a question of respect.

[Jenyar]

That should be said more often.

Or it should be understood more often!

Did you ever actually fall in love?

Fail to accept it as a premise and what happens then, with no practical consistent action?

I have, and that's what allows me to say with conviction: it would have been empty and shallow as "an unjustified, unmeditated exclamation of my feelings, prone to change as such feelings are", for all the epiphany and euphoria that brought. I needed to accept such love as a premise, yes - acknowledge it with all my heart, mind and soul - but to leave it at that would make it nothing but a prolonged one-night stand, a selfish indulgence. Love acts with practical consistent action. Not in denial of passion and intuition or even for the sake of it, but because of it, and in celebration of it.

You weren't contradicting me, so perhaps we agree? Failing to accept passion as a legitimate premise for action may turn a wonderful thing into a mere anomaly, an opportunity into a failure, to be quenched by what we have understood and boxed in under the pride and prejudice of "reason". But shunning reason and determination for the sake of the unadulterated experience can have the same effect.

I think I get what you mean, but I'd call that a midden or a latrine, not a dam.

Reason defiles because it accumlates like scum, like bones in the graveyard, and then it eventually rots away with the rest of us.

Passion burns like fire, destructive and refreshing.

Passion can also consume completely, leaving just simmering bones and dry ground. What you describe only sounds to me like a dam with either no fresh rain or no healthy outlets. Water that isn't refreshed and doesn't flow becomes stale, stagnant and toxic. Even in a dam. Reason becomes defiled if it doesn't have passion to feed on or passion to express; only people who don't live become bones in a graveyard. In a living life there is no time or luxury for rot or bitter cynicism to set in, nor the excesses of cold reason or burning desire, because there is always room for the unreasonable: undeserved hope, joy, love, awe, wonder, grace...

 

[Jenyar]

PS. I still think that some of the discussions I've had with water were the most stimulating, rewarding and mutually respecting that I've had, specifically [post=691138]Of the parametric and the strategic[/post]. Good times.

 

[perplexity]

You weren't contradicting me, so perhaps we agree?

I do think I know something, but I am not so sure of what.

What was the result of the parametric and the strategic?

What did it produce?

All those words words words words and the words, and never so much as a kiss, that is your idea of a good time?

--- Ron.

 

[Jenyar]

I do think I know something, but I am not so sure of what.

What was the result of the parametric and the strategic?

What did it produce?

All those words words words words and the words, and never so much as a kiss, that is your idea of a good time?

I think I follow you. If it didn't bring us nearer, could it be said to have produced anything worthwhile? It takes two to answer that question. For my part, it did leave a lasting impression, if only that we could get along nicely, differences and all. One I was later assured was invalid and abandoned, unfortunately.

Do you object to the fact that I enjoyed and preferred getting along? Do you want transcripts of the playful bantering that followed? (And is "kissing" the only satisfactory expression and lasting measurement for getting along well? Et tu, Brute?)

 

[perplexity]

Do you object to the fact that I enjoyed and preferred getting along? Do you want transcripts of the playful bantering that followed? (And is "kissing" the only satisfactory expression and lasting measurement for getting along well? Et tu, Brute?)

If it was all such good fun, then far be it from me to spoil the celebration.

In the mean time the criticism, the irony is inevitable:
in view of some the ever so clever recipes there for how to run a relationship, what do you (plural) have to have to show for it now?


--- Ron.

 

[SnakeLord]

Can you back up your interpretation of the passage in question with some scholarly references? Are there translators, modern or ancient, religious or secular, that share your conclusion?

Certainly, (I can assure you this is not the first time or place such debate has been made), although it seems you wouldn't accept an argument on the matter with anyone that doesn't promote jesus in a favourable light.. Of course I couldn't really expect a christian to do that, (and you definitely wouldn't do it), but then your arguments lose their validity because of the obvious bias.

You seem to have a love/hate relationship with the translators of the Bible. When their reading suits you, you appeal to their authority; when their reading doesn't suit you, you question their expertise.

Not at all.

Obliterate? What do you base that conclusion on? Have the translators turned against you now? The Message and the Amplified complement each other very well, being a paraphrase and a literal-explanatory translation, and both are generally well-respected. The agreement between the two should be enough to make you think twice about your particular interpretation of the passage.

Under the circumstance, I would say that majority rules - not to mention that "cozy" doesn't seem very biblical.

Unless your next claim is going to be that there is a great conspiracy among translators to hide the truth that is plain to you?

A great conspiracy? No.. Seems overwhelmingly in favour of "hate".

I rest my case. You rely on one translation for being the "actual text"

One translation? You clearly do not read my posts. I rest my case.

As I said before, if you really used a few translations in parallel

As I have said numerous times before, I do.

and informed yourself of the pros and cons of each, you wouldn't run into the problems your having

I'm not having problems, it's just you'd rather burn in hell than even consider jesus in a negative light - utterly regardless to what the text says.

Is that who you believe he was?

Is that the way to answer my question? Try again.

Because if he wasn't divine, why is it a problem for you that he accurately predicted division, rather than peace, would follow in his wake?

You completely missed the point, and didn't answer the question - but asked me three more pointless ones.

And if you accept the premise that he was divine, why don't you accept the other premises implicit in his teachings? Like the binding authority of his command to love one's father and mother (as he did himself, by example)

Sure, we can have a debate about the "good" aspects of his teachings if you want. This was focused on the more questionable statements, (even jesus has his off days). Go ahead, start up a 'good teachings' post.

So from your reading of the Bible and everything Jesus said, you have come to the conclusion that this was his ultimate goal? The focus of his ministry?

It was a reason for coming, yes. He says so himself.

Thom 16 is interesting:

16 Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. 2They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. 3 For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, 4and they will stand alone."

Or was it rather that because he came to forgive sin, people who were outraged at being judged in need of forgiveness would actually turn against him - and by extension his followers?

"Do not think that I have come to bring hell. I have not come to bring hell, but forgiveness. You're all forgiven, god bless, take care, and don't worry about circumcision, it's nonsense".

Did he say that? Or did he say he had come to bring the sword - fire and war?

Imagine yourself in a similar position for a moment: let's say your ideas for a secular society are really revolutionary, and guaranteed to restore peace on earth

Quick question: While I'm busy imagining, am I also in the position to imagine I'm god?

would you risk upsetting the religious world against you by proclaiming them, polarizing them against everyone who share your views?

Certainly not. Being god I'd think of something a little bit better.

You haven't explained how you reconcile this extreme belief with the bulk of Jesus' teachings?

That is a question that will undoubtedly lead to a very lengthy response. I shall collaborate the data and get back to you.

Of course it's like any biblical debate - those who think jesus was not god point at hebrews and other various passages, those who do ignore those passages. Debating against concrete bias is difficult.

But that sword was the means of your salvation.

Before we continue, let's just establish right here that I don't need saving. Keep that sentence for you and yours.

The persecution that came down on Jesus from his enemies is what crucified him

But that persecution would have been ensured by god - otherwise there couldn't have been a sacrifice of jesus to forgive you for your sins, and as such it cannot be argued that the 'plan' was not to bring peace - but a sword. He had to be killed for any of you to be able to walk around saying "weee, I'm forgiven!" which means he had to have planned, since time long passed, to bring a sword, not peace. Nice of him of course to verbally mention it eventually, but without him bringing the sword instead of peace, none of you would be forgiven for your sins.

Indeed you mentioned it just before: "the sword was the means to your salvation". In saying that, you cannot argue when I say jesus came to bring a sword and not peace. Indeed you are arguing my case for me. Without bringing that sword, without forcing that descension, nobody would be 'saved'. End of.

and its the same force that is behind all suffering and injustice in the world.

That force = the same being that brought that injustice in the first place to ensure he could then come down and get temporarily whacked in order to forgive you for doing that which has always been in your nature to do, (be imperfect).

You cannot really argue that - the "suffering" we would assume will not occur in heaven, and nor will the injustice - and there is no justifiable reason for the need for this planet or injustice and suffering upon it. The only answer you can give is that god/jesus planned for it to be that way - in which case yes, all that injustice and suffering is because they brought the sword and not peace.

The passage speaks about the cost of following Jesus to the end God promised

The 'cost' of which is set by god to achieve a final end that god set. god is the shopkeeper.

which is lasting peace and eternal life.

Ah, there's that "peace" jesus didn't come to bring - but to set aside until the end of a pointless excercise.

If you admit that there are circumstances under which respect will not be granted, then you have defeated your own argument: that there are priorities that justify division

Not at all, I just prove that the 'plan' works well.

No doubt it would seem more cozy and acceptible to say you put family and friends first, while there's no cost to saying it, but if you ever have to choose between blood and morality, that luxury might be gone.

While you clearly still have that 'luxury' but simply choose not to.

----------

You see, this is just the sort of thing that I do not begin to understand, why anybody would want to argue with somebody that they had no respect for in the first instance, the need to disagree but with no apparent purpose other than that.

Can't say I have any respect for mass murderers, but would I like to have a debate with one? Certainly.

I guess we just differ.

What I can say is it's not about "the need to disagree", but the interest in the debate. To see what people say, to see what response they give to your questions and statements, to get some form of understanding that we clearly wouldn't have if we never spoke to anyone - whether we respected them or not. That doesn't in any way mean you're ever going to agree, but that doesn't remove the value of the discussion.

I hope that helps.

 

[TW Scott]

Some Christians told me, I quote, "I hope you will one day find Jesus", or "Hopefully, we will inherit eternal life together".

Just think what this is actually saying: "I hope you will give up what you believe now, and accept Christianity."

Christians, what if someone who calls himself your friend, told you they hope you will one day give up what you believe now, and accept some other beliefs and values?
Would you feel respected, appreciated, valued?

Or you could think of it as it actually is the spiritual equivalent of "Gee, I would like it if you quit smoking, it would be nice to have some friends not dying of lung cancer?" but hey you are obviously too defensive to consider that.

 

[SnakeLord]

"Gee, I would like it if you quite smoking, it would be nice to have some friends not dying of lung cancer?"

But then surely you could go and find a non-smoking friend? You think your current friend is too stupid to realise the effects of smoking? It's his choice surely? Let him smoke.

 

[perplexity]

Or you could think of it as it actually is the spiritual equivalent of "Gee, I would like it if you quite smoking, it would be nice to have some friends not dying of lung cancer?" but hey you are obviously too defensive to consider that.

The better anology might be of somebody already with lung cancer and trying to say it was caused by those who told her to stop smoking.

According to her own estimation the disease is terminal; there is no hope.

-- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

But then surely you could go and find a non-smoking friend? You think your current friend is too stupid to realise the effects of smoking? It's his choice surely? Let him smoke.

But it is not like that.

She seeks the attention.

She sets herself up deliberately to bait them, and then too late they find out that the bait is poison.

--- Ron.

 

[SnakeLord]

She sets herself up deliberately to bait them, and then too late they find out that the bait is toxic.

You'll get used to Water.. She's certainly an odd one

However, with regards to the quote of hers posted by Scott, I tend to actually agree, (in context). It certainly seems ok to tell a friend that you wished they didn't smoke, but that's a largely different issue. To tell someone you would rather they were your religion instead of theirs seems a tad too rude, (condescending/arrogant etc), for my liking. I just continued the analogy for the sake of it.

 

[perplexity]

You'll get used to Water.. She's certainly an odd one

She never got used to me, that is the trouble here.

The limit of her repertoire, that is another problem.

However, with regards to the quote of hers posted by Scott, I tend to actually agree, (in context). It certainly seems ok to tell a friend that you wished they didn't smoke, but that's a largely different issue. To tell someone you would rather they were your religion instead of theirs seems a tad too rude, (condescending/arrogant etc), for my liking. I just continued the analogy for the sake of it.

Rude perhaps, but honest.

Give them the credit for that.

At least you know where you stand, take it or leave it.

Better in my view than the smarmy pseudo tolerance of others one could mention.

--- Ron.

 

[one_raven]

I love the word "smarmy" - it encapsulates so much, doesn't it?

 

[perplexity]

Can't say I have any respect for mass murderers, but would I like to have a debate with one? Certainly.

I guess we just differ.

....about the meaning of respect.

What I can say is it's not about "the need to disagree", but the interest in the debate.
To see what people say, to see what response they give to your questions and statements, to get some form of understanding that we clearly wouldn't have if we never spoke to anyone - whether we respected them or not. That doesn't in any way mean you're ever going to agree, but that doesn't remove the value of the discussion.

I hope that helps.

I am curious to take this seriously, the estimation of the value.

Above all other motivations I have always been driven by curiosity, the urge to experiment.
It got me into all sorts of painful situations and relationships, with the scars to show for it.

Then as the time eventually runs out I doubt the value, what there is to show for it and what the effect was in the mean time.
The curiosity turns inward, to wonder what rules I play to and what the intention is, active or passive, meaningful or random, fixed or fluid.

These to my mind are the factors that most affect the doing, the how of it, not the what with, the worker more than the tool.

Karma.

--- Ron.

 

[Raphael]

Sure, we can have a debate about the "good" aspects of his teachings if you want. This was focused on the more questionable statements, (even jesus has his off days). Go ahead, start up a 'good teachings' post.

I don't think the statements are questionable. Jesus simply realized that when one which is for peace dwells among and speaks of peace to those who are not for peace, those others speak of war. (ref Psa 120:6-7)



water,

A person cannot change another person. One should try to change the only person they can change, themselves. One should try to understand one's own beliefs and live those beliefs. By doing so, one will find themselves in an position which cannot be attacked successfully.

 

[perplexity]

water,

A person cannot change another person. One should try to change the only person they can change, themselves. One should try to understand one's own beliefs and live those beliefs. By doing so, one will find themselves in an position which cannot be attacked successfully.

Why post that then?

As some kind of attempt to understand your own belief?

Or do you somehow expect it to make a difference?

--- Ron.

 

[Raphael]

Why post that then?

As some kind of attempt to understand your own belief?

Or do you somehow expect it to make a difference?

--- Ron.

I made the post because I chose to make the post. Everything I wrote was understood before the words were formed. Compassion does not act with the expectation of profit.

 

[perplexity]

I made the post because I chose to make the post. Everything I wrote was understood before the words were formed. Compassion does not act with the expectation of profit.

I surmise therefore that you feel a need to prove your own compassion but without expecting to change her.

Elsewhere we had already seen this

Oh, surely so!
And all phenomena are inherently empty and each person is responsible for how they feel!
Were it not for the small fact that as a non-Buddha, I can't heed that 24/7.

and there was this

"You do not have the power to control the effect your actions and words will have on the other person. I think nobody has such power."

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=31077&view=findpost&p=432853

two versions which seem to me to mutually contradict, as if to betoken a struggle to apply what you say but without the wherewithal to resolve the tension.

Is it kind or cruel to remind of this?

If other people lack the power to control the effect that their actions and words will have on the other person, it is hardly then reasonable to assert that somebody "made my life a living hell", is it?


--- Ron.

 

[zeeebratracks]

Little thing called pre-destination and God's will. We're responsible to witness to them the truth, the Gospel. We aren't supposed to give up, but be persistent in love. If they never turn to Christ, we leave that in God's hands. If their hearts are hardened against Him, there's nothing we can do. Read the first few chapters of Romans if you wanna know more.

 

[SnakeLord]

....about the meaning of respect.

Perhaps.

I am curious to take this seriously, the estimation of the value.

That's fine, like I said: we differ.

-----------

I don't think the statements are questionable.

Well, obviously they are - by the very fact that people have questioned them.

I think to really get down to it, we have to go right back to the beginning, to when nothing existed other than this supposed god being. It would seem we can be of two minds: either this god is a raving nincompoop or everything that was done was done for a reason.

We can assume that god got done over by a talking snake, or that he planned for mankind to fall - for the snake to get the better of him, (temporarily), to ensure his master plan, (self sacrifice), came to fruition.

When you press most religious folk on the issue, they generally accept the latter - obviously being unable to consider their god as a halfwit.

In respect of that, the same can be said of everything that led to the required death of jesus. If mankind were for peace then it stands that there would have never been a jesus or his sacrifice.

It really can't be argued therefore that the plan always has been for man to continually fail - in order to get forgiveness for that failing.

If man didn't fail, didn't sin we wouldn't need jesus and this would be heaven, (as it is generally seen). A place where people wont sin, where peace will reign yada yada yada. If that were the case, we could have foregone the whole 'earth' experiment and just gone straight to the 'heaven' scenario - which shows the utmost importance that failure is to us and god in the grand scheme of things.

Sin, violence, material wealth etc are essential to us and the master plan and always have been.

The grand plan is therefore the same for jesus as it has always been for his father - not peace but a sword. To specifically cause descension in order for there to be anyone to save. No descension -> No need to be saved -> No jesus.

Question is: Would you rather be free from sin- but have no jesus, or have sin and have jesus?

Would be interesting to see the answers.