Question for Christians

Getting to know more about a particular group

Moderator: Moderators

Do you disagree with God on any topic?

Yes
1
20%
No
4
80%
Never really thought about it
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Question for Christians

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

While the forum was down, I found this question elsewhere (can't remember where, else I'd give a link).
The gist of the question is: you follow/worship God but are there any issues where you believe God says one way, but you honestly believe the correct answer is another?
To give context, let's say you vote for Politician A. He stands for Political Issues A, B C, all of which you agree with. However, he also stands for Issue D, which you don't...however you don't let that stop you, you vote for him anyway.
Or to give personal context - I wholeheartedly agree with Divine Insight on most issues. However, I do not agree with him on the topic of Eastern religions...mainly because I've never really explored or studied said religions and so have no basis to say yay or nay on the topic.
Do you follow God but disagree to a greater or lesser degree on one topic or another?

I'd like Christians only to reply. No I will not debate in this thread, just want to see if there are any such Christians.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #11

Post by tam »

That is a bit different of a question, Rik. I think that the guy you quoted is not asking a deep enough question to properly form a conclusion. For instance, I have changed things that I have believed, when taught otherwise by Christ (who is the Truth and Word of His Father).

Including my former beliefs on homosexual people (that they were excluded from the Kingdom - at least if they were normal and acting on their sexuality), based on what men and religion teach. Christ taught me that it was not my business to begin with, and it was not Him saying that they were excluded or kept from belonging to Him. What I owe others - regardless of who they are and what they do - is love.

As well, I used to think the same stereotypes about atheists as some religions teach (that atheists were rejecting God and would also be excluded). Christ taught me otherwise on that as well. That there are those who are of the nations who have the law written upon their hearts and act naturally upon that love, and as such would also be invited into the Kingdom. (like the sheep from the sheep and the goats parable).


Those are just a couple of examples, but there are others.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #12

Post by Divine Insight »

tam wrote: That is a bit different of a question, Rik. I think that the guy you quoted is not asking a deep enough question to properly form a conclusion. For instance, I have changed things that I have believed, when taught otherwise by Christ (who is the Truth and Word of His Father).

tammy
I personally feel that there is a serious problem with this type of claim. The reason being that the person who makes this type of claim is actually claiming to "Speak for Christ" whether they realize it or not. They are basically suggesting that they are somehow in direct contact with an actual divine entity.

In the Church I grew up in no one would ever dare to make such a claim. Such a claim would be viewed as blaspheme. It would be a claim that the person is actually in contact with the divine Christ, whilst everyone else in the congregation is confessing honestly to merely believing in the Christ on faith.

In fact, the people in our church would often have discussions about the scriptures asking each others views on what they feel the Christ may have meant or intended in certain situations. Even our pastors confessed to having different personal opinions on various issues.

In short, even our Pastors did not arrogantly claim to have a direct hot line to a living Christ. No one in our church claimed to "Speak for Christ" or to "Speak with Christ". At best they might say something like, "In my heart I believe that Christ meant, this or that".

But that's nowhere near the same as saying that a live Christ "taught" them this.

Christ is dead. He can't teach anyone anything today. All any Christian can do is read the scriptures, chose their moral position on thing, and simply hope and pray that if there truly is a judgmental Christ he will be pleased with their choice of moral values.

But when a person makes the transition from merely claiming that they feel in their heart that Christ would be pleased with their moral values and judgments, to claiming that a living Christ actually taught them this, then they have moved from being a mere "faith-based believer" to proclaiming to be a prophet of the Christ. A prophet who is in direct contact with the Christ no less. Not unlike Paul.

Is this what you are actually claiming? Are you claiming to be some sort of actual contact with a living Christ who has actually taught you things beyond your mere faith?

Or do you just mean that in your heart you feel that surely the Christ would be in agreement with the things that you have personally concluded have the higher moral values?

Because if it's the latter, then you're no different from me. As much as the Christians might dislike what I have to say about Christianity, I feel in my heart that Jesus himself would actually support every word that I say.

From a religious point of view I could take the same position as you in claiming that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit have taught me every position I hold on these ancient scriptures as well.

I feel very confident that Jesus would support everything I say. I sincerely believe that Jesus would renounce many of the current day "Christian Clergy" precisely as he had renounced the Pharisees of his day.

I would go further and suggest that I personally believe that Jesus would support and applaud Pope Francis, but at the same time he would be as venomous toward the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general as he was toward the Pharisees.

But I would never claim that Jesus taught me these things. I simply feel in my heart that these views would be in harmony with Jesus if he were here today.

That's clearly not the same as having been taught these things by Jesus (or the Christ) if you insist on calling him that. I personally don't support calling Jesus "The Christ", and I feel just as strongly in my heart that Jesus himself would renounce that title as well. I don't see where Jesus himself ever claimed to be the special demigod Son of God. As far as I can see he never claimed anymore more than the Mahayana Buddhists claim, "We and the Father God are One". That's a given in any Pantheistic spiritual paradigm.

And that's what I believe that Jesus was attempting to teach.

But claiming what I believe Jesus may have been "attempting to teach" is not nearly the same as claiming that "The Christ taught me this".

The latter would make it sound like I've been deluded into thinking that I'm actually in contact with some divine spiritual entity who has confirmed for me some absolute truth. And that is a very dangerous road to go down.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #13

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

What you wrote in post 11 isn't what my question is about. You talk about your views on this topic or that topic changing because this is what Christ has taught you. As my OP stated, I'm looking for someone who believes in and follows/worships God/Jesus/Christ (whatever terminology they want to use)...but they honestly disagree with their god on one or more issues.
You described yourself as your views changing. You believed one thing about homosexuals and atheists, now you don't.

When I get home, I'll have a look for the post I took the question from, and quote it here.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #14

Post by tam »

Divine Insight wrote:
tam wrote: That is a bit different of a question, Rik. I think that the guy you quoted is not asking a deep enough question to properly form a conclusion. For instance, I have changed things that I have believed, when taught otherwise by Christ (who is the Truth and Word of His Father).

tammy
I personally feel that there is a serious problem with this type of claim. The reason being that the person who makes this type of claim is actually claiming to "Speak for Christ" whether they realize it or not.

Or they are just giving credit where credit is due. Rather than stealing; taking something for themselves that was given to them by Christ.
They are basically suggesting that they are somehow in direct contact with an actual divine entity.
Yes, as Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.
In the Church I grew up in no one would ever dare to make such a claim. Such a claim would be viewed as blaspheme.


Yes, and that just reinforces that religion is not from Him. Because Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice. That religion states that to claim to hear His voice would be blaspheme.

One of the two is wrong, and I would not place a wager on the claims of men over Christ. Especially as that claim of men is contradicted by the very book they claim to follow.

It would be a claim that the person is actually in contact with the divine Christ, whilst everyone else in the congregation is confessing honestly to merely believing in the Christ on faith.
Look at your sentence. A person who hears Christ only 'claims' to do so; everyone else who does not hear Him 'confesses honestly'.

I do hear the voice of my Lord Jaheshua, who is the Christ, who does live and who does speak.

Just because you do not believe it does not mean it is not an honest confession.

In fact, the people in our church would often have discussions about the scriptures asking each others views on what they feel the Christ may have meant or intended in certain situations. Even our pastors confessed to having different personal opinions on various issues.
Okay.
In short, even our Pastors did not arrogantly claim to have a direct hot line to a living Christ.



So... someone who waits and listens to Christ, for Him to teach them what is true - rather than rely upon their own interpretation and opinion - is arrogant? But the person putting stock in their own interpretation and opinion is humble?


Backward.
No one in our church claimed to "Speak for Christ" or to "Speak with Christ".


Well, I do not know what your church was, or what it taught. So I cannot speak to that. But this is not really a unique view. So I have to ask... if they cannot speak with Christ (your church or others), why in the world do people follow them? Believe their doctrines, their rules, their authority?


Please do not mistake me. Because no one should be following a person who claims to (or even does) hear from Christ. Such a person is a servant, and bears witness and points others to Christ; invites people to come to Christ.

Someone saying, 'hey I've got the truth, listen to me'... well, I would run from that person. Because God said "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."


At best they might say something like, "In my heart I believe that Christ meant, this or that".

But that's nowhere near the same as saying that a live Christ "taught" them this.
Agreed. That is not the same thing at all.
Christ is dead. He can't teach anyone anything today. All any Christian can do is read the scriptures, chose their moral position on thing, and simply hope and pray that if there truly is a judgmental Christ he will be pleased with their choice of moral values.
And there it is: what many religions teach, what many believe, even if they don't say the actual words 'christ is dead' even to themselves.

Because to them, He does not speak. They cannot ask Him questions and be answered. They cannot learn from Him. They must rely upon men, upon the bible (replacing Christ, the Living Word of God - with the written word, and falsely calling that book the living word of God), and upon religion.

They don't know that Christ is truly alive, truly living. The living SPEAK. His sheep hear Him.

But when a person makes the transition from merely claiming that they feel in their heart that Christ would be pleased with their moral values and judgments, to claiming that a living Christ actually taught them this, then they have moved from being a mere "faith-based believer" to proclaiming to be a prophet of the Christ. A prophet who is in direct contact with the Christ no less. Not unlike Paul.


A "faith-based" believer HEARS. Faith is based upon what is heard. Even the Bible testifies to this. Abraham HEARD, and believed (his faith made manifest by His obedience to what he heard). Noah HEARD and obeyed. Jacob HEARD and obeyed. Peter, Philip (the rest of the apostles as well), Paul, Ananias, etc. And of course there is Christ - who said that His sheep would hear His voice.

You do not have to be a prophet to hear the voice of Christ. You just have to be one of His sheep.
Is this what you are actually claiming? Are you claiming to be some sort of actual contact with a living Christ who has actually taught you things beyond your mere faith?
I am confessing that my Lord does speak. I do hear His voice. He has taught me many things. Yes. Absolutely. And not just me of course.

Or do you just mean that in your heart you feel that surely the Christ would be in agreement with the things that you have personally concluded have the higher moral values?
That, imo, would be arrogant of me. I make mistakes. My personal conclusions have been wrong on numerous occasions. I am learning the mind of Christ, not giving Him my mind.
Because if it's the latter, then you're no different from me. As much as the Christians might dislike what I have to say about Christianity, I feel in my heart that Jesus himself would actually support every word that I say.
Well, that is between you and Him. I know you are mistaken on some things - including that He is dead and does not teach- so I know He cannot support every word that you say. I don't know how anyone could think that they even could be correct in every word that they say. But perhaps you have a different meaning for the word 'support'?
From a religious point of view I could take the same position as you in claiming that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit have taught me every position I hold on these ancient scriptures as well.
You could make that claim. But since you have claimed otherwise (including that you believe He is dead), this would then be a lie. Right?

I feel very confident that Jesus would support everything I say.
I would not even make this claim of myself. Maybe that is because He has corrected me so many times, lol.
I sincerely believe that Jesus would renounce many of the current day "Christian Clergy" precisely as he had renounced the Pharisees of his day.
I agree with you on this.
I would go further and suggest that I personally believe that Jesus would support and applaud Pope Francis, but at the same time he would be as venomous toward the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general as he was toward the Pharisees.
I cannot agree with you on this. Because the Pope - no matter who he is at any given time - still supports that Vatican and Catholic Church. Sometimes the pope does some good things, and sometimes some bad things. His face changes. But the Vatican and Catholic Church remain, including the false teachings and the terrible things she has done - and the Pope (good or bad) supports her. The Pope continues to touch the unclean thing, calls others to remain in 'her', regardless of the harm that 'she' has done.

But I would never claim that Jesus taught me these things. I simply feel in my heart that these views would be in harmony with Jesus if he were here today.
I understand what you are saying. But that is the point that Rik was getting at wasn't it? That most men make God (or Christ) into his own image?

That's clearly not the same as having been taught these things by Jesus (or the Christ) if you insist on calling him that.


Correct. It is not the same.

I do not call Him "Jesus" because that is not His name and never was His name. I refer to Him as Christ (or the Christ) because that is accurate, even though it is not His name. But I also call Him by His name.

I personally don't support calling Jesus "The Christ", and I feel just as strongly in my heart that Jesus himself would renounce that title as well.


He did not renounce that title when others called Him the Christ (or Messiah). He praised Peter for having received and believed knowledge that He was the Christ, directly from God.

The other apostles knew and stated He was the Christ even before Peter and stated so, and Christ did not renounce the title, or correct them, either.

So on what basis do you have to believe that He would renounce the title, when He obviously did not on the many occasions that He had opportunity to do so?
I don't see where Jesus himself ever claimed to be the special demigod Son of God. As far as I can see he never claimed anymore more than the Mahayana Buddhists claim, "We and the Father God are One". That's a given in any Pantheistic spiritual paradigm.
I don't think that is the same claim.

Do they claim to be the Truth, the Life? The Image of God? To be the heir of the coming Kingdom? To be the only begotten Son of God?

And that's what I believe that Jesus was attempting to teach.
What teaching is that? That everyone is one with God? Christ did not teach that.
But claiming what I believe Jesus may have been "attempting to teach" is not nearly the same as claiming that "The Christ taught me this".
Agreed.
The latter would make it sound like I've been deluded into thinking that I'm actually in contact with some divine spiritual entity who has confirmed for me some absolute truth. And that is a very dangerous road to go down.

If it is untrue, yes. If it is true, no.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Last edited by tam on Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #15

Post by tam »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 11 by tam]

What you wrote in post 11 isn't what my question is about. You talk about your views on this topic or that topic changing because this is what Christ has taught you. As my OP stated, I'm looking for someone who believes in and follows/worships God/Jesus/Christ (whatever terminology they want to use)...but they honestly disagree with their god on one or more issues.
You described yourself as your views changing. You believed one thing about homosexuals and atheists, now you don't.

When I get home, I'll have a look for the post I took the question from, and quote it here.

I will wait for your clarification to respond then.

Peace!

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #16

Post by Divine Insight »

tam wrote:
I feel very confident that Jesus would support everything I say.
I would not even make this claim of myself. Maybe that is because He has corrected me so many times, lol.
But doesn't this speak to the very topic of the question of this thread?

If you had to be "corrected" by Christ so many times, then clearly you must have been in disagreement with Christ in many issues, until he "corrected" you.

The reason that I'm confident that Jesus would support everything I say is because I haven't found any disagreements between my views and those expressed by Jesus yet. There has never been a time when I felt that I needed to be "corrected" by Jesus.

This is not to say that I haven't changed my mind on specific issues. I have, but I wasn't "taught" to change my mind on those issues by Jesus. I simply came to realize my previous views on specific issues were based on faulty knowledge and understanding.

Also, it's important to realize that I did not even think of many of these issues in terms of "morality". For example, when I was young I used to renounce homosexuality as simply being, unnatural. No moral judgment required. I didn't view homosexuals as being immoral people, I simply viewed them as being "Freaks of Nature". However, I have since come to realize that even that view of life is extremely immature and uneducated. There can be no such thing as a "Freak of Nature" unless nature first has a "Master Plan". Otherwise everything that is created by nature is necessarily "natural".

Moreover, if there is a Creator God who had a "Master Plan" and he created homosexual people, then He would be the one who created "Freaks" relative to his very own "Master Plan" (assuming his Master Plan did not include homosexuality).

In fact, there are many problems of this sort when we postulate the existence of a Creator God who has a "Master Plan".
tam wrote:
I would go further and suggest that I personally believe that Jesus would support and applaud Pope Francis, but at the same time he would be as venomous toward the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general as he was toward the Pharisees.
I cannot agree with you on this. Because the Pope - no matter who he is at any given time - still supports that Vatican and Catholic Church. Sometimes the pope does some good things, and sometimes some bad things. His face changes. But the Vatican and Catholic Church remain, including the false teachings and the terrible things she has done - and the Pope (good or bad) supports her. The Pope continues to touch the unclean thing, calls others to remain in 'her', regardless of the harm that 'she' has done.
Well, the thing of it is that the Pope really has no choice in the matter. He couldn't enjoy the power of his current fame if it weren't for the Catholic Church. And without that power he would have been a nobody that no one would listen to.

So he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with. In fact, I would say that Jesus was in precisely the same position. Jesus could hardly renounce Judaism and the Torah. He had no choice but to work within the confines of that venue.

So Jesus was basically in the very same boat with the Pope. Had Jesus renounced Judaism and the Torah he would have quickly been dismissed as a "nobody" of no importance at all.
tam wrote:
But I would never claim that Jesus taught me these things. I simply feel in my heart that these views would be in harmony with Jesus if he were here today.
I understand what you are saying. But that is the point that Rik was getting at wasn't it? That most men make God (or Christ) into his own image?
This is what everyone does who claims to "follow" Christ. There are no exceptions to this.
tam wrote:
That's clearly not the same as having been taught these things by Jesus (or the Christ) if you insist on calling him that.


Correct. It is not the same.

I do not call Him "Jesus" because that is not His name and never was His name. I refer to Him as Christ (or the Christ) because that is accurate, even though it is not His name. But I also call Him by His name.
It doesn't really matter what his actual name might have been. Everyone knows who is being referred to today when the name "Jesus" is used. Therefore it serves it's intended purpose.

However, calling him "The Christ" implies that he was somehow "special" specifically in Christianity it basically means that he was the "Only begotten Son of God", born of a virgin woman that God himself magically impregnated.

I most definitely do not believe that the man (popularly referred to as Jesus) was the magically virgin-born demigod Son of Yahweh, and I'm not about to support that rumor.
tam wrote:
I personally don't support calling Jesus "The Christ", and I feel just as strongly in my heart that Jesus himself would renounce that title as well.


He did not renounce that title when others called Him the Christ (or Messiah). He praised Peter for having received and believed knowledge that He was the Christ, directly from God.

The other apostles knew and stated He was the Christ even before Peter and stated so, and Christ did not renounce the title, or correct them, either.

So on what basis do you have to believe that He would renounce the title, when He obviously did not on the many occasions that He had opportunity to do so?
You clearly place unquestionable trust in the New Testament Rumors to be infallible verbatim. I do not.

It's that simple. Jesus didn't even write those rumors. Nor did he instruct anyone else to write them down. Had he wanted something to be written down surely he would have written it down himself.

Apparently Jesus was a doomsday preacher. He clearly believed that the end was near. According to these rumors he stated that everything he prophesied would come to pass before the generation he was speaking to had passed. He even told various people that they would live to see his return. Clearly those rumors did not come true.

So I ask you, "Why chose to believe the rumors that Jesus agreed that he was the Christ or the Messiah when those same rumors have Jesus clearly stating that everything he predicted would come to pass within that generation?"

The latter most certainly never came to pass.

tam wrote:
I don't see where Jesus himself ever claimed to be the special demigod Son of God. As far as I can see he never claimed anymore more than the Mahayana Buddhists claim, "We and the Father God are One". That's a given in any Pantheistic spiritual paradigm.
I don't think that is the same claim.

Do they claim to be the Truth, the Life? The Image of God? To be the heir of the coming Kingdom? To be the only begotten Son of God?
All but the last one. But I don't see where Jesus claimed to be the only begotten Son of God? Where did he do that? As far as I can see, he actually renounced that when he was accused of blaspheme for claiming to be "One with the Father". When accused of that these rumors have Jesus pointing to the Old Testament where it says, "Have I not said ye are gods?"

Clearly that's a pantheistic defense, not a claim to be the "Only begotten Son of God".
tam wrote:
And that's what I believe that Jesus was attempting to teach.
What teaching is that? That everyone is one with God? Christ did not teach that.
According to the New Testament Rumors he most certainly did.

John 10:
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


This is his defense for having claimed to be one with the Father. His defense was not to say, "Yes, it is true I am the only begotten Son of God". To the contrary his defense was to point to the Old Testament and point out that anyone can claim to be one with god.

Not only this but he also supported the pantheistic view of life be claiming that whatever we do to the least of our brethren we do to him. This is simply to say that we are all ONE. Everyone is "one with God". Jesus was merely aware of this philosophy no doubt from some exposure to Mahayana Buddhism.

So yes, I do see where Jesus was proclaiming us all to be one with God, and I don't see where he was claiming to be any special demigod at all.

tam wrote:
But claiming what I believe Jesus may have been "attempting to teach" is not nearly the same as claiming that "The Christ taught me this".
Agreed.
The latter would make it sound like I've been deluded into thinking that I'm actually in contact with some divine spiritual entity who has confirmed for me some absolute truth. And that is a very dangerous road to go down.

If it is untrue, yes. If it is true, no.
Well, I don't think too many people are going to buy into the claims that someone is actually having a conversation with a 2000 year old mythical demigod.

Even the most respected Christian clergy don't claim to be actually having conversations with Christ. So do, however, the ones who do are typically seen as be seriously deluded even by the most respected Christians.

Claiming to be in contact with a mythical demigod is not likely to be taken seriously by anyone. Even the Pope doesn't claim to be having conversations with the Christ. And ironically he's actually SUPPOSED to be in direct communication with Christ.

But seriously, the quickest way to lose all credibility is to claim to be having actual conversations with Christ. Any modern day psychiatrist would clearly have problems giving anyone a clean bill of mental health if they are making such a claim. And rightfully so.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

tam wrote: Yes, as Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

tammy
I understand that it says this in the scriptures. But it also says,

John.14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Have you ever wondered why these words don't ring true?

Surely you don't claim to be able to do the works that Jesus had done, and even greater works than those?

If you could do that you should be at least as famous as Jesus supposedly was.

Modern doctors should be marveling over your magical healing abilities and your ability to raise people from the dead.

Why should anyone believe someone who claims that Christ speaks to them, yet they can't do what Christ prophesied that they would be able to do?

Can you blame them for being skeptical? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #18

Post by tam »

Divine Insight wrote:
tam wrote:
I feel very confident that Jesus would support everything I say.
I would not even make this claim of myself. Maybe that is because He has corrected me so many times, lol.
But doesn't this speak to the very topic of the question of this thread?

If you had to be "corrected" by Christ so many times, then clearly you must have been in disagreement with Christ in many issues, until he "corrected" you.
Your suggestion here does not take into consideration the fact that a person can be mistaken in what they think another person taught or meant. So it does not mean that I disagreed with Christ (or God). That denotes me saying "Hey, Lord (or God), I think you're wrong'. It simply means that I did not understand what Christ (or God) taught on the matter. So that my interpretation/understanding of what He or God taught/wanted was in error or incomplete.
The reason that I'm confident that Jesus would support everything I say is because I haven't found any disagreements between my views and those expressed by Jesus yet. There has never been a time when I felt that I needed to be "corrected" by Jesus.
And where do you look to learn these views expressed by [Jesus]? I ask, because below, you speak about the 'nt rumors'. So I am confused as to how you determine what Christ did or did not speak, teach, do. Especially since you state confidently that there are no disagreements between your views and the ones that He expressed. Expressed where?



tam wrote:
I would go further and suggest that I personally believe that Jesus would support and applaud Pope Francis, but at the same time he would be as venomous toward the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general as he was toward the Pharisees.
I cannot agree with you on this. Because the Pope - no matter who he is at any given time - still supports that Vatican and Catholic Church. Sometimes the pope does some good things, and sometimes some bad things. His face changes. But the Vatican and Catholic Church remain, including the false teachings and the terrible things she has done - and the Pope (good or bad) supports her. The Pope continues to touch the unclean thing, calls others to remain in 'her', regardless of the harm that 'she' has done.
Well, the thing of it is that the Pope really has no choice in the matter. He couldn't enjoy the power of his current fame if it weren't for the Catholic Church. And without that power he would have been a nobody that no one would listen to.
Exactly. But "...one cannot serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despite the other..."

In this case, some of [Jesus] teachings are promoted, but the RCC is promoted even more so. No one is being taught the truth... because either the pope does not himself know it, or he loves the one master (the rcc and all it gives him) more than Christ.

Perhaps he does not know the truth BECAUSE he loves the RCC more than Christ, and so cannot or does not want to know the truth about religion.


So he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with. In fact, I would say that Jesus was in precisely the same position. Jesus could hardly renounce Judaism and the Torah. He had no choice but to work within the confines of that venue.

The pope has to compromise the truth (if he does indeed know the truth) in order to remain in the RCC for its power. Christ never compromised the truth.


As well, the temple priesthood was sanctioned by God. Christ wasn't working within something that caused him to speak or act falsely.

So Jesus was basically in the very same boat with the Pope. Had Jesus renounced Judaism and the Torah he would have quickly been dismissed as a "nobody" of no importance at all.
He renounced the traditions of men that came from that system. He renounced the false teachings and the hypocrites teaching them. I don't really see the Pope doing much of that as Christ did. If he did, he would be removed from his position. In fact, he would never have gotten TO his position to begin with.

Which is another point... Christ did not rise in that system to become high priest, and then use that position to get people to listen to Him. He did not 'work' the system.


tam wrote:
But I would never claim that Jesus taught me these things. I simply feel in my heart that these views would be in harmony with Jesus if he were here today.
I understand what you are saying. But that is the point that Rik was getting at wasn't it? That most men make God (or Christ) into his own image?
This is what everyone does who claims to "follow" Christ. There are no exceptions to this.
I accept that this is your opinion. I cannot agree with it, however.
tam wrote:
That's clearly not the same as having been taught these things by Jesus (or the Christ) if you insist on calling him that.


Correct. It is not the same.

I do not call Him "Jesus" because that is not His name and never was His name. I refer to Him as Christ (or the Christ) because that is accurate, even though it is not His name. But I also call Him by His name.
It doesn't really matter what his actual name might have been.


Says who?
Everyone knows who is being referred to today when the name "Jesus" is used. Therefore it serves it's intended purpose.
Depends upon the purpose I suppose.
However, calling him "The Christ" implies that he was somehow "special" specifically in Christianity it basically means that he was the "Only begotten Son of God", born of a virgin woman that God himself magically impregnated.
Christ (messiah) means anointed one. THE Christ is THE Anointed One of God.

That is what it means.
I most definitely do not believe that the man (popularly referred to as Jesus) was the magically virgin-born demigod Son of Yahweh, and I'm not about to support that rumor.
Okay.
tam wrote:
I personally don't support calling Jesus "The Christ", and I feel just as strongly in my heart that Jesus himself would renounce that title as well.


He did not renounce that title when others called Him the Christ (or Messiah). He praised Peter for having received and believed knowledge that He was the Christ, directly from God.

The other apostles knew and stated He was the Christ even before Peter and stated so, and Christ did not renounce the title, or correct them, either.

So on what basis do you have to believe that He would renounce the title, when He obviously did not on the many occasions that He had opportunity to do so?
You clearly place unquestionable trust in the New Testament Rumors to be infallible verbatim. I do not.
Then I ask again, on what basis can you speak of any views that He expressed?
It's that simple. Jesus didn't even write those rumors. Nor did he instruct anyone else to write them down. Had he wanted something to be written down surely he would have written it down himself.
How do you know any of this?
Apparently Jesus was a doomsday preacher. He clearly believed that the end was near. According to these rumors he stated that everything he prophesied would come to pass before the generation he was speaking to had passed. He even told various people that they would live to see his return. Clearly those rumors did not come true.
Nor are those things that He said being understood by those who think He said He would return 2000 years ago.

So I ask you, "Why chose to believe the rumors that Jesus agreed that he was the Christ or the Messiah when those same rumors have Jesus clearly stating that everything he predicted would come to pass within that generation?"
I don't believe what you have stated here. He did not state that He was coming then and there.

The wicked generation (the one that asks for a sign) would not pass before He returns. The generation of those who belong to Him (those who are sons of God as well, having the same father) would also not pass before He returns. Both of these are still here on the earth. They will continue to be here until He returns. Both the wicked generation AND the generation of those who belong to Him, who are also sons of their Father in heaven, by means of holy spirit.


It is not about the timing... it is about the fact that there will be some of both on the earth when Christ returns.



tam wrote:
I don't see where Jesus himself ever claimed to be the special demigod Son of God. As far as I can see he never claimed anymore more than the Mahayana Buddhists claim, "We and the Father God are One". That's a given in any Pantheistic spiritual paradigm.
I don't think that is the same claim.

Do they claim to be the Truth, the Life? The Image of God? To be the heir of the coming Kingdom? To be the only begotten Son of God?
All but the last one. But I don't see where Jesus claimed to be the only begotten Son of God?


"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

tam wrote:
And that's what I believe that Jesus was attempting to teach.
What teaching is that? That everyone is one with God? Christ did not teach that.
According to the New Testament Rumors he most certainly did.

John 10:
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


This is his defense for having claimed to be one with the Father. His defense was not to say, "Yes, it is true I am the only begotten Son of God". To the contrary his defense was to point to the Old Testament and point out that anyone can claim to be one with god.

Not only this but he also supported the pantheistic view of life be claiming that whatever we do to the least of our brethren we do to him. This is simply to say that we are all ONE. Everyone is "one with God". Jesus was merely aware of this philosophy no doubt from some exposure to Mahayana Buddhism.
You say 'no doubt' when there is obviously doubt.

Also, in that parable, what He actually said is that whatever one does for even a least one of HIS brothers, one does for him.

Christ did not teach that everyone was one with God. Otherwise He would not have prayed that we MAY be one.
tam wrote:
But claiming what I believe Jesus may have been "attempting to teach" is not nearly the same as claiming that "The Christ taught me this".
Agreed.
The latter would make it sound like I've been deluded into thinking that I'm actually in contact with some divine spiritual entity who has confirmed for me some absolute truth. And that is a very dangerous road to go down.

If it is untrue, yes. If it is true, no.
Well, I don't think too many people are going to buy into the claims that someone is actually having a conversation with a 2000 year old mythical demigod.
I would not buy those claims either. Myths are not real and so cannot speak. But your opinion that Christ is a myth is not mine. Obviously.
Even the most respected Christian clergy don't claim to be actually having conversations with Christ. So do, however, the ones who do are typically seen as be seriously deluded even by the most respected Christians.
So?

The pope was respected for many centuries (or the office at least). But that office (and the pope) did horrible things.

But is it praise (respect) from men we are seeking? Or praise from Christ and God?

Christ was not respected by much of the 'clergy' of His day either. Even though they could not prove Him or His teachings false.
Claiming to be in contact with a mythical demigod is not likely to be taken seriously by anyone. Even the Pope doesn't claim to be having conversations with the Christ. And ironically he's actually SUPPOSED to be in direct communication with Christ.
Isn't it interesting that so many will follow and obey those who do not believe that Christ speaks and so admit to not being taught by Him? Even to the point that they will disown family members, kill people, shun people, sacrifice their children to a 'no blood' policy, etc... all because those men, who cannot hear from Christ, tell them what to do?

It boggles the mind a bit.


Peace again to you DI,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #19

Post by rikuoamero »

Okay, so here's where I got the OP question from
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47124
So, this is a question for the religious out there, those who have no faith or do not believe in some transcendent being that can approve or disapprove of things, will find this ludicrous.

On what issue do you disagree personally with God, even if you still defer to his judgment?

What I mean is, like for example on a Battlefield, a Soldier may disagree personally with the strategy of the Generals, but still defer to their authority and trust their judgment and follow orders even if they personally have a different opinion.

Right, so I am not saying when/on what issues do you disobey God, I am assuming you follow God’s guidelines to the best of your ability, but on what issues do you personally feel different than the religious position, but on which you go ahead and adhere to the religious position anyway out of respect for God’s Authority.

For example: Maybe you personally know some gay people and find absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, but you go ahead and discourage/do not practice/try to prevent homosexuality anyway because God says so.

That’s just one example.

I heard a person make the point, “Isn’t it weird how God always believes exactly the same thing you do? No matter what the issues is, God always seems to feel about it exactly the same way you do, even if other people with the same religion and the same holy texts feel different, you each come up with ways to tell yourself God agrees with you. Could it be that God is merely a projection of your own preferences and prejudices?

That seems like a pretty secure theory to me, I do believe that God is simply a projection of what people already prefer and believe anyway, an excuse to give their personal world-view some kind of divine authority. If this were NOT true, if God really did have a separate and independent set of standards and expectations, then you would expect there to be people out there who follow those standards and expectations even if they don’t personally agree. But you never see that do you? If you hate gays, god hates gays. If you are ok with gays, god is ok with gays. If you think the death penalty is wrong, then god thinks is wrong, if you think it’s right, God thinks its right. If you think pork is taboo, so does god. If you think pork is tasty, then God is ok with pork.

So, I am fishing for some Christian out there who feel one way about an issues, but defers to God’s judgment despite their personal disagreement.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 660 times
Contact:

Re: Question for Christians

Post #20

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

No, that would be presumptuous to the extreme. I maybe don't understand everything He says or does, but if that is the case I assume it's me that has to learn more or adjust not God.

Disagreeing with God would be like disagreeing with gravity - foolish, potentially dangerous and possibly deadly.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply