1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    26 Sep '07 18:03
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    I recently say a license plate frame that read, "Smile! Jesus Loves You!."

    Over the years, I've known many Christians that take delight in the idea that Jesus loves them. I've known many that love the idea that Jesus loves them.

    If one believed in Jesus, one would follow the teachings of Jesus.
    If one loved Jesus, one would follow the teachings of ...[text shortened]... Jesus. That actually believe and love Jesus enough to follow his teachings.

    Thoughts?
    Would you say the same thing for those who follow Mohammad or are Christians the only "bad" apples of the group?
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Sep '07 18:56
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=77825&page=1
    Maybe you can help me understand something. Why doesn't the RCC divest itself of its wealth and distribute it to those in need? Not only doesn't it do this, it went so far as to have a Diocese try to file bankruptcy in an effort to dodge paying clergy sexual abuse claims.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20644097/

    The RCC seems to have a long history of corruption brought on by power and weath.
  3. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    26 Sep '07 19:01
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Maybe you can help me understand something. Why doesn't the RCC divest itself of its wealth and distribute it to those in need? Not only doesn't it do this, it went so far as to have a Diocese try to file bankruptcy in an effort to dodge paying clergy sexual abuse claims.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20644097/

    The RCC seems to have a long history of corruption brought on by power and weath.
    I suspect most of their "corruption" is similar to that in the police. They back up their own. Filing bankruptcy to avoid paying fees is one of the ways we do things. It's not corruption to do that.
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 Sep '07 19:14
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    If you haven't noticed, Christianity is much more about power and money than it is about following the teachings of Jesus. Somehow you seem to have the two bundled together. As a thought experiment, try to separate them.
    I haven't mentioned power and money, I'm not the slightest bit concerned in that. How you managed to include that in my views I'm not sure.
  5. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 Sep '07 19:17
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Sorry, but it's pretty evident from your posts that you're a slave to your ego. The truth will set you free.
    You misunderstand me, I'm a master of my own ego. I understand it you see, I accept it's desires and try not to refuse it's intention. I live as I am inclined to do, with acceptance, love and understanding as much as I can muster. My ego is merely a vessel for my desires. The 'truth' as you put it is not something anyone can claim to trade in, as to its setting anyone free I fear it is as capable of imprisonment as it is of imparting freedom. You sound like a sound-bite writer.
  6. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Sep '07 19:23
    Originally posted by Starrman
    I haven't mentioned power and money, I'm not the slightest bit concerned in that. How you managed to include that in my views I'm not sure.
    That wasn't my intention.

    My post was in response to the following. Try re-reading it in that context.

    Christianity and following Christ aren't the same thing?
  7. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Sep '07 19:25
    Originally posted by Starrman
    You misunderstand me, I'm a master of my own ego. I understand it you see, I accept it's desires and try not to refuse it's intention. I live as I am inclined to do, with acceptance, love and understanding as much as I can muster. My ego is merely a vessel for my desires. The 'truth' as you put it is not something anyone can claim to trade in, as to its ...[text shortened]... capable of imprisonment as it is of imparting freedom. You sound like a sound-bite writer.
    I'm a master of my own ego...I accept it's desires and try not to refuse it's intention.

    Is it just me or are the two phrases above at odds with each other?
  8. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    26 Sep '07 19:25
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't believe that you try very hard. You actually allow yourself to fall short with the belief that you will be forgiven. Why is it that Christians seem to do no better on average than atheists? Are atheists also trying?
    Why is it that Christians seem to do no better on average than atheists? Are atheists also trying WHITEY

    Do you have research to back this up? What criteria are using? Define" better". Trying to do what?

    If you cannot elaborate then this is just a meaningless woolly junk statement.
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Sep '07 19:384 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I suspect most of their "corruption" is similar to that in the police. They back up their own. Filing bankruptcy to avoid paying fees is one of the ways we do things. It's not corruption to do that.
    It's corrupt when the institution is ostensibly there to further the teachings of Jesus. This wasn't about paying 'fees'. It was about paying victims restitution.

    Aside from that, the police 'back[ing] up their own' is most definitely corruption.

    Ivanhoe's thread of comments by the Pope reads in part:
    "If loving Christ and our fellow man is not considered as a superficial accessory," he added, "but rather as the real and ultimate aim of our entire life, we must know how to take fundamental decisions, to be ready to make radical sacrifices, if necessary even unto martyrdom. Today, as yesterday, the life of Christians calls for the courage to swim against the tide, to love like Jesus Who went so far as to sacrifice Himself upon the cross."

    Evidently the Roman Catholic Church is not willing to "sacrifice [itself]...into martyrdom." It's not even willing to pay restitution in an effort right its wrongs.
  10. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 Sep '07 19:411 edit
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]I'm a master of my own ego...I accept it's desires and try not to refuse it's intention.

    Is it just me or are the two phrases above at odds with each other?[/b]
    No, let me try and explain. One's ego is not something one can be slaved to by lack of anything, it is innate, intrinsic and irrefutable. It has long been the Christian tradition to suppress the ego; to become as God desires you to be fashioned, to be truly selfless. But in doing so one makes the pursuit of the destruction of the ego one's main interest. The ego becomes an Everest which one tries to conquer and consequently one fails to be selfless. Instead one becomes truly selfish, a slave to the ego, determined to climb and in doing so one becomes selfish, inwardly concerned and shackled by one's own desire for destruction.

    If one accepts the ego, one lives to celebrate one's own innate desires and irrefutable essence and struggles not with self-deprication.

    EDIT: Please ignore the overuse of 'one's' it seems awfuly formal and it's not meant to be.
  11. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    26 Sep '07 19:463 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    My post wasn't about "Christianity". It was about the teachings of Jesus. From what I can tell, they're two very different things. "Christianity" appears to be whatever an individual wants it to be.

    Yes, all we have are the teachings of Jesus as written down in the New Testament. That said, I would think that if one professes to love Jesus, one would f what I can tell, Jesus doesn't ask one to "try", Jesus asks one to humbly follow.
    If one truly loved Jesus, one would follow the teachings of Jesus. If one truly believed in Jesus, one would follow the teachings of Jesus. From what I can tell, Jesus doesn't ask one to "try", Jesus asks one to humbly follow. Tof ONE

    I find this thinking very all or nothing. It's all a bit naive. Is it not possible to grow in love and to love incompletely whilst working towards being more complete. You treat love as if it were a switch . One day you don't love someone at all , the next on goes the switch and you love "truely" and you are perfect in love. Everything I know about love tells me (from experience and watching others) that love is a thing that deepens and grows over time. We learn how to love. Infact that is what the disciples did with Jesus when he was alive.Peter's love was not complete which was why christ questioned him on it and prophesised him that he would betray him despite Peter declaring his love.

    Your theory makes sense in theory but in practice you leave no room for all the greys and messiness of life. I'll give you an example , i know that I love my wife and she loves me , but my love is not perfect so does that mean I don't love her at all? Of course not! If I am an environmentalist but take a foreign holiday once every 2 years am I not an environmentalist at all? What about 3 years? Your logic would probably say that unless I live in a grass hut and eat lentils then I don't care at all about climate change.

    When you treat human being likes bytes in a PC or switches you forget what it is to be human. Your logic is that anyone who doesn't follow Jesus's teachings 100% doesn't love him , so what about those that follow them 92% or 99% or 78%? They don't love him at all??? If so why are they bothering following him 92% then. If they feel nothing for him then they should be at 0%!

    Why can't someone just be in the process of moving forward and growing in love (going from 5% to 100% ) ?

    It's all black and white , all or nothing , 0 or 100 - why ?
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    26 Sep '07 20:15
    Originally posted by Starrman
    No, let me try and explain. One's ego is not something one can be slaved to by lack of anything, it is innate, intrinsic and irrefutable. It has long been the Christian tradition to suppress the ego; to become as God desires you to be fashioned, to be truly selfless. But in doing so one makes the pursuit of the destruction of the ego one's main interest. ...[text shortened]... T: Please ignore the overuse of 'one's' it seems awfuly formal and it's not meant to be.
    I’m not sure that you and ThinkOfOne are using the word “ego” in the same sense. You seem to be using it in the sense of what I call the somebody-self construct, which we acquire, create, develop and sustain as a natural process of our self-looping consciousness. In that sense, it is fluid and to some extent changeable—e.g., as we are able to jettison some of our childhood conditioning.

    He seems to be using it in the sense of ruthless self-clutching. You seem to be using it in the sense of what we mean when we think the thought “I”; he seems to be using it the sense of what we mean when we think the thought “only I”.

    Then again, maybe I’m not reading either of you correctly. To master one’s ego seems precisely to not be a slave to it, but to use it as the “tool” that it is.

    The question then is: who/what is the I that masters the “I”? And the answer to that will be Bad Zen™! 🙂
  13. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    26 Sep '07 20:44
    Originally posted by Starrman
    No, let me try and explain. One's ego is not something one can be slaved to by lack of anything, it is innate, intrinsic and irrefutable. It has long been the Christian tradition to suppress the ego; to become as God desires you to be fashioned, to be truly selfless. But in doing so one makes the pursuit of the destruction of the ego one's main interest. ...[text shortened]... T: Please ignore the overuse of 'one's' it seems awfuly formal and it's not meant to be.
    This post proves that you do not understand what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. The 'pursuit of the destruction of the ego' is not the main interest of the Christian, and neither does God require such a pursuit. The Christian life is lived by faith, not according to one's ability (or lack thereof) to overcome one's own ego. By faith God crucifies the 'self' with Christ the moment a person sincerely and heartily believes in Him, and by that same faith God raises the 'self' from the dead with Christ. This is what it means when it is said that a Christian is a "new creature" in Christ, because legally (in God's eyes) the old self has died with Christ and has been resurrected with Christ. Through a person's faith in what Christ accomplished on the cross God releases the Holy Spirit into the life of a believer, and it is through the Holy Spirit that a Christian grows in holiness. There is no struggle, as you claim, to put to death the ego - God gets it over and done with right from the get go. To be a true follower of Jesus Christ is to appropriate what God has already done in Christ and to look and see where God is already working and join Him -- all of which is done by faith.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    27 Sep '07 00:401 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    If one truly loved Jesus, one would follow the teachings of Jesus. If one truly believed in Jesus, one would follow the teachings of Jesus. From what I can tell, Jesus doesn't ask one to "try", Jesus asks one to humbly follow. Tof ONE

    I find this thinking very all or nothing. It's all a bit naive. Is it not possible to grow in love and to love inco to 100% ) ?

    It's all black and white , all or nothing , 0 or 100 - why ?
    Well said. People live their lives according to what or who they love. Unfortunatly, our sin nature often dictates that we tend to love ourselves above all else, however, we can overcome this as our love increases for Christ. The motivating factor in everyones life is "who or what do ya love?" The rest of it are just words. You can profess something all you want whether it be true or not but the underlying truth is who we love the most in terms of how you live your life.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    27 Sep '07 15:561 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    No, let me try and explain. One's ego is not something one can be slaved to by lack of anything, it is innate, intrinsic and irrefutable. It has long been the Christian tradition to suppress the ego; to become as God desires you to be fashioned, to be truly selfless. But in doing so one makes the pursuit of the destruction of the ego one's main interest. T: Please ignore the overuse of 'one's' it seems awfuly formal and it's not meant to be.
    Let me see if I understand you correctly. It seems that what you are saying is that unless one concedes complete and unconditional surrender to the desires of the ego, one is enslaved by the ego.

    But by surrendering, one gets to feel good about oneself.

    This is an interesting concept, but I have to believe that there's more than a little bit of rationalization going on here.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree