Goodbye

[Howiedds]

Sobeit:

Looking at the Communist thread, i see the same putdowns of the christian influence as I did on Beliefnet.  Does Howie get insulted. Smiley

But no matter.

I haven't read anything on the Communist thread, and I am not insulted by what you have posted on the threads I do read. I find your blanket criticism of all who disagree with you about the issues you have raised (issues which most of us do not disagree with, actually the only issue that I have read that you raised) tiresome. I find your condemnation of all the rest of us as hypocrites, as people who would rather hear what was politically correct rather than the truth, and your insistence that you are not abrasive and disrespectful but simply the bearer of truth to the poor, ill-informed, hoi polloi, to be self-serving and arrogant.  You have the answers, and we are simply too obstinate or intentionally evil to accept your answers.

[sobeit9]

Sobeit--thanks for the explanation.

Now I cnan say I vehemently disagree with you.

 

The World agrees with you.  However the secular mindset also makes it impossible to comprehend Jesus' mission on earth and the Resurrection.  From the Beast's perspective, the crucifixion is often a meaningless political gesture

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Most people claiming to be religious are really just so as part of the Beast and as such often less less realistic than the secularist or atheist.  But appreciating Christianity requires a perspective not of the Beast.

[WorldWarrior]

Sobeit--

of course you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions.

I however find it hard for myself or anyone to be able to judge the soul of another--except of course for God.

[Howiedds]

 Warrior:
Now I can say I vehemently disagree with you.

That's because you too are part of the Great Beast. Don't worry, all your friends are as well. You're in good company.

[sobeit9]

Sobeit:

Looking at the Communist thread, i see the same putdowns of the christian influence as I did on Beliefnet.  Does Howie get insulted. Smiley

But no matter.

I haven't read anything on the Communist thread, and I am not insulted by what you have posted on the threads I do read. I find your blanket criticism of all who disagree with you about the issues you have raised (issues which most of us do not disagree with, actually the only issue that I have read that you raised) tiresome. I find your condemnation of all the rest of us as hypocrites, as people who would rather hear what was politically correct rather than the truth, and your insistence that you are not abrasive and disrespectful but simply the bearer of truth to the poor, ill-informed, hoi polloi, to be self-serving and arrogant.  You have the answers, and we are simply too obstinate or intentionally evil to accept your answers.

Christianity isn't your thing.  I accept that.  As a secularist, you see only Christendom.  How else can it be?  Christianity is not of the World but came into the World for the sake of the fallen human condition.  If this is insulting and disruptive so be it.  I cannot change Christianity for the sake of political correctness.

A person wants to either discuss Christianity or facets of Christendom in the World.  I'm not saying you are wrong but that the site hasn't included anyone but me willing to contemplate Christianity so it isn't worth the abuse normal for Christianity to deal with it alone. It does no good.

[sobeit9]

Sobeit--

of course you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions.

I however find it hard for myself or anyone to be able to judge the soul of another--except of course for God.

All you can do is to admit to the hypocrisy of the World and have the courage to "Know thyself" and see if you are not the same as Paul. 

Forget about judging others but judge yourself and see if the cyles of the world do not follow those as described in Ecclesiastes 3 and normal for the Great beast.

When one comes to admit the World as meaningless and our own inner chaos, Christianity offers the means to consciously grow out of it.

[WorldWarrior]

Sobeit--

--I know myself a lot better than you think you may "know" me.


And one thing I know about msyelf is that I don't waste time "comparing" myself to anyone else. Why would I when we're all each and every one of us unique creations of God?





Howie-I think you're right.

[Howiedds]

sobeit:

Christianity isn't your thing.  I accept that. 

It's enough of my thing that I am posting on this Christian forum. I just didn't read the Communist thread.

As a secularist, you see only Christendom.  How else can it be? 

Huh?

Christianity is not of the World but came into the World for the sake of the fallen human condition.  If this is insulting and disruptive so be it.  I cannot change Christianity for the sake of political correctness.

I don't think yours or most Christians' views about their faith are disruptive or insulting. I think individuals can be. And who is asking Christianity to change for the sake of political correctness. You have continually been asked to state your views and ask your questions without dismissing the rest of us as hypocrites who are not interested in the truth.

[sobeit9]

sobeit:

Christianity isn't your thing.  I accept that. 

It's enough of my thing that I am posting on this Christian forum. I just didn't read the Communist thread.

As a secularist, you see only Christendom.  How else can it be? 

Huh?

Secularism by definition values the secular or the collective (society) as the primary goal of religion.  Its purpose is to define standards by which people can live together.  There is nothing wrong with this in theory.  In practice people are incapable of it and are instead motivated by prestige.

Christianity doesn't have a secular origin but rather a transcendent one.  Its purpose is for the individual.  Jesus didn't pray for the World but rather for people capable of inner evolution and becoming able of participating in human meaning and purpose not dictated by societal morality.  Christendom however has a secular worldly origin and reflects societal standards.

Christianity is not of the World but came into the World for the sake of the fallen human condition.  If this is insulting and disruptive so be it.  I cannot change Christianity for the sake of political correctness.

I don't think yours or most Christians' views about their faith are disruptive or insulting. I think individuals can be. And who is asking Christianity to change for the sake of political correctness. You have continually been asked to state your views and ask your questions without dismissing the rest of us as hypocrites who are not interested in the truth.

Be honest.  After what you've said about civility, which is more important to you: truth or appearance?

Jesus speaks of the hypocrisy within the world and what is lost by the blind acceptance and appreciation for it.  I believe it.

You assert that I'm the one at fault from not being civil enough yet  see a lot of disrespect but know it is normal for selective morality.

If you remember I was the one suggesting a roundtable on the motives of quarreling but was ignored.  Why spoil the party by actually thinking on the subject?  I can understand this but the bottom line is that what appears as uncivil is just me expressing a reality people don't want to hear.  Where was your righteous indignation when Buns said that the origin of Christianity was anti-Semitism? Is this civil? But respecting and honoring the unique nature and purpose of Christianity in respect to the human condition lacks civility.

One person exclaims that the sunrise is beautiful and another says it sucks.  Who is being civil

[Acumen]

If you remember I was the one suggesting a roundtable on the motives of quarreling but was ignored.  Why spoil the party by actually thinking on the subject?  I can understand this but the bottom line is that what appears as uncivil is just me expressing a reality people don't want to hear.

 

That's BS.  You present a false dichotomy of telling the truth or being civil.  You assume that both cannot be done together.  I couldn't imagine Paul telling unbelieving Jews that they were a part of this great beast that blinds them from the truth.  Why?  Because they are "unbelieving."  Recall when Paul said that he was a Jew unto the Jews and a Gentile unto the Gentiles?  What does that mean, Sobeit?  It certainly doesn't mean insulting people because they need a dose of your reality.  Your approach is backward, and you justify it as a noble cause.  Well, your method isn't noble at all, it's just plainly stupid; it certainly doesn't reach out to the lost like our scriptures tell us, but rather it alienates the very people you're hoping to convince.

Where was your righteous indignation when Buns said that the origin of Christianity was anti-Semitism?

Buns is wrong, but he's entitled to his opinion.

Is this civil?

No, it wasn't civil.  And neither were you.

[sobeit9]

If you remember I was the one suggesting a roundtable on the motives of quarreling but was ignored.  Why spoil the party by actually thinking on the subject?  I can understand this but the bottom line is that what appears as uncivil is just me expressing a reality people don't want to hear.

 

That's BS.  You present a false dichotomy of telling the truth or being civil.  You assume that both cannot be done together.  I couldn't imagine Paul telling unbelieving Jews that they were a part of this great beast that blinds them from the truth.  Why?  Because they are "unbelieving."  Recall when Paul said that he was a Jew unto the Jews and a Gentile unto the Gentiles?  What does that mean, Sobeit?  It certainly doesn't mean insulting people because they need a dose of your reality.  Your approach is backward, and you justify it as a noble cause.  Well, your method isn't noble at all, it's just plainly stupid; it certainly doesn't reach out to the lost like our scriptures tell us, but rather it alienates the very people you're hoping to convince.

Where was your righteous indignation when Buns said that the origin of Christianity was anti-Semitism?

Buns is wrong, but he's entitled to his opinion.

Is this civil?

No, it wasn't civil.  And neither were you.

Acumen

That's BS.  You present a false dichotomy of telling the truth or being civil.  You assume that both cannot be done together.  I couldn't imagine Paul telling unbelieving Jews that they were a part of this great beast that blinds them from the truth.  Why?  Because they are "unbelieving."  Recall when Paul said that he was a Jew unto the Jews and a Gentile unto the Gentiles?  What does that mean, Sobeit?  It certainly doesn't mean insulting people because they need a dose of your reality.  Your approach is backward, and you justify it as a noble cause.  Well, your method isn't noble at all, it's just plainly stupid; it certainly doesn't reach out to the lost like our scriptures tell us, but rather it alienates the very people you're hoping to convince.

I defy you to quote anything I've said that isn't civil,  You only believe it to be the case because of reactions.  It isn't being uncivil to copy a post and change the names to show the absurdity of the situation.  Civility in this context is defined as:

7. adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.

 Answering as I did was neither civil or uncivil but a response for a purpose to reveal absurdity.

Was Christ lacking in civility when he described the Pharisees as he did or was it just necessary to do even though they became insulted and disrupted?

Truth will always be considered as lacking in civility by those not understanding Christianity.  It has to be that way or else Jesus is wrong.

Paul was not speaking directly to hostile Pharisees but rather to people that felt the value of Christianity and what it offered. From this context he warned about relationships between believers and unbelievers not because it was bad but these believers were new in the word and vulnerable and could easily lose their way.  They were still feeding on milk.  In order to be a Jew unto Jews and a Gentile unto Gentiles a person must first "BE." They cannot 'BE" at the level of the Beast since acting in this way by such people is really just being a demagogue.  The truth of the human condition must be offensive to those that deny it.  This is just common sense.

It is not a matter of being good or bad but rather psychologically awake or asleep.  Christianity speaks of awakening and what is more disruptive than an alarm clock?

Ephesians 5:

14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
   "Wake up, O sleeper,
      rise from the dead,
   and Christ will shine on you."

This is very insulting and disruptive for people who believe themselves awake.

But if psychological sleep is the primary cause of human devolution and the horrors of the world, don't some people have the obligation to be alarm clocks regardless of the wrath of the beast in order  to make the best out of a bad situation especially if it is the purpose of the great traditions including Christianity?

You keep thinking that Christianity is about redecorating the cave for the sake of appeance while I believe the essence of Christianity is about leaving the cave.  As Jesus and socrates both knew, this would go over like a lead balloon but it was a necessary reality to keep alive in the world for the sake of a human future.

[Howiedds]

sobeit:

Secularism by definition values the secular or the collective (society) as the primary goal of religion.  Its purpose is to define standards by which people can live together.  There is nothing wrong with this in theory.

The primary goal of my religion is to take God's prescription for life into the world and fix it up so that all can live in health and peace. That sounds a lot like to define standards by which people can live together. So I guess I'm guilty except that I fail at that a lot.

In practice people are incapable of it and are instead motivated by prestige.

People usually have a whole bag of mixed motives, and yes, some of our motives are more superficial than other motives.

Christianity doesn't have a secular origin but rather a transcendent one.  Its purpose is for the individual.  Jesus didn't pray for the World but rather for people capable of inner evolution and becoming able of participating in human meaning and purpose not dictated by societal morality.  Christendom however has a secular worldly origin and reflects societal standards.

I don't know what that means, not praying for the world but for inner evolution, human meaning and purpose. I am not seeing the distinction.

Be honest.  After what you've said about civility, which is more important to you: truth or appearance?

Appearance of what? Why are they mutually exclusive? Give me an example.

... what appears as uncivil is just me expressing a reality people don't want to hear.

That's just another self-serving statement of you being the bearer of truth that the rest of us just think is incivility.

Where was your righteous indignation when Buns said that the origin of Christianity was anti-Semitism?

I think that the Christianity began with a defense of it being needed that was based on anti-Jewishness. I don't think it could have defined why it was needed without in some way speaking to the inadequacy and error of Judaism. Early Christianity had to defend why there needed to be a new covenant, a new Israel, and a new institution to perpetuate the changes. Although Jesus was a Jew, the Church would say,  he was so radically different from the other Jews of his day, brought a new message from God to the world, that a new institution, a new religion was needed. That is saying, and the church said it, Judaism was tried up to that time, but it failed. A new path, a new covenant, a new Israel needed to be in existence to succeed where Judaisim had failed. I think that's what Buns meant by Christian origins being in anti-Jewishness. It begins by saying the Judaism and Jews failed to bring God's message into the world.

Is this civil? But respecting and honoring the unique nature and purpose of Christianity in respect to the human condition lacks civility.


I have known and read Buns a long time. I think you misunderstood him, and perhaps that's not your fault. Buns is never uncivil. I guess that knowing that, I read him differently than you.

One person exclaims that the sunrise is beautiful and another says it sucks.  Who is being civil.

I didn't read either civility or incivility in that. But if you had given as an example, "One person exclaims that the sunrise is beautiful and another says it sucks and you are an a--hole for thinking its beautiful and you suck as well for having that opinion," then I could answer.

Guess which one sounded like you telling the rest of us that we were hypocrites and the great beast (however you define it, it doesn't sound like a compliment)?

[arak]

What a long good bye.

[Acumen]

I don't think he's going anywhere.