I had missed or glossed over. Am I giving Zixar too much credit? Maybe. But at least he's presenting an argument (along with a few insults), and not just a blanket condemnation of what he might deem to be the opposing view. Anyway, teleporting and electrons are way over my head, and beyond my interest level, so I'll leave this to you guys to figure out.
Carry on.
sirguessalot: Like I said already, your opinions and experience are not "hard on the ears," at least not on my ears. What is difficult for me to accept is your pronouncements against Christians. When you arbitrarily decide what "most" Christians do or do not believe, it is a far cry from announcing what you do or do not believe, and your reasons for your own belief and/or unbelief. Again, I wouldn't object at all if you were talking about your own experience of Christianity -- if you are identifying yourself as once being a greedy, gluttonous, violent, wasteful Christian, I wouldn't object. Instead, you are identifying current, practicing Christians as such, simply because they are Christian. That is my objection.
Yet I feel compelled to second Laleo's observation in certain respects.
Perhaps the indignity only second to wearing a name tag is the indignity of people being judged or depicted or labeled en masse.
And as history has shown, terrible things have come out from such thinking, especially when, God forbid, it should catch on en masse.
But I don't think that's where you were coming from, mainly, in consideration of other lofty, admirable ideas you expressed. I think your mistake was one of clarification in regard to "this Christianity of the land" and "the Christian masses" (it's an easy thing to do in writing - I've made the same mistake before, and probably will do so before the end of this post - lol).
But in the end, regardless of the group, doctrine, movement, or even religion, quite a few of us are (I hope) concerned with individuals. There are jerks in all these groups, and there are fine people. It's probably true of any religion and spiritual movement.
Perhaps if you had stated, "a few Christians" or even "quite a few Christians of the land," the objections would not have arisen, and would have truer to the Spirit of what you were trying to express.
None of us here can really speak for all Christians or Christianity or Christianities, or for all Buddhists,
or for all Jews and Judaisms, and so forth.
There are most certainly shameful,dark episodes throughout Christian history, of humanity's inhumanity to humanity. And certainly there are widespread beliefs and approaches with which I don't agree, which in my opinion, could even be ultimately more harmful than good. But good-hearted, spiritual people do prevail and shine through all of it. Like Mother Theresa. Or Martin Luther King. Or Ghandi. And I'm confident new friends we've yet to meet.
On the other side of the coin, it does seem that "quite a few" Christians like to knock the "new age" thing. Or so, one might gain this impression when thumbing through Christian bookstore catalogues. Which I think is unfortunate. I think the new age movement is a healthy one, because throughout people are seemingly exploring, searching many different paths of spirituality. I would think or at least hope many Christians would see the "new age" movement more as an opportunity to join into the mix to "invoke the Good Spell," rather than getting all paranoid and conspiratorial and judgmental and stuff, at least along the lines of the books I saw advertised. Hopefully the subscribers are more sophisticated than these authors - I suspect they are.
Oakspear: Well, since you had a relevant example, why did you waste so much time with personal attacks on me instead of just answering the question in the first place? "No, I wouldn't, because I already had a similar opportunity in a car wreck and didn't turn back to Jesus." No gray area to that answer, is there?
lindyhopper: The relevance of the teleporting electron example is that in order to construct a theoretical model of electron orbit transfer, the scientists are postulating an otherwise-impossible trait--teleportation--in order to make the model match current observations. Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered, even though we cannot measure its behaviors, parameters, or even existence directly.
That does NOT mean that God can be proven via a process of natural deduction, and I have never said otherwise. Even Godel's Ontological Theorem makes a certain axiomatic assumption which is experimentally indefinite. It does mean, however, that by definition, natural deduction cannot disprove God either, since the definition of supernature precludes an encompassing natural explanation. Since nature is but a subset of any existing supernature, we have insufficient ability to define anything but natural phenomena in natural terms.
Personal attacks on you are never a waste of time. :D-->
Ya know, I think this is another of those discussions where differing assumptions and definitions are getting in the way of dialog.
Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it.
My position is that indecision, uncertainty, etc are not the same as rejection. It does not appear that you understand why I believe as I do, nor does it appear that you care to.
Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar? Whose remarks were described as "lawyering", and "pontificating"? Don't get on your high horse about personal attacks unless your innocent of them yourself.
And regarding the car wreck. I don't think about it that often. For the most part I put it behind me. When you first started bringing up "deathbed" conversions, frankly, it slipped my mind. When I did remember the incident, I decided to post it.
What would I do in the future. I don't know. I have not accepted Christ, nor have I rejected him. If death knocks on my door tomorrow, I can't tell you today what I would do. That's the gray area for me Zixar, whether you believe it or accept it or understand it or not.
I was kinda shouting from the heart on the "why not" matter.
It was an unclear mix of general and specific.
I hope I can redeem myself here.
I did think of putting an asterisk or some such thing next to each utterance of "*Christian," referring back to the top of my post (which perhaps I should have clarified even more). Or craft a paranthetical statement to repeat each time the C-word is invoked. But I thought it would confuse things.
doh!
How can one simply point to field of flowers and hope to seperate the pansies from the daisies?
By describing what daisies look like, I guess.
* = accidental/unconsciously Christian, based more on mere group-affiliation, or an inherited civic religion and modern myth than an actual initiation of individual/group practice/discipline of Christ-like living (when and where this is the case).
I also thought of posting on the "why Christianity thread" to support the "Christianities" that bear good fruit in this very same land (and others). I still might, if I get a chance.
I don't name denominations either way, because every denomination has got to have consciously Christlike people in it somewhere. Some more, some less, I'm sure, as in all diverse things. There are Christian congregations and movements who have come together with an amazing depth of harmony and love and selfless giving.
Some of you may be a part of or have found such a place or group. Great.
Fruit is fruit = nourishment, against such there is no law or rule or distinction of names or languages to reasonly contradict or deny its presence. if its there, its there. If its not, its not.
I think most all Christians on this board do not even fit the *Christianity I speak of. We learned some hard lessons from TWI, which may be somewhat of a gift. Most here who approach Christianity again do so with more care and precision than before, which yields better results. Or even, with more recklessness, perhaps, if it was the overly anal nature of twi that burnt them in the first place.
---
From what I see and experience, is the term "Christianity" itself has been and is being abused by the majority, not just a few rotten eggs in a few churches. But this is old news.
Example: a genocide against the natives here was not carried out by a few rotten eggs in *Christianity. Nor were all Christians for it. But those who shoot, shoot, and those who don't, can do little about the shooters anyway (Cain versus Abel). In other words, those who use force will always win via force against those who do not use equal force. All perceptions of righteousness aside.
And imo, "abuse" is not some morally chosen sinful behaviour worth condemning. Condemnation comes all on its own, anyway (like Jesus said). In the form of illness, depression, poverty, etc... Especially in women, children, the elderly and animals and the environment (air, water, soil, flora, etc..).
So, by "sickningly" I mean just that. Pathological and chronic to the point of reeking. There are true and measurable reasons for it, but none worthy of shame and blame towards the ill. Perhaps some shame towards the ministers. But not even much there.
I mean, if there is pride being celebrated, then there is pride being celebrated, no?
If a lot of people are sick and unhealthy and depressed in our *Christian society, what is there to brag about? I have a half dozen *Christians in my life whose lives are falling apart even as they naturally cling to the dogma that may have gotten them there in the first place. I have a feeling this trend hasn't matured yet.
Of course, some *Christians say this trend IS because society is turning away from *Christianity. And so *they blame the ill non-*Christian for being suckered by the devil, and pardon the ill *Christian for being in the devil's crosshairs. Sound familiar? I hear it all the time now.
Its almost like VPs style of uber-self-serving hyper-Christianity has indeed infected an already struggling civic religion (again, not all people or groups are effected, though they may be outnumbered and not even know it.). W.O.W. and all.
If all kinds of anti-Christ selfish behaviour (i.e. opposite of the fruit of the spirit) is being justified because of the blood of the cross, it is being justified. "Jesus suffered so we don't have to" is not the unique idea of some cult.
And there is no mystical formula required to see or measure these things. Just talking to people and listening to their wants and needs will reveal all kinds of things.
Do they brag about how exceptionally good God is too them above all others, based solely on affiliation and or the "invoking of the magic messianic name?"
I think there are some good ole fashioned spiritual folks who claim Christianity. But let us say that 10% or 20% of Christianity are consciously and independently trying to follow Christ's teachings on living. That may seem like a small number, but if you do the math...its not. And perhaps its a larger or smaller number. Whatever. Its not the majority. And its not in any single denom or sect.
Fruit is fruit is fruit is fruit. It heals.
Most *Christians I talk to in my travels and relationships are mostly unfamiliar with their own holy scripture. Most of them. This is alarming. I am not talking about research stuff, or dogmatic stuff, but the basic lessons of gospels (like the beautitudes) and such any kid can pick up. And yet, they claim a moral superiority based mostly on their affiliations and membership. Its almost like a high for them, and they want you emotionally involved with it and them or they quickly reject you as somehow "lost" or "evil."
Sometimes I think we don't realize how much things have changed in *Christianity in so little time (i.e. a few decades). Sometimes I think we don't realize how much the world has changed in just as recently, in technological capability, integration of information, the collective mindsets, or in human evolution itself, in sheer magnitude of all things under the sun. Yet, the earth is more or less the same size as before.
And this seems worth mentioning: what I've observed and experienced with the "why nots" of *Christianity are in no way unique to *Christianity itself. In other words, *Christianity is not offering practical solutions to common problems that all share, and so *it suffers from the same things anyone will suffer from, given the conditions for such suffering.
This is my reason for "why not *Christianity."
I dunno. Read the health news, for example. What things are killing most Americans that are 90% preventable? How many of these Americans are professed *Christians? And these things have been going on for some time, in and out of the various Christianities. Not towards the empty blame of any people, but to see where healing and wholeness is simply not happening, for all kinds of people.
Again, this is an increasingly alarming trend, imo, perhaps only equalled by the often anti-spiritual cynicism of the reactionary *left. And so the wheels go round and round.
Other civic religions go through the same kinds of things, we're just new and huge and fast.
* = an accidental/unconsciously Christian, based more on an inherited civic religion and modern myth than an actual initiation of individual/group practice/discipline of Christ-like living.
peace,
Todd
p.s. I will claim full responsibility for things I didn't mention. :D-->
I dunno about the new age thing tho DAn. My observations have been its a pretty dark telescope they look thru and one that doesnt even have a lense. Of course i am ignorant about it mostly, my only experience was watching some "new agers" chanting i dont know what off a dock on a lake.
Pretty wacko stuff.
I think we all look for a day when there is a centrist beleif in truth. With so many fluctations in demoninations what is the problem? I dont think it is with God or the Gospel but rather with our sin nature and our flesh, that we have not walked "in paths of righteousness"
The best telecope for truth I think is to look in the mirror everyday and double check our own motives and ask God to show us the "error that is from within."
Personal attacks on you are _never_ a waste of time. :D-->
Is that really the way you want this to go?
Ya know, I think this is another of those discussions where differing assumptions and definitions are getting in the way of dialog.
Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it.
Don't tell me what my position is. You've demonstrated time and time again that you have no clue what my position is, so if you just have to make up one of your own anyway, don't ascribe it to me.
My position is that indecision, uncertainty, etc are _not_ the same as rejection. It does not appear that you understand why I believe as I do, nor does it appear that you care to.
Look, genius, if you WERE once a Christian, and now AREN'T, no amount of self-delusion will alter the fact that you REJECTED it.
Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar?
NO ONE. That's a sheer fabrication on your part, and that's why it's impossible to discuss this with you rationally. You aren't arguing what I said, you're arguing with what you wish I had said, and you sure do squawk whenever I deviate from your imaginary script.
Whose remarks were described as "lawyering", and "pontificating"? Don't get on your high horse about personal attacks unless your innocent of them yourself.
Well, if flexibly-defining such things as "rejection" and "liar" aren't "lawyering", then I don't know what is. But, let me guess. You have a brand new definition of "lawyering" that you just made up, right?
And regarding the car wreck. I don't think about it that often. For the most part I put it behind me. When you first started bringing up "deathbed" conversions, frankly, it slipped my mind. When I did remember the incident, I decided to post it.
What would I do in the future. I don't know. I have not accepted Christ, nor have I rejected him.
Sorry, that only works if one was never a Christian. Since you were once in TWI, you once professed a belief in Christ. This "kinda-sorta" hedging is dishonest. If you don't believe in Christ any more, fine. No one's saying it isn't your right to reject Christ if you don't believe any more. If I had to guess, I'd say that this whole rigmarole stems from some fear of yours that if you did renounce Christ publicly, I'd do or say something unpleasant to you. Or perhaps another guess would be an uncomfortable recollection of Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.", as in, you don't want to be a Christian any more, but you don't want to burn that bridge, either. Now, if that guess is correct, can't you see why that's dishonest?
If death knocks on my door tomorrow, I can't tell you today what I would do. That's the gray area for _me_ Zixar, whether you believe it or accept it or understand it or not.
That's fine, but don't take your indecisions out on me. If you have uncertainty issues, they're entirely inside your own head, and certainly none of my fault.
Zix, I never would have thought that you would post something that I would intentionaly say.
quote: Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered
You think of it in a positive way, I think of it as not so positive.
As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeenient." :)-->
I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. Just as the seemingly-impossible teleporting electron is a convenient guess that makes the math work, the seemingly-invisible Supreme Being is just as convenient an explanation for the Universe. It's the convenience in the simplifying assumptions in both cases that lies entirely in the realm of FAITH. Faith is not confined to religious matters, that's all I'm saying.
Good points. That's what I am getting from these posts that guys like Oak and Geo have REJECTED Christ. Again, that's their right and decision.
Christianity is an exclusive faith and God is jealous of anyone that would come and steal the faith of his children.
But if the rejection is based on bad TWI experiences, I would again offer the olive branch, that most of what went on in TWI was NOT CHRISTIAN, that God is still calling and that Jesus will take you.
Don't let the works of some scam artists cause you to reject the Creator and his son.
"Look, genius, if you WERE once a Christian, and now AREN'T, no amount of self-delusion will alter the fact that you REJECTED it."
There is a difference between rejecting it and questioning/doubting/revamping/reconsidering.
I was once a Christian, I no longer consider myself to be one - at least not in the common understanding and sense of the word as I understand its definition in our society and per mainstream Christianity.
Have I out and out rejected Christ? I don't think so. I have and continue to question and reconsider what I was once taught and believed about Christ. I no longer pray to him or in his name. However, I do believe in much of what I understand to be what he taught. And I have a different perspective from mainstream Christianity regarding what I think some of what he taught means.
I also continue to reconsider and revamp what I believe about God, our purpose in this life, and many other matters as well. This does not mean I have rejected God or believe we have no purpose.
Zix and Def, when you left TWI did you reconsider, revamp or reject any of what you were taught by TWI? If so, did you ever, after again reconsidering and revamping decide some of what you had rejected from TWI might have some nugget of truth to it afterall? Perhaps saw it in a different light?
Does that mean you rejected it or simply came to a different understanding of what it means? Or perhaps on some things, you are still in the process of considering and are simply not sure what it means?
BTW Zix,
I resent the negative connotation to "lawyering". Lawyers, although currently holding a bad rap, do serve a very needful purpose in this society. Ever been in need of one? It is good that lawyers can see many different perspectives and all sides of an argument, if they can't they won't be very good at their job.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
27
27
26
Popular Days
Aug 24
22
Aug 31
19
Aug 25
16
Sep 1
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 18 posts
Abigail 27 posts
Oakspear 27 posts
Zixar 26 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2004
22 posts
Aug 31 2004
19 posts
Aug 25 2004
16 posts
Sep 1 2004
16 posts
George Aar
Laleo,
No, that trip was the return flight from Tijuana. I guess it was two years ago now. I'd gone down with some people from my wife's church to build houses for the poor in Mexico.
That's a whole 'nother story but suffice it to say, I won't be doing that again. It said something like "WYWAM" on the sides of the van we rode in ("World Youth - something or other - Ministries") but it might as well have said "Ugly Americans". I was never so ashamed of myself in my entire life. A REALLY disgusting venture. That's NOT the way to run a charity.
After I came to on the plane I was painfully cold (extremely uncharacteristic for me) and I still couldn't sit up. So they just wrapped me up in blankets and let me lay there on the floor for the rest of the flight. When the plane landed in Seattle they took me off in a wheelchair and had some paramedics waiting for me at the terminal. They looked me over and asked me what I wanted to do. I told them to let me go home, which is what I did.
The next morning I went to see a doctor. She took blood, looked in or at all the normal items, and all she could come up with is that I was probably dehydrated. That didn't seem likely to me, as I was careful to drink lots of liquids while in TJ, but that's where it was left.
I flew to NYC a few weeks later (that was a rather anxious trip - wondering if I was going to keel over any minute), and had no problems. Then I went to China and Japan, and a few weeks after that went to Cambodia, then I went back to Japan a few weeks after that, and still no trouble. I dunno what it was, besides unsettling. Just one of those fun moments in life.
I think I'm going to make another trip to Japan this fall (me and a couple of members of the "good 'ol boys" club). You got your passport warmed up yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper"
I think people would be very suprised at what they learned if they simply did this one thing. In a sense it is exactly what I have been doing, though it wasn't what I set out to do, and it has been very enlightening. Gives one a very different perspective on Jesus, Paul, and the writings of the N.T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
sirguessalot:
"And whom have I condemned to anything?"
Well, in the first paragraph of your post dated Aug 28, 4:38 PM you describe American Christianity (and by default, American Christians) as "sickeningly contrary" to the reality of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as you understand those concepts. In fact, you say that the "masses" (of those who identify themselves as Christian) are too ignorant, too arrogant, too greedy, too irresponsible, too violent, too disgustingly Christian to begin to understand, much less live, in virtue. (FYI, neither "atonement" nor "purification" are virtues.) You say that these same Christians use Jesus as a scapegoat, having no genuine faith.
In answer to your question, you have condemned those who identify themselves as Christian, as not being genuinely Christian. And you didn't stop there. You went on and on and on and on, as if you know their motivations (none of them good). You insult those who take their faith seriously.
"At whose expense have I elevated myself?"
Christians.
"I can understand why Zix doesn't offend you.
You obviously share many of the same beliefs.
Seems natural then, right?"
What is obvious to you isn't so obvious to me. I don't understand most of Zix's beliefs, so I don't know if I share them or not. Having said that, I appreciate his straightforwardness as opposed to your deviousness.
"When I speak of this Christianity,
I speak from a lot of ugly and wonderful experiences with it.
How can you honestly deny me that?"
If you were speaking only for yourself, and relating your own experience, I would "deny" you nothing. Instead, you first misrepresent, then ridicule, the faith of others, as if you are in a position to know.
"Someone asked "why not Christianity."
Seems an important ex-way discussion.
Nothing personal. Why make it so?"
I have no objection to the thread topic. Yes, it is an important question. But you are the one who made it personal when you judged the faith and the conscience of those who identify themselves as Christian. Maybe you should answer your own question: Why make it personal?
Case in point:
"I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper. Cuz its probably never going away, and right now, its making a lot of people real sick and dead (or is simply incapable of helping as effectively as Christ himself taught)."
You indicate here that you have a truer, better, deeper understanding of Christ and Christianity than do professing and practicing Christians, who are promulgating sickness and death. This is arrogance.
Also, you are speaking for Jesus in your posts. Has he authorized you to do so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
George,
I hope you're keeping a journal at home as a rough draft for your travel book, or at least hanging onto your posts, to give you inspiration later when its time to start sending out query letters in pursuit of a publisher.
I'd love to go to Japan. Honest. But the older I get the more I'm turning into my grandmother, who contentedly stayed close to home in her later years. Except her "later years" began in her eighties, so I'm getting a head start. Actually, before then she traveled extensively.
This fall is out of the question. My 83 year-old father-in-law is facing by-pass surgery in a couple of weeks, so we're going up to stay with him for awhile, after we take our daughter back to school. Don't you have kids in college? How can you afford to go out to eat, much less travel the world?
Send me a postcard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Laleo,
What a post! (Your next-to-last one.)
If I ever become dictator of some country, you and Satori can expect cushy cabinet positions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Laleo,
"How can you afford to go out to eat, much less travel the world?"
Well, last year was kinda over-the-top for traveling. But I only paid for two of those trips. The trip to NYC and one of the trips to Japan was paid for by employers or business associates. The trip to Tijuana was paid for by airmiles and then the "ministry" put us up and fed us.
The other trips really weren't all that expensive. Traveling can be pretty economical if you don't want to spend all your time in a 5-star hotel (a MAJOR waste IMHO). I have friends in Japan who are always happy to have me over (Honest!) and feed me and take me anywhere I want to go (in exchange I do take care of any repairs to their houses that may come up).
The last plane ticket, RT to Beijing (from Seattle), with layovers in Tokyo, cost me $725. Meals, lodging, and all the sidetrips I took only added another four or five hundred to the tab. The plane fare to Phnom Penh, RT, was only $900. And hotel accomodations and meals are ridiculously cheap there ($8./day for an air-conditioned double room, breakfast for $1.25, supper for $3.00)
So, yeah, it cost, but wasn't THAT overwhelming. A lightweight drug addiction (or a penchant for tithing) would be far more spendy.
My mother gave me some sage advice a couple of years ago, "Don't wait till you're too old to do some traveling. I'd love to do it now, but my knees and hips won't let me."
Words that ring in my ears.
So if you can possibly swing it, I say "Go now!"
October or November are great months for Japan. Or else wait till spring (sakura time, ne?), say, late March or early April. Summertime is to be avoided, way too hot and sticky. Fly into Tokyo and spend a day or two (do the Kabukizaa, Rippongi, and a few museums, take the train to Nikko for a day or so, then head down to Kyoto, see a few of the temples (Kinkakeji, Kyomizu, Toji, and maybe Ryuanji and Ginkakeji) and maybe a museum or two there. Eat lots of sushi, drink lots of sake, maybe take a day trip to Miyajima (see the Kintai bridge while you're there, it's close), and if you've got time, definitely go to Nara for the day. Then, when you're all Japaned-out, hop on the train for Narita and you're home in a matter of hours. Amazing!
What an age we live in, REALLY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
laleo,
I'm not sure what to say.
I know what I wrote of my experience and opinion may be hard on the ears.
But you seem quite determined to miss or ignore many distinctions I made
and have instead, whipped up a pile of ad hominen against me, personally.
Truth is, I am not even offended by that Christianity which you seem to want to champion.
I'll address what I wrote, not what you think I think about what I wrote.
Cuz defending "myself" against "you" seems awful futile on my part.
For what its worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oh yeah, I did have a "deathbed" experience, except it was in a car.
Last November an idiot who was looking at the map on his lap instead of the road (the road which contained a red light, by the way) blasted through an intersection and "t-boned" me.
As I looked out the window at the car heading toward my very small car at a fairly high rate of speed directly at the driver's side door I was convinced that I would be dead within seconds.
I did not convert/revert; I did not call out to God or Jesus. On the other hand I didn't curse God or reject him either. I remained in the same state of agnosticism that I was in when I left the house that morning. The one thought that I remember forming before the impact was "Oh well, it's been a nice life".
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Cynic: "Cushy positions" sounds fine by me, but only if I get to pick out the upholstery on the cabinets.
George: I'm going to print out your suggested itinerery. I'll make it there sooner or later. In the meantime, keep me posted on your travels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Laleo,
I second Oak's statement that your giving Zix too much credit. Though I see where you get that idea. It seems to me that many of his posts are contradictory. He makes statements like "They guess, but they have no good answer, because natural deduction is null without a nature to work with" but then pulls out his natural deduction and uses it as if it is his spiritual numbchucks. He comes true only after much proding and probing when he says, "The only difference is in the questions--our understanding of the answers is equally foggy, if we're honest." But prior to that statement and pretty much ever since he berates those of differing opinions, trying to justify his belief system and trying prove his superior logic. IMO This is his the only motive. He does it by using analogies or comparisons that many times people are unfamiliar with, all the while using language that is deceptive and disingenuous. Any points made by others are dismissed out of hand or are overshadowed by every minor mistake of which he decides to capitalised on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
At the risk of beating a dead horse....(die horse die!)
But hopefully being a little more clear.
Zix,
By "natural fact" I did not mean it occured in nature, so perhaps I mis-spoke. I was certainly misunderstood. Nor was my use of "jump" literal. In your example, "teleporting" does not guess at WHY an electron disappears in one orbit and reappears in another. The reasons are known, the perameters are set up by those setting up the experiment. Set up by people that have already "teleported" a photon (but not really in the sense that most trekies would think). It is all done by NATURAL means and is observable. Maybe not by the naked eye but at the very least is measurable. "Teleporting" is an eduacated guess at WHAT is happening. It is only plausible because we know a few things about electrons, like they exist as particles, as waves, as well as something like a haze of energy. It is a WHAT is happening claim. God is a not only a WHAT is happening but a WHY its happening, and a WHO is doing it claim. All of which are not educated guesses, because, as you pointed out, "natural deduction is null without a nature to work with". So it is just a guess. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:)-->
At the point of your death if God is not true, so could your notion of God being de facto. So we are back to your best statement ever which was
I like you much better when your honest. You may think you will be better off if you are right and I am wrong but if the Bible is true or at least one interpretation of the Bible is true, there will be a "second death" of which there is no return. Which is what I already believe happens after our first death, and I am totaly fine with that. If you are right, my first death will only be a sort of "near death experience" only to be followed by an actual death.
That is of course if one version of Christianity is true. As SirG said there are so many different brands.
So I ask you again, On your death bed would you plea for your life to all the other possible gods? There are a lot to consider and I doubt you know them all, so why not cover all your bases?
If you don't you are no different than the rest of us clinging to one unverifiable belief in the face of infinite possiblilities. Only the agnostic assumes that that they could be wrong and that it is most likely not possible to know which is right.
The question leads to Abigails other thread "Why Faith". We always end up here. It is Faith, no more no less. Why bother with all the attempts at verification of sudo-similarities. It all boils down to a belief in the invisible, unproovable, unverifiable. We all do it to some degree. No need to say mine is better than yours. Untill the cat is let out of the box we are all equally blind, equally right, and equally wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
lindyhopper:
I don't object to any of the points you have made. I'm not so sure of Zixar's point either. Oakspear gave a good summary a page or two ago, and pointed out some things I had missed or glossed over. Am I giving Zixar too much credit? Maybe. But at least he's presenting an argument (along with a few insults), and not just a blanket condemnation of what he might deem to be the opposing view. Anyway, teleporting and electrons are way over my head, and beyond my interest level, so I'll leave this to you guys to figure out.
Carry on.
sirguessalot: Like I said already, your opinions and experience are not "hard on the ears," at least not on my ears. What is difficult for me to accept is your pronouncements against Christians. When you arbitrarily decide what "most" Christians do or do not believe, it is a far cry from announcing what you do or do not believe, and your reasons for your own belief and/or unbelief. Again, I wouldn't object at all if you were talking about your own experience of Christianity -- if you are identifying yourself as once being a greedy, gluttonous, violent, wasteful Christian, I wouldn't object. Instead, you are identifying current, practicing Christians as such, simply because they are Christian. That is my objection.
For what it's worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Sir Guess,
I enjoyed much of what you expressed earlier.
Yet I feel compelled to second Laleo's observation in certain respects.
Perhaps the indignity only second to wearing a name tag is the indignity of people being judged or depicted or labeled en masse.
And as history has shown, terrible things have come out from such thinking, especially when, God forbid, it should catch on en masse.
But I don't think that's where you were coming from, mainly, in consideration of other lofty, admirable ideas you expressed. I think your mistake was one of clarification in regard to "this Christianity of the land" and "the Christian masses" (it's an easy thing to do in writing - I've made the same mistake before, and probably will do so before the end of this post - lol).
But in the end, regardless of the group, doctrine, movement, or even religion, quite a few of us are (I hope) concerned with individuals. There are jerks in all these groups, and there are fine people. It's probably true of any religion and spiritual movement.
Perhaps if you had stated, "a few Christians" or even "quite a few Christians of the land," the objections would not have arisen, and would have truer to the Spirit of what you were trying to express.
None of us here can really speak for all Christians or Christianity or Christianities, or for all Buddhists,
or for all Jews and Judaisms, and so forth.
There are most certainly shameful,dark episodes throughout Christian history, of humanity's inhumanity to humanity. And certainly there are widespread beliefs and approaches with which I don't agree, which in my opinion, could even be ultimately more harmful than good. But good-hearted, spiritual people do prevail and shine through all of it. Like Mother Theresa. Or Martin Luther King. Or Ghandi. And I'm confident new friends we've yet to meet.
On the other side of the coin, it does seem that "quite a few" Christians like to knock the "new age" thing. Or so, one might gain this impression when thumbing through Christian bookstore catalogues. Which I think is unfortunate. I think the new age movement is a healthy one, because throughout people are seemingly exploring, searching many different paths of spirituality. I would think or at least hope many Christians would see the "new age" movement more as an opportunity to join into the mix to "invoke the Good Spell," rather than getting all paranoid and conspiratorial and judgmental and stuff, at least along the lines of the books I saw advertised. Hopefully the subscribers are more sophisticated than these authors - I suspect they are.
But I'll see how I feel after November (lol).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dan -- nice.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oakspear: Well, since you had a relevant example, why did you waste so much time with personal attacks on me instead of just answering the question in the first place? "No, I wouldn't, because I already had a similar opportunity in a car wreck and didn't turn back to Jesus." No gray area to that answer, is there?
lindyhopper: The relevance of the teleporting electron example is that in order to construct a theoretical model of electron orbit transfer, the scientists are postulating an otherwise-impossible trait--teleportation--in order to make the model match current observations. Likewise, postulating the existence of a higher, supernatural being makes certain questions more conveniently answered, even though we cannot measure its behaviors, parameters, or even existence directly.
That does NOT mean that God can be proven via a process of natural deduction, and I have never said otherwise. Even Godel's Ontological Theorem makes a certain axiomatic assumption which is experimentally indefinite. It does mean, however, that by definition, natural deduction cannot disprove God either, since the definition of supernature precludes an encompassing natural explanation. Since nature is but a subset of any existing supernature, we have insufficient ability to define anything but natural phenomena in natural terms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Zixar:
Personal attacks on you are never a waste of time.
:D-->
Ya know, I think this is another of those discussions where differing assumptions and definitions are getting in the way of dialog.
Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it.
My position is that indecision, uncertainty, etc are not the same as rejection. It does not appear that you understand why I believe as I do, nor does it appear that you care to.
Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar? Whose remarks were described as "lawyering", and "pontificating"? Don't get on your high horse about personal attacks unless your innocent of them yourself.
And regarding the car wreck. I don't think about it that often. For the most part I put it behind me. When you first started bringing up "deathbed" conversions, frankly, it slipped my mind. When I did remember the incident, I decided to post it.
What would I do in the future. I don't know. I have not accepted Christ, nor have I rejected him. If death knocks on my door tomorrow, I can't tell you today what I would do. That's the gray area for me Zixar, whether you believe it or accept it or understand it or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thank you, Danny.
I think you nailed it/me pretty good.
sorry for the offense, laleo.
I was kinda shouting from the heart on the "why not" matter.
It was an unclear mix of general and specific.
I hope I can redeem myself here.
I did think of putting an asterisk or some such thing next to each utterance of "*Christian," referring back to the top of my post (which perhaps I should have clarified even more). Or craft a paranthetical statement to repeat each time the C-word is invoked. But I thought it would confuse things.
doh!
How can one simply point to field of flowers and hope to seperate the pansies from the daisies?
By describing what daisies look like, I guess.
* = accidental/unconsciously Christian, based more on mere group-affiliation, or an inherited civic religion and modern myth than an actual initiation of individual/group practice/discipline of Christ-like living (when and where this is the case).
I also thought of posting on the "why Christianity thread" to support the "Christianities" that bear good fruit in this very same land (and others). I still might, if I get a chance.
I don't name denominations either way, because every denomination has got to have consciously Christlike people in it somewhere. Some more, some less, I'm sure, as in all diverse things. There are Christian congregations and movements who have come together with an amazing depth of harmony and love and selfless giving.
Some of you may be a part of or have found such a place or group. Great.
Fruit is fruit = nourishment, against such there is no law or rule or distinction of names or languages to reasonly contradict or deny its presence. if its there, its there. If its not, its not.
I think most all Christians on this board do not even fit the *Christianity I speak of. We learned some hard lessons from TWI, which may be somewhat of a gift. Most here who approach Christianity again do so with more care and precision than before, which yields better results. Or even, with more recklessness, perhaps, if it was the overly anal nature of twi that burnt them in the first place.
---
From what I see and experience, is the term "Christianity" itself has been and is being abused by the majority, not just a few rotten eggs in a few churches. But this is old news.
Example: a genocide against the natives here was not carried out by a few rotten eggs in *Christianity. Nor were all Christians for it. But those who shoot, shoot, and those who don't, can do little about the shooters anyway (Cain versus Abel). In other words, those who use force will always win via force against those who do not use equal force. All perceptions of righteousness aside.
And imo, "abuse" is not some morally chosen sinful behaviour worth condemning. Condemnation comes all on its own, anyway (like Jesus said). In the form of illness, depression, poverty, etc... Especially in women, children, the elderly and animals and the environment (air, water, soil, flora, etc..).
So, by "sickningly" I mean just that. Pathological and chronic to the point of reeking. There are true and measurable reasons for it, but none worthy of shame and blame towards the ill. Perhaps some shame towards the ministers. But not even much there.
I mean, if there is pride being celebrated, then there is pride being celebrated, no?
If a lot of people are sick and unhealthy and depressed in our *Christian society, what is there to brag about? I have a half dozen *Christians in my life whose lives are falling apart even as they naturally cling to the dogma that may have gotten them there in the first place. I have a feeling this trend hasn't matured yet.
Of course, some *Christians say this trend IS because society is turning away from *Christianity. And so *they blame the ill non-*Christian for being suckered by the devil, and pardon the ill *Christian for being in the devil's crosshairs. Sound familiar? I hear it all the time now.
Its almost like VPs style of uber-self-serving hyper-Christianity has indeed infected an already struggling civic religion (again, not all people or groups are effected, though they may be outnumbered and not even know it.). W.O.W. and all.
If all kinds of anti-Christ selfish behaviour (i.e. opposite of the fruit of the spirit) is being justified because of the blood of the cross, it is being justified. "Jesus suffered so we don't have to" is not the unique idea of some cult.
And there is no mystical formula required to see or measure these things. Just talking to people and listening to their wants and needs will reveal all kinds of things.
Do they brag about how exceptionally good God is too them above all others, based solely on affiliation and or the "invoking of the magic messianic name?"
I think there are some good ole fashioned spiritual folks who claim Christianity. But let us say that 10% or 20% of Christianity are consciously and independently trying to follow Christ's teachings on living. That may seem like a small number, but if you do the math...its not. And perhaps its a larger or smaller number. Whatever. Its not the majority. And its not in any single denom or sect.
Fruit is fruit is fruit is fruit. It heals.
Most *Christians I talk to in my travels and relationships are mostly unfamiliar with their own holy scripture. Most of them. This is alarming. I am not talking about research stuff, or dogmatic stuff, but the basic lessons of gospels (like the beautitudes) and such any kid can pick up. And yet, they claim a moral superiority based mostly on their affiliations and membership. Its almost like a high for them, and they want you emotionally involved with it and them or they quickly reject you as somehow "lost" or "evil."
Sometimes I think we don't realize how much things have changed in *Christianity in so little time (i.e. a few decades). Sometimes I think we don't realize how much the world has changed in just as recently, in technological capability, integration of information, the collective mindsets, or in human evolution itself, in sheer magnitude of all things under the sun. Yet, the earth is more or less the same size as before.
And this seems worth mentioning: what I've observed and experienced with the "why nots" of *Christianity are in no way unique to *Christianity itself. In other words, *Christianity is not offering practical solutions to common problems that all share, and so *it suffers from the same things anyone will suffer from, given the conditions for such suffering.
This is my reason for "why not *Christianity."
I dunno. Read the health news, for example. What things are killing most Americans that are 90% preventable? How many of these Americans are professed *Christians? And these things have been going on for some time, in and out of the various Christianities. Not towards the empty blame of any people, but to see where healing and wholeness is simply not happening, for all kinds of people.
Again, this is an increasingly alarming trend, imo, perhaps only equalled by the often anti-spiritual cynicism of the reactionary *left. And so the wheels go round and round.
Other civic religions go through the same kinds of things, we're just new and huge and fast.
* = an accidental/unconsciously Christian, based more on an inherited civic religion and modern myth than an actual initiation of individual/group practice/discipline of Christ-like living.
peace,
Todd
p.s. I will claim full responsibility for things I didn't mention.
:D-->
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
invisible dan:
I dunno about the new age thing tho DAn. My observations have been its a pretty dark telescope they look thru and one that doesnt even have a lense. Of course i am ignorant about it mostly, my only experience was watching some "new agers" chanting i dont know what off a dock on a lake.
Pretty wacko stuff.
I think we all look for a day when there is a centrist beleif in truth. With so many fluctations in demoninations what is the problem? I dont think it is with God or the Gospel but rather with our sin nature and our flesh, that we have not walked "in paths of righteousness"
The best telecope for truth I think is to look in the mirror everyday and double check our own motives and ask God to show us the "error that is from within."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Zix, I never would have thought that you would post something that I would intentionaly say.
You think of it in a positive way, I think of it as not so positive.
As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeenient."
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Zix
Good points. That's what I am getting from these posts that guys like Oak and Geo have REJECTED Christ. Again, that's their right and decision.
Christianity is an exclusive faith and God is jealous of anyone that would come and steal the faith of his children.
But if the rejection is based on bad TWI experiences, I would again offer the olive branch, that most of what went on in TWI was NOT CHRISTIAN, that God is still calling and that Jesus will take you.
Don't let the works of some scam artists cause you to reject the Creator and his son.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Look, genius, if you WERE once a Christian, and now AREN'T, no amount of self-delusion will alter the fact that you REJECTED it."
There is a difference between rejecting it and questioning/doubting/revamping/reconsidering.
I was once a Christian, I no longer consider myself to be one - at least not in the common understanding and sense of the word as I understand its definition in our society and per mainstream Christianity.
Have I out and out rejected Christ? I don't think so. I have and continue to question and reconsider what I was once taught and believed about Christ. I no longer pray to him or in his name. However, I do believe in much of what I understand to be what he taught. And I have a different perspective from mainstream Christianity regarding what I think some of what he taught means.
I also continue to reconsider and revamp what I believe about God, our purpose in this life, and many other matters as well. This does not mean I have rejected God or believe we have no purpose.
Zix and Def, when you left TWI did you reconsider, revamp or reject any of what you were taught by TWI? If so, did you ever, after again reconsidering and revamping decide some of what you had rejected from TWI might have some nugget of truth to it afterall? Perhaps saw it in a different light?
Does that mean you rejected it or simply came to a different understanding of what it means? Or perhaps on some things, you are still in the process of considering and are simply not sure what it means?
BTW Zix,
I resent the negative connotation to "lawyering". Lawyers, although currently holding a bad rap, do serve a very needful purpose in this society. Ever been in need of one? It is good that lawyers can see many different perspectives and all sides of an argument, if they can't they won't be very good at their job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Christianity is an exclusive faith"
This is one of my major issues with Christianity and why I do not call myself Christian. It excludes too many wonderful and Godly people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.