Originally posted by BromageBromage,
I agree with you that if your will has decided that you don't believe that Christ can be known and that you certainly do not want to know Him even if it were possible, true your calling or reading of the Bible may be futile.
What is my point here you ask. My point in a Simple Way to Experience Christ is His availability should you WANT to experience His reality.
Since this is a public forum I of course anticipate some responses from people who in fact couldn't care less. To some of them the "availability" of Christ is of no point to them at all.
I moved from not caring to caring. And I think others might want to hear something about that.
Paul wrote to call on the Lord from a pure heart.
That means with a single motive to contact Jesus Christ, to contact God. Many times we are too complicated with too many motives. The pure in heart shall see God. It is important to call on His name with a single and pure motive to have God.
The Old Testament says to call on the name of the Lord with a pure lip.
This could mean that we should stop our impure speaking and instead call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Stop the impure cursing, the impure gossiping, the impure backbiting, the impure slandering. And instead call on the name of the Lord Jesus with lips set apart for God. We should call with a pure lip.
The New Testament also says we can call on Him in every place:
" ... to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place ..." (1 Cor. 1:2)
That means any time and any place. We do not have to make a disturbance. In traffic or while walking or just sitting or lying in a bed, we can utter "O Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus come into me. Lord Jesus I love you."
In every place we can experience Christ by calling on Him. Even in the midst of an argument you can utter "Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus I love you." Anytime and any place He is available to be experienced.
I don't know what the "O" does. Perhaps it makes one's heart very open to say "O Lord Jesus" or "Oh Lord Jesus". Uttering "O my Father. O Abba Father. O Lord Jesus" seems a wide opening of the heart sometimes.
To experience Christ you have to be willing to be changed by God. Christ will always change you. Christ will always transform you. He will always work to transform you into His own image:
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. But we all with unvieled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
God desires to transform us from one degree of expressing His life to another degree of expressing His life. From glory to glory to glory eventually transforming us into His own image.
So calling on Jesus to experience Jesus will cause us to be transformed to be like Jesus.
Originally posted by jaywillOkay, I can't argue with that. I appreciate your position and respect your beliefs.
Bromage,
I agree with you that if your will has decided that you don't believe that Christ can be known and that you certainly do not want to know Him even if it were possible, true your calling or reading of the Bible may be futile.
What is my point here you ask. My point in a Simple Way to Experience Christ is His availability should you WANT ...[text shortened]... moved from not caring to caring. And I think others might want to hear something about that.
B.
I think this bears repeating because it never crosses some people's mind that they can talk to God as a Person. And tragically many fail to grasp the simplicity of honestly pouring out their hearts in conversation to God.
The Psalm writer said "I love Jehovah because He hears my voice, my supplications, because He inclines His ear to me; Therefore I will call upon Him all my days ..." (Psalm 116:1,2)
The writer discovered that God heard his voice. This is revolutionary and yet profoundly simple. As one speaks to a friend so one can lift her voice to God. "I love Jehovah because He hears my VOICE ..."
The writer goes on to say this:
"The bonds of death encompassed me, And the distresses of Sheol fell upon me; I fell into trouble and sorrow But I called upon the name of Jehovah. O Jehovah deliver my soul ... Jehovah preserves the simple" (See Psalm 116:2-6)
The simplicity of realizing that God hears my voice led me out of a dark labyrinth of uncertainty about life. The Lord Jesus hears our voice.
The Psalmist refers to salvation to a drink which one can drink in from a cup.
"I said in my haste, all men are liars. What shall I return to Jehovah for all His benefits toward me?
I will take up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of Jehovah" (v.11,12)
We are surrounded by liars. Many philosophies of men are the so many lies of dying liars. The Psalmist found that salvation is drinkable. Salvation is like a beverage which he can quench his thirst with. He can call upon the name of God and drink in salvation. He can lift his voice and his supplication to God and be heard.
Originally posted by jaywillWas it a yes or no? You are obfuscating in an effort to evade this simple question.
Does this answer your question?
Let me try to spell it out a bit more clearly.
Given: We live in a secular state.
Thus: This state ought to avoid using a religious justification for prohibiting something.
Given: You have an opinion which is informed by your religious perspective.
Question: Should your religious perspective influence the way you vote in the secular state?
If you vote to oppose gay marriage on the basis of your religious perspective (which differs
from other that of other people), aren't you engaging in religious persecution?
That is: are you truly tolerant of gay marriage, or not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't see anything in this third rephrasing of your question which I have not addressed.
Was it a yes or no? You are obfuscating in an effort to evade this simple question.
Let me try to spell it out a bit more clearly.
Given: We live in a secular state.
Thus: This state ought to avoid using a religious justification for prohibiting something.
Given: You have an opinion which is informed by your religious perspective.
Q n religious persecution?
That is: are you truly tolerant of gay marriage, or not?
Nemesio
I reserve the right to give you more than a binary 1 or 0 (yes or no). I will give some accompanying explanation of my stance.
If you cannot derive my answer from what I have written you must be more interested in asking the question then actually hearing my answer.
I told you how I personally would vote in the system under which I happen to live. Given that my vote effected the legality of gay marriage, my vote at this time would be no.
I went on to say that I could live in a situation where I was outvoted and the majority said yes to gay marriage. I went on to say that if I found the situation beyond my ability to endure I would move to another place. That should translate to another country or to another system.
I am prepared to live in a state in which gay marriage is legal. My personal vote is to discourage it.
All this is repetition of what I wrote before. There is no evasion of your question.
Now let me ask you a question.
Those things in human life which the state cannot inforce, do you think that there is a final authority to which we must none the less be accountable to?
Do you feel that uninforcible things are things which a person will be accountable to a higher government than that of mankind?
You may qualify your answer. I don't insist on only a binary 1 of 0.
Originally posted by jaywill
I am prepared to live in a state in which gay marriage is legal. My personal vote is to discourage it.
To be clear: You would vote against gay marriage on the basis of
your personal religious views.
This does not strike me as 'tolerance.' I recognize that you are
willing not to be a sore loser if you fall into the minority at some
point (which is to your credit), but one of the criteria of 'tolerance'
(I think) is allowing people to do something you find to be immoral.
As an example, I am personally opposed to illicit drug use -- that is,
the hard core stuff (PCP, meth, e.g.) or chronic abuse of lighter stuff
(alcohol, marijuana, e.g.). However, I am equally opposed to laws
which make using this stuff illegal -- I think if people want to be
'irresponsible' or 'self-endangering' or whatever, that's their right and
decision.
I feel that religious opinions about gay marriage have no place in the
decision-making process of a secular state and that citizens have a
duty to their fellow citizens to ensure that their votes do not rely on
such a theological perspective (otherwise it is tacit religious persecution).
Those things in human life which the state cannot inforce, do you think that there is a final authority to which we must none the less be accountable to?
Yes.
Do you feel that uninforcible things are things which a person will be accountable to a higher government than that of mankind?
Yes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTo be clear: You would vote against gay marriage on the basis of
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]I am prepared to live in a state in which gay marriage is legal. My personal vote is to discourage it.
As an example, I am personally opposed to illicit drug use -- that is,
the hard core stuff (PCP, meth, e.g.) or chronic abuse of lighter stuff
(alcohol, marijuana, e.g.). However, I am equally oppose son will be accountable to a higher government than that of mankind?[/b]
Yes.
Nemesio[/b]
your personal religious views.
I don't think that it matters whether religion is the source of my vote or simply an ethical opinion. If I were not a person with spiritual beliefs ( which you might label as "religious" ) I might still vote that way.
Perhaps it is a conscience matter. Basically I don't think God is the God of religion. I think God is the God of reality.
But let me see what else you have to say below.
This does not strike me as 'tolerance.' I recognize that you are
willing not to be a sore loser if you fall into the minority at some
point (which is to your credit), but one of the criteria of 'tolerance'
(I think) is allowing people to do something you find to be immoral.
Perhaps you think "tolerance" toward gay marriage would only be represented in a yes vote encouraging it? If that is your criteria that only support of a thing represents tolerance, then I am willing to be labelled "intolerant" on this issue.
That's fine then. To your sense I am intolerant of gay marriage. I'll accept that. Happy now?
"Sore loser" is your phrase. I said nothing about my emotional reaction to realizing the state is going to take another way concerning it. I would assume that they do so believing, rightly or wrongly, that better order will be maintained by the allowing of gay marriage as opposed to not allowing it.
I would assume that they are just trying to maintain order for the most amount of people. Of course time is sometimes needed to bear out whether the assumption is true or not. Another generation may decide if the law was wise or not.
I feel that religious opinions about gay marriage have no place in the decision-making process of a secular state and that citizens have a
duty to their fellow citizens to ensure that their votes do not rely on
such a theological perspective (otherwise it is tacit religious persecution).
The problem with your thinking no religious opinions should have place in decision making process, I think is not wise.
First of all sometimes such decision could be in favor of things which you do appreciate and are for. In that case religious opinions might be in your favor.
Suppose religious opinions enfluence a law whether or not your particular race or ethnicity can be singled out for ethnic cleansing? If it were up to a vote would you ask all religious minded people to please not participate?
How can you assume based on one issue that religious people would never be on the same ethical side of an issue as yourself? And if not for you for your children after you some day, they might come down on your side.
Secondly, how much religion is religion? How are you going to measure who is religious and how much religion has influenced their participation in the political process? That seems a hard thing to do.
Do you want a law which mandates that no one can vote because of the influence of religion? And which religions are you going to exclude?
Some high court in the US has deemed Atheism as a religion. So atheist are not allowed to vote because of the enfluence of thier atheist views upon their political participation?
I'll cut this post here and look at your other comments latter.
Thanks.
Nemesio,
You wrote:
I feel that religious opinions about gay marriage have no place in the decision-making process of a secular state and that citizens have a
duty to their fellow citizens to ensure that their votes do not rely on
such a theological perspective (otherwise it is tacit religious persecution).
What country do you live in?
Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian who was opposed to Hitler's Nazism. Do you think it was better that Bonhoffer had less enfluence on the political process of that day? Do you wish that he had had more enfluence on people's thinking in those days?
I would prefer that Detrich Bonhoffer had had more and not less enfluence on people's political thinking in Nazi Germany.
I'm concerned about blanket generalizations trying to exclude religious enfluence from the policies of the secular state. I am concerned about tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
( I know I am not spelling the man's name correctly)
Originally posted by jaywillGoo.
You have a point. But getting to know Jesus is something like being in love for the first time of your life.
The very first time I liked a girl and she liked me I cannot for the life of me remember who started liking first. I just remember, wham, we liked each other.
My initial posts were about calling to the Lord Jesus with the expectation that He ist but that you do come to Christ.
My main point is that He is so [b]available.[/b]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, "Goo." translates to "Why, oh why, did I lay down my instrument to ponder that stupid moon?"
Similar to "D'oh!"
Originally posted by LemonJelloComing as a child does not mean that you have to be mentally retarded.
Goo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, "Goo." translates to "Why, oh why, did I lay down my instrument to ponder that stupid moon?"
Similar to "D'oh!"
Is that what you are trying to display, retardation?
Originally posted by jaywillIt isn't always advisable to fall in love, or to satisfy cravings, no matter how subjectively agreeable the psychological result might be.
You have a point. But getting to know Jesus is something like being in love for the first time of your life.
The very first time I liked a girl and she liked me I cannot for the life of me remember who started liking first. I just remember, wham, we liked each other.
My initial posts were about calling to the Lord Jesus with the expectation that He ...[text shortened]... ist but that you do come to Christ.
My main point is that He is so [b]available.[/b]
It wouldn't surprise me if wonderfully positive feelings arose from abandoning oneself to particular beliefs or rituals, from surrendering the responsibility of determining the means and ends of life autonomously. It would be a burden lifted, an imposition taken away. All uncertainty would cease, and conflicts would dissolve.
I bet all this is "available" if one goes through the necessary steps. The question is whether it would be objectively good to do so. There are costs: subversion of irrationality, extremist zeal, generally annoying the unconverted.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn hopes that we can somehow turn the questions and the argument into song? I thought I might be better at that this time around—but not... 😳
Goo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, "Goo." translates to "Why, oh why, did I lay down my instrument to ponder that stupid moon?"
Similar to "D'oh!"
“Today, like every other day, we wake up empty
and frightened. Don’t open the door to the study
and begin reading!
Take down the dulcimer...”
—Rumi
Originally posted by jaywill
Perhaps you think "tolerance" toward gay marriage would only be represented in a yes vote encouraging it? If that is your criteria that only support of a thing represents tolerance, then I am willing to be labelled "intolerant" on this issue.
That's fine then. To your sense I am intolerant of gay marriage. I'll accept that. Happy now?
Ahem. A 'yes' vote doesn't 'encourage' gay marriage. It permits
it. Do you think that keeping cigarettes legal 'encourages' smoking?
All a 'yes' vote does is support a person's right to do something, even
if that something is 'immoral.' That is what 'tolerance' is; it's not my
special magic definition.
However, a 'no' vote actively opposes it; it says: I don't care what
you believe, you can't do it. That is intolerant.
And, if you are indeed willing to be labeled 'intolerant' on this issue,
then you should reevaluate the sincerity of your comment encouraging
tolerance.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillNo, retardation is not what I was trying to display. I was merely commenting in an esoteric fashion that your beliefs are profoundly and rigorously silly. I opened that can of worms; so I was also berating myself in a way.
Coming as a child does not mean that you have to be mentally retarded.
Is that what you are trying to display, retardation?
You should know that "become as a child" is an oft misapplied analogy. And it ties in nicely with Patrick Nowell-Smith's thesis that "Religious morality is infantile." If I were an agent bent on commanding I would also tell you to become as a child: young children (not too young, mind you) are highly prone to subservient compliance with heteronomous standards. See, e.g., the work of Piaget.