Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An Experiential Faith

2»

Comments

  • #32
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote:
    Who is your spiritual leader?

    My spiritual leader is Jesus, but you are evidently referring to someone else who is into killing people. Hence my question.

    If you tried to be a little less aggressive you might find people could understand you better. Just a suggestion.

    You also appear to be arguing that Christians should not be allowed to comment when other Christians are tortured for their faith. Am I interpreting you correctly?


  • #33
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote:
    My spiritual leader is Jesus, but you are evidently referring to someone else who is into killing people. Hence my question.
    I am not, my point is clearly consistent with scripture. I did not say Jesus killed people I said and I wish you would read it clearly: 'Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader.'
    Can you do that or must you equivocate to eternity?
    If you tried to be a little less aggressive you might find people could understand you better. Just a suggestion.
    Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?
    You also appear to be arguing that Christians should not be allowed to comment when other Christians are tortured for their faith. Am I interpreting you correctly?
    No, of course they should be allowed to comment and their views should also be allowed to be commented on.


  • #34
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Tim Robbins wrote:


    Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?
    .

    You are equating Christianity with killing and murder. You have not told us who you mean by spiritual leader.

    Where do you stand on abortion?


  • #35
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote:
    I am not, my point is clearly consistent with scripture. I did not say Jesus killed people I said and I wish you would read it clearly: 'Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader.'
    Can you do that or must you equivocate to eternity?
    This is getting surreal. I didn't say anything about Jesus killing people. I said that Jesus was not "into" killing people. That means He did not advocate killing nor did He endorse killing people.

    Tim Robbins wrote:
    Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?
    .
    No, you are aggressive because you appear you appear to be incapable of having a reasoned conversation without being rude.


  • #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I take it Tim Robbins is satisfied with my interpretation of Luke 19:27 then, as he clearly has nothing to come back with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Jakkass wrote:
    I take it Tim Robbins is satisfied with my interpretation of Luke 19:27 then, as he clearly has nothing to come back with it.
    I am sure when he comes back from vacation he will have something to say:)


  • #38
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote:
    As my daughter sang, hundreds of people were weeping all over the place. Not tears of sorrow, but of joy and thankfulness. I marvelled that the little baby that I held in my arms in a hospital delivery room 18 years ago has grown up to be a gracious, sensitive young woman that can minister so effectively into the lives of others. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a few tears myself.

    Wow this thread went off track very quickly...

    What I would say to the atheists here, at least wait until the Christians say something inaccurate or objectionable before we start in on them. PDN was sharing a wonderful experience with people, I don't think there was much need to demand that he justify killing in the name of his religion on this thread. I certainly have no objection to asking him to justify it on other threads when the thread is about morality and Christianity, but there is no context for it on this thread.

    Back to the original post, I think that is wonderful PDN.

    The only thing I would say is that you would no doubt feel exactly the same about your daughter if you were Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim (or Atheist) so possibly the direction of your thanks should maybe go to the relationship with your daughter and yourself rather than your god.

    I say this only because I sometimes get the feeling on this forum that Christians here believe that everything they experience is some how more intensive or profound that what people in other religions or cultures experience, because they are Christian.

    I touched on that briefly in another thread when I asked what do Christians here think happens to members of other religions when they have a "religious experience"


  • #39
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    OP, thank you for sharing your beautiful moment.

    I bet you are starting to regret posting it in here though. This forum, sadly, is becoming a refuge for the po-faced. As Scofflaw so nicely reminds, this is a place for discussion of christianity. It is not a banner stand.


  • #40
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Jakkass wrote:
    Well I see Luke 19:27 as the following, after reading the entire passage instead of picking out chunks which are favourable as Tim Robbins has done.

    Firstly, this is discussing faith, and if you make an effort to believe and trust in Jesus (as our King), He will reward you for your efforts and your devotion to Him. In regard to those who don't, He is claiming that they will be punished for rejecting HIm when it comes to judgement day. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Again, this is just my interpretation. But the King is meant to be Jesus, and the people who collected the money a representative sample of how much people were willing to show their devotion to Him. I don't see anything horrifying about God judging those who rejected Him.
    Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
    I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?
    Well the King in the story is advocating violence and murder. If the King is meant to represent Jesus does this mean Jesus advocates it?
    Well it's impossible to say. It's subjective really. It's a bit violent for my liking. But I don't think one can conclude that the Jesus that Luke tells us about, advocates violence just because the King in parable does, which for me is a good thing. But I still don't like the hint at it.
    I changed my mind about this scripture following a lively and intelligent debate in the excellant atheist forum while I was banned in this one.


  • #41
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote:
    Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
    I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?
    Jesus is God. God clearly advocates violence, the Old Testament is full of violence. Jesus then clearly does advocate violence.

    On the other hand God, though Jesus, appears to instruct his followers not to use violence unless told to do so by God. They are not to take violence into their own hands, on their own judgment.

    So it is can be argued that the Bible teaches that violence is only acceptable if God instructs you to use violence.

    The problem of course with that is that throughout history men and women have believed that God is instructing them to use violence, and therefore they can rationally justify these actions within the framework of the religion.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Tim Robbins wrote:
    Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
    I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?
    Well the King in the story is advocating violence and murder. If the King is meant to represent Jesus does this mean Jesus advocates it?
    Well it's impossible to say. It's subjective really. It's a bit violent for my liking. But I don't think one can conclude that the Jesus that Luke tells us about, advocates violence just because the King in parable does, which for me is a good thing. But I still don't like the hint at it.
    I changed my mind about this scripture following a lively and intelligent debate in the excellant atheist forum while I was banned in this one.
    You fail to understand that Jesus indeed is God. If Jesus is meant to represent this King, then the King is representing God. The King is giving God's judgement on those who hate and despise him. God is the ultimate judge, he is the only one who has any right to punish another. He is punishing those who reject him. He isn't encouraging anyone else to use violence, as God is the only one who is punishing in Luke 19:27. I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.


  • #43
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Jakkass wrote:
    You fail to understand that Jesus indeed is God. If Jesus is meant to represent this King, then the King is representing God. The King is giving God's judgement on those who hate and despise him. God is the ultimate judge, he is the only one who has any right to punish another. He is punishing those who reject him. He isn't encouraging anyone else to use violence, as God is the only one who is punishing in Luke 19:27. I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.

    Since you're very definite about that - what of those who never heard the Word? Are the Maoris to be punished because the Word of God didn't reach them until the nineteenth century? Did they really reject God in any meaningful sense?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #44
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    They don't hate or despise God since they never knew Him.
    Infact Mark 16:15-16 claims that the desciples should spread the word throughout the world. those who believe will be saved and those who don't will be condemned.
    Personally, I would interpret that as if the people reject God on hearing about him, they will be condemned. However I could be totally wrong. Considering that it comes after "Go throughout the world"


  • #45
    dreamingoak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭dreamingoak


    Tim Robbins wrote:
    Fair play, an interesting post.
    How do you feel about the violent aspects of Christianity such as Luke 19:

    'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me'

    More info on cruelty:
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

    Christianity more violent than Islam:
    http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

    That wasnt god. that was someone abusing His name. we have to use common sense and personal authority!


  • #46
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    dreamingoak wrote:
    That wasnt god. that was someone abusing His name. we have to use common sense and personal authority!

    Isn't that exactly the the Bible teaches you not to do?


  • #47
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,935 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Jakkass wrote:
    I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.
    punishing how?


  • #48
    Tadeo Screeching Visitation
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Screeching Visitation


    Wicknight wrote:
    Isn't that exactly the the Bible teaches you not to do?
    That's what they've been telling us...


  • #49
    dreamingoak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭dreamingoak


    I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.[/QUOTE]

    eek! Would you, should you punish a child for rejecting his parent? A good parent leads and teaches by loving example, and loving guidance, not by scaring a child into submission! I once asked my own father, as a teenager to explain why he felt it was reasonable to beat a child, but not an adult. He could not give me a clear answer, but it boiled down to " because the child has no one to defend him. I am bigger, and I have complete authority over him. I will command his respect, then he will do as i say"

    This whole problem comes form a confusion of the words 'respect' and 'fear'.
    We want a child to listen and learn from us because they trust our judgment and can see that we are good wise loving parents who can guide them well. That is Respect.

    A child who does as we say for fear of reprisals, is not open hearted and therefore cannot truly learn, they cannot think and reason for themselves. Their fear of us keeps them quiet and obedient perhaps, but the good parent wants more than obedience, he wants the child to blossom and achieve his potential, as I believe our God wants for us.

    I do not fear God, but I do respect Him.


Advertisement