Originally posted by karoly aczel
As to his supposed divinity I am not opposed,(for the purposes of this conversation).

C.S. Lewis seems to have left out a few alternatives, (ie" Either this was and is the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse" ), what about just a "Good man", what about a bhoddisatva? He could've been a magician or an alien- the possibilties are endless. ...[text shortened]... nding of "God" and spirituality as much as say a typical hindu would.

We seem to be moving away from Islam somewhat , but at least you understand that the issue of who Jesus was is crucial both in the Muslim pill question and other questions.

It always amazes me how those interested in Spirituality/God fail to see just how radical Jesus' claims were. You claim that CS Lewis lacked imagination but you do not see the point he is trying to make. He is saying that people put a kind of nicey , nicey veil of Jesus and say he was a "good man" or a "spiritual teacher" - when they haven't grasped the awesome nature of his claims.

His claims were always bold , exclusive and sometimes divisive (eg he who is not for me is against me). A man who claimed he would return at the end of time to judge all mankind before the throne of almighty God is not some ordinary "bhoddisatva". A man who claims that when you hurt another human being you are hurting Him personally? Ooops! A man who says that when 2 or 3 are gathered in his name there he is with them? A man who claims to intercede for all men before God and to be the only channel to God?

A good man? No No No! Away with such fudgery!!! What CS Lewis invites us to do is confront our own self deception and see who He is claiming to be. This may be terribly uncomfortable , but truth sometimes is. I don't think you have really realized just how radical this man Jesus was. He was either as supreme egotist or the son of God. This is what many people don't want to face because to do so would mean rejecting Jesus or accepting Him. We don't want to put on the line with the whole thing. We prefer to patronise Him. Even I do it sometimes!



BTW- As for trying to secretly convert you? - this is always the Christians dilemma - we have an amazing truth (The truth) to share that the world does not want to hear . If we are explicit about this then we are accused of being evangelical and arrogant , if we are subtle about it then we are seen as devious in our attempts. It's a no win situation - but I will try and be up front. You said that you had seen the "Jesus magic" at work - what I believe you saw was the Holy Spirit at work. It pricked my ears up and somewhere I felt that you might be open to hearing the Truth. If I am right you will feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit adding weight to my argument , if I am wrong you will probably think I am rather pompous?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it makes no sense at all. You start by telling us about a catch 22 where you must take the pill before knowing whether it is true or not.
Now you seem to have chosen the Pill that either appealed to you the most. What is not clear is whether it appealed to you because you think it is factual, or it appealed to you aesthetically. Did you choose t u don't state them as someone who has a Christian pill and a Muslim pill and has to choose.

Now you seem to have chosen the Pill that either appealed to you the most.

--------whitey--------------------

You are misrepresenting me. I have outlined the reasons why the Christian pill seems much more reasonable and logical than the Muslim pill based on a number of factors. Either directly dispute my reasoning or stop misrepresenting my position.

In addition , regarding the catch 22 claim I am not saying that you have to take the pill first in order to find out anything. I am suggesting that there are a series of steps to take. The matrix analogy only works to an extent. It's probably valid once a Christian gets to the stage where the Holy Spirit is prompting them to give their lives to Jesus. Until one is lead to that point a series of smaller pills might need to be taken.

IMO God has set things up so that if you really want to know Him you can reach out to Him and he will show you. However , everything is in relation to the steps you take. If you dip your toe in the water you will get some revelation but only in proportion to your tentative faith. You jump in and He will soak you in revelation. You choose to stay 100% sceptical and you will know very little. It's up to us.

The fact that you are even on this forum exposing yourself to Christian ideas suggests that somewhere in your soul is a desire to find out something. Maybe even you are toe dipping? I expect that you will have a reaction to this very idea. This is your pride and resistance to the Holy Spirit balking at the idea that you might be being led by God.


I notice also that you seem to hate the idea that your soul knows something intuitively that your mind cannot comprehend. This is because you have over invested in your intellectual / scientific approach and your soul threatens this position. I fully expect you to hate this very idea (I did once) It's because your intellectual pride is threatened by it. The way God reveals Himself is always humbling to our pride.

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

Mark Yaconelli - On the soul YouTube

It always amazes me how those interested in Spirituality/God fail to see just how radical Jesus' claims were. You claim that CS Lewis lacked imagination but you do not see the point he is trying to make. He is saying that people put a kind of nicey , nicey veil of Jesus and say he was a "good man" or a "spiritual teacher" - when they haven't grasped the awesome nature of his claims.

I would like to add to this truth a bit of Old Testament typology because a picture is worth 1,000 words. How to take Christ is the issue.

In Exodus 12:8 the children of Israel were instructed as to the proper way to eat the Passover lamb which of course signified Christ. The lamb was to be roasted with fire.

"And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire ... Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire ..." (See Exodus 12:8,9)

"[R]oasted with fire" here signifies God's holy wrath exercised in judgment. When Christ was on the cross, the holy fire of God judged Him and consumed Him as He carried up man's sins in His body on the tree.

We are to take Jesus Christ as One judged upon Calvary by the holy and divine judgment of God for our sins - roasted with fire. That is the way to "eat" the Son of God - ie. to take Him into our hearts.

In Psalm 22:14 and 15 the prophetic utterance concerning the suffering of Christ included these words - "My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws." Then He cried, "I thirst" (John 19:28), because on the sinner's behalf Christ was being burned by the holy fire of God's judgment.

Not to be Eaten Raw

In Exodus 12:9 the children of Israel were charged not to eat of the Passover lamb raw. Today those who do not believe in Christ's redemption attempt to eat Jesus Christ "raw." To eat the Lamb of God "raw" means to regard Christ merely as a model or example of human living for them to imitate.

Some humanistic minded people speak of Christ in this manner. They regard Him as a good model of a person to imitate. They try to eat the lamb raw. But God instructs the believers to take Christ in as having been roasted in the fire of divine redemptive judgment for the sins of mankind.

Paul writes "Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ( 2 Cor. 5:21)

Not Boiled with Water

Also in Exodus 12:9 the symbolic lamb was not to be eaten boiled with water. To eat Christ as if He were "boiled in water" is to regard His death as not for redemption , but as mere heroic martyrdom. Many people do not believe that Christ died as the Redeemer. In their humanistic concept, Christ was persecuted by man and died as a martyr, having sacrificed Himself for His teachings.

To try to take Jesus as merely a heroic martyr like a Leon Trotsky or a Socrates is to eat the lamb boiled with water. To be boiled with water is to undergo suffering, but not the suffering of the holy fire. This way of trying to take Christ denies His divine redemption for the sin of the world in favor of taking His death as a mere suffering of persecution.

The Christian must take Christ as the One who suffered on the cross under God's judgment - "roasted with fire". The fire of God's wrathful judgment against sin was accomplished upon Christ on our behalf. He was judged for us.

This is the ordained way to receive Christ. The modernists way to take Christ as an example to imitate humanistically is to take the Lamb of God "raw". This is blindness and often mere rebellion against the word of God.

The true way to "imitate" Jesus Christ is to allow the resurrected Christ as the life giving Spirit to live within one's heart. To receive the available resurrected Christ in His form as Holy Spirit is the God ordained way to receive and truly imitate Christ - that is let Him saturate our personality with His presence.

Then those who take Christ as merely a persecuted martyr attempt to take the Lamb of God boiled with water. This is to regard the Son of God's death merely as a persecution and martyrdom for His teachings. This unbelief regards only man's persecution as the cause of His suffering and death. This is to eat the Passover lamb boiled with water.. But if you believe that He died as man's Redeemer, being roasted by the holy fire of God, then you eat Him as the Passover lamb roasted in fire.

As Peter also writes: "Who Himself bore up our sins in His body on the tree, in order that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose bruise you were healed." (1 Pet. 2:24)

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are misrepresenting me. I have outlined the reasons why the Christian pill seems much more reasonable and logical than the Muslim pill based on a number of factors. Either directly dispute my reasoning or stop misrepresenting my position.

And those reasons appeared to me, to be as I described. Instead of simply accusing me of misrepresenting you, try explaining why you think I am misrepresenting you. In what way am I wrong? I think you will find that I am, in fact, correct.

The fact that you are even on this forum exposing yourself to Christian ideas suggests that somewhere in your soul is a desire to find out something.
There are many reasons for me being here. A desire to become Christian is not one of them. I also study Chinese. Does that mean Chinese is really a god in disguise? Or does it mean I enjoy learning?

Maybe even you are toe dipping? I expect that you will have a reaction to this very idea. This is your pride and resistance to the Holy Spirit balking at the idea that you might be being led by God.
You suspect wrong.

I notice also that you seem to hate the idea that your soul knows something intuitively that your mind cannot comprehend.
No, I don't hate the idea. I do however suspect it. ie if I think my soul knows something intuitively, I like to try to back it up with logic and evidence. Just believing in fairies does not cut it.

This is because you have over invested in your intellectual / scientific approach and your soul threatens this position.
No, its because experience has taught me that intuition is unreliable and that science is reliable. Simple as that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In addition , regarding the catch 22 claim I am not saying that you have to take the pill first in order to find out anything. I am suggesting that there are a series of steps to take. The matrix analogy only works to an extent. It's probably valid once a Christian gets to the stage where the Holy Spirit is prompting them to give their lives to Jesus. Until one is lead to that point a series of smaller pills might need to be taken.

So you are changing the whole premise of the thread?
In a moment you will be telling us that your faith is actually evidence and logic based.

You still haven't actually given us a single answer to the Muslim pill question. Instead you are avoiding it and trying to make it a logic answer. Breaking it down into infinitesimal pills simply doesn't solve the problem. Slow delusion is still delusion - and multiple pills is just as arbitrary.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are changing the whole premise of the thread?
In a moment you will be telling us that your faith is actually evidence and logic based.

You still haven't actually given us a single answer to the Muslim pill question. Instead you are avoiding it and trying to make it a logic answer. Breaking it down into infinitesimal pills simply doesn't solve the problem. Slow delusion is still delusion - and multiple pills is just as arbitrary.

You still haven't actually given us a single answer to the Muslim pill question.

----------------------whitey----------------------------------

I think the most polite statement I can make about this is that it is 100% incorrect. Why do you say such things? Did you miss my post? (it happens)

I have explained the differences between Islam and Christianity and also explained why I think that the Muslim interpretation of Jesus in disingenuous. I have also described how Islam relies on a set of rules and instructions (legalism) rather than God's grace and power.

BTW- The reason why I said you misrepresented me was because you were suggesting that I chose the Christ pill because it was more "appealing". This makes it sound as if I was cherry picking , whereas in fact I have described logically and reasonably the fundamental problems with Islam. Naturally , we all make choices on what appeals to our reasoning and logic , if this is what you meant then fine.


Maybe you would care to go back to those posts where I responded to karoly and tell me why you might think my arguments are not reasonable. I'm quite happy to go into depth on this question , it's very solid ground for me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And those reasons appeared to me, to be as I described. Instead of simply accusing me of misrepresenting you, try explaining why you think I am misrepresenting you. In what way am I wrong? I think you will find that I am, in fact, correct.

[b]The fact that you are even on this forum exposing yourself to Christian ideas suggests that somewhere in your s ...[text shortened]... rience has taught me that intuition is unreliable and that science is reliable. Simple as that.

No, I don't hate the idea. I do however suspect it. ie if I think my soul knows something intuitively, I like to try to back it up with logic and evidence. Just believing in fairies does not cut it.

-----------whitey--------------------

Why do you say such things. We are not talking about fairies , we are talking about spirituality and enlightenment , knowledge of which emerges in all cultures and continents. Spirituality is not superstition , it is an awareness of the soul and the essentially spiritual nature of man. Reject such wisdom if you so wish , but mocking it and misrepresenting these mystical traditions only belittles yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And those reasons appeared to me, to be as I described. Instead of simply accusing me of misrepresenting you, try explaining why you think I am misrepresenting you. In what way am I wrong? I think you will find that I am, in fact, correct.

[b]The fact that you are even on this forum exposing yourself to Christian ideas suggests that somewhere in your s ...[text shortened]... rience has taught me that intuition is unreliable and that science is reliable. Simple as that.

No, its because experience has taught me that intuition is unreliable and that science is reliable. Simple as that.

--------------whitey-----------------------

spirituality is not intuition , it is wisdom.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I've been there and I know what that feeling is like. You're an Atheist and you just don't see why you should give God a chance to reveal himself. You want to know that He's real before you give anything over to Him.

It's the Catch 22 thing. Frustratingly God offers Himself to us in a different way. He says take some steps and I will show you (seek got a taste of it you would not talk the way you do on these forums.

I suppose the question some keep asking is why a Christian didn't choose to be something ELSE ? Why didn't I take the Moslem pill (Matrix style) ? .


My reply, in short:

In my case I cannot speak for the Moslem pill. You cannot choose to be everything. I did take a Zen Buddhist teaching at one time. Maybe I was not into Zen as deeply as someone else here. But adored the writings of Allen Watts of the early 70s. And I practiced Zen meditation and mused on koans.

I'll tell you the moment I realized that Zen must not be the truth for me.

I was sitting in a college room gazing out the window looking down on the street below. I saw crowds of students. I saw one walking casually across the street. An automobile was approaching him. I noticed that he quickened his pace so as to get across to the other side of the street sooner. Apparently he was avoiding being struck by the coming car.

Right there. Sorry. But right there, I considered in the midst of my being steeped in Zen Buddhist thought, something about Zen must not be true. Or at least it must not adaquately address the entire human being.

The walker could not be casual about having his body struck by a car. He might be injured or killed regardless how spiritual he was. Regardless how close to a Universal oversoul of sorts he would be destroyed if hit by a car. He had to care. He had to include his physical being in his total reality.

At that moment I had no alternative truth. I only knew that something about the deep truths of Zen Buddhist philosophy was not adaquately addressing my entire human being.

I had taken the Zen Buddhist pill. But for the greater part it turned out to me to be just an m&m.

I did not despise Zen because of this change. I did not ridicule it or go look for people to debate with about it. I simply decided that there must be something more than what Zen Buddhism had to offer me.

(I do not deny that others sitting in a church passively being indoctrinated to Christianity, could have a similar reaction).