Do you sense your own belief?
- Thread starter SkippingStones
- Start date
I hear what you're saying. Virtue hasn't been taken away from anyone, nor the power of it. But the problem isn't the amount virtue, it's whether sin still has power over people or not. It's sin, after all, that corrupts what God has created "good". If it has that effect on God's work, how much more doesn't it defile our own "good" works?everneo said:
I believe that death eventually brings down even virtue, and although God might grant someone righteousness for their own sake, it will only be if there was no law to condemn their sin (Romans 5:13). But moral law has gained such universal authority that I don't think anyone can believe himself innocent with any amount of certainty without Christ to intercede for him.
There's just nobody but God who can really take note of the truth of a person - and who can stand completely innocent before Him? What love is there that doesn't come ultimately from Him, and who can know peace outside of His kingdom?
It's not a question of who's the best or most virtuous person on earth. The moment that becomes important it becomes a competition that can only be lost, and produces only losers - with Christians pulling on the shortest end. Pride only brings disgrace and eventually comes to a fall, but humility brings wisdom. Jesus himself said "only God is good". The real issue is who you are and what God thinks of you as a individual - not what others think about you. The fact that He has so often uses people from outside the established order makes it clear that he doesn't favour the strong, the powerful or the self-righteous - it's not affiliation with Him that saves, it's God himself.RosaMagika said:
All virtues work towards love, which works towards peace. That is a quest of all mankind, and the one which God wishes us to chase. But once again the problem comes when you try to achieve a perfection God has in mind on your own steam. In this context, you aren't insufficient because you're not smart enough, not strong enough, not pure enough, not a believer, or not a Christian - it's because only in God can anything be perfect.
Col.3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
Last edited:
Enigma'07,
This sentence is ambigous.
Do you, as a Christian, think that no non-Christian is ever good enough to be your friend?
***
Okinrus,
I think this is too simplistic. Are you suggesting that I should *not care* if others think I did harm to them? That I should *not care* if they care for me?
This sentence is ambigous.
Do you, as a Christian, think that no non-Christian is ever good enough to be your friend?
***
Okinrus,
I think this is too simplistic. Are you suggesting that I should *not care* if others think I did harm to them? That I should *not care* if they care for me?
That's the problem, isn't it? While someone's judgment of you certainly isn't decisive, it does affect you, and in that sense it does matter - a lot. That's a truth Christians are bound to as much as any person. A statement of faith shouldn't be a judgment of character, yet it sometimes comes out that way, or else is perceived that way. Look at what I said above. Our character is judged by God, but the extent to which we love each other is up to ourselves, and that determines and displays our character. Between the two, the truth of a person can't be hidden.
I agree, but such a statement could sound condescending. Friends are friends. The important thing about being a Christian friend is behaving like a Christian, not enforcing Christianity.
People sometimes get overexcited and impatient about being Christian, and then do or say something from a position of pride or defensiveness, which leaves a lasting bitterness and resentment not just against that person, but against Christianity as a whole. Among outspoken non-Christians (or non-acting Christians) you become very conscious of "being a Christian" and - as happens in any group of peers when someone feels self-conscious or defensive - tries to compensate for it with sometimes disasterous consequences. It's unfortunate that they are often not forgiven for it either.
Ok, "not care" wasn't quite the best word. You shouldn't worry what others think because you shouldn't live your life within the realm of another person's thoughts, ideas and reactions. If you do what pleases another person, rather than what is right, you will live vicarious through other people.
However, if you use other people's ideas and thoughts to re-examine your own, to correct your own faults, then you are not seeking to please others. If in your heart you know you didn't harm them, then their reaction is only to make you angry.
Enigma'07:
So, a friend is not simply a friend?
Just listen to this:
"This is my black friend Denzel."
"This is my Russian friend Ivan."
"This is my friend from evening school Anna."
This is implicit separatism. As if there are "pure" friends, and such that need a modifying attribute.
What you stated above tells me of your perspective: a non-Christian will always be a somewhat unwelcome guest, even though you call them "friend" -- this is the message you send out with your statement.
I know this, and I have been in such situations: I was labeled as an equal, yet the others behaved towards me as if I wasn't really a part of the group. "Oh, but you don't know what this is ..." -- once you get to hear such arguments then you know that you don't really belong to that group.
***
Jenyar:
I'll tell you why they often can't be forgiven: They preach love, but perform separatism. When the difference between words and actions becomes so obvious and so gross, that person simply loses the respect of others. You cannot trust, or at least aren't willing to trust someone whom you see doing one thing, and calling it something completely different.
As for *enforcing* Christianity: This is another issue that becomes very painful for non-Christians. Christians (at least most of those I was around) believe that they have to spread the Word whenever they can, it is their right and their duty to do so.
So when being with a Christian, one should prepare to hear lessons and preaching. The relationship is very, if not completely impersonal. I sometimes felt as if I had lunch with the Bible, with religion itself, and not with a friend.
Okay, if you think that it is your right and your duty to preach all the time. But I say that Christians should not be surprised if people avoid them. I avoid them because a relationship with a Christian is usually very impersonal, very abstract -- while at the same time the Christian calls it love. It makes me ill.
***
Okinrus:
I have read your thoughts, thank you. I wrote them down into my know-how book.
So, a friend is not simply a friend?
Just listen to this:
"This is my black friend Denzel."
"This is my Russian friend Ivan."
"This is my friend from evening school Anna."
This is implicit separatism. As if there are "pure" friends, and such that need a modifying attribute.
What you stated above tells me of your perspective: a non-Christian will always be a somewhat unwelcome guest, even though you call them "friend" -- this is the message you send out with your statement.
I know this, and I have been in such situations: I was labeled as an equal, yet the others behaved towards me as if I wasn't really a part of the group. "Oh, but you don't know what this is ..." -- once you get to hear such arguments then you know that you don't really belong to that group.
***
Jenyar:
I'll tell you why they often can't be forgiven: They preach love, but perform separatism. When the difference between words and actions becomes so obvious and so gross, that person simply loses the respect of others. You cannot trust, or at least aren't willing to trust someone whom you see doing one thing, and calling it something completely different.
As for *enforcing* Christianity: This is another issue that becomes very painful for non-Christians. Christians (at least most of those I was around) believe that they have to spread the Word whenever they can, it is their right and their duty to do so.
So when being with a Christian, one should prepare to hear lessons and preaching. The relationship is very, if not completely impersonal. I sometimes felt as if I had lunch with the Bible, with religion itself, and not with a friend.
Okay, if you think that it is your right and your duty to preach all the time. But I say that Christians should not be surprised if people avoid them. I avoid them because a relationship with a Christian is usually very impersonal, very abstract -- while at the same time the Christian calls it love. It makes me ill.
***
Okinrus:
I have read your thoughts, thank you. I wrote them down into my know-how book.
Jenyar said:
You said, in response to RosaMagica's post, that virtue has no inherent worth. Most of the sins would not happen if there is virtue. Prevention is better than cure, isn't it ?
Virtue has its own worth, it binds its owner to its source, the almighty, whether the owner is aware of this or not. That would be his/her only major redeeming factor before God.
Christ came down primarily for the 'sinners'. No offense.
That does not mean noble souls don't need him at all. They can trust Christ with their life to overcome the sin that they are not responsible for.
It could be a competition among the christians, non-christians don't qualify, if i remember correctly about certain posts.
Fine, Jenyar, i agree with what you say. If it comes to 'Virtue' Vs 'Virtue with humility & Wisdom', i could prefer the latter one as the better one. But the question remains, why not non-christians can have that ?
I. If you believe that someone is limited the good they can do--this could be for various reasons(from experience I know that I'm limited)--how will that person come to believe this without trying? And if they come to believe they are, then hopefuly God will reveal what is wrong.
Okinrus,
I sense the idea of perfectionism in this.
It has been stated that nobody is or can be perfect. I therefore see no justification why discard people on the basis of being imperfect.
We all have faults (" ") -- why judge us *only* by our faults?
There is no limited list of personality characteristics that one could use in order to evaluate the goodness/badness of a person.
In Christianity, there is such a list -- the mortal sins. But unless someone agrees that this is the list he is willing to be subscribed to, act in accordance with, and eventually be judged by it -- I don't see how someone can be so self-centred to impose the laws he believes in upon others who don't believe in them.
In this sense, Christians who do that are no different than dictators and tyrants.
They usurped themselves the right to judge and impose their laws upon others -- saying they are doing it in the name of God.
With the same right a Christian does that, *anybody* else could do it!
What makes a Christian think that he is better than any other non-Christian person?
What makes a Christian think that he can do anything he wants to -- because his belief tells him so?
For example, agnostics and Buddhists don't go around telling people that they aren't good enough and that they *should* follow a certain religion. Why can we keep to ourselves, yet Christians feel they must change everybody?
I sense the idea of perfectionism in this.
It has been stated that nobody is or can be perfect. I therefore see no justification why discard people on the basis of being imperfect.
We all have faults (" ") -- why judge us *only* by our faults?
There is no limited list of personality characteristics that one could use in order to evaluate the goodness/badness of a person.
In Christianity, there is such a list -- the mortal sins. But unless someone agrees that this is the list he is willing to be subscribed to, act in accordance with, and eventually be judged by it -- I don't see how someone can be so self-centred to impose the laws he believes in upon others who don't believe in them.
In this sense, Christians who do that are no different than dictators and tyrants.
They usurped themselves the right to judge and impose their laws upon others -- saying they are doing it in the name of God.
With the same right a Christian does that, *anybody* else could do it!
What makes a Christian think that he is better than any other non-Christian person?
What makes a Christian think that he can do anything he wants to -- because his belief tells him so?
For example, agnostics and Buddhists don't go around telling people that they aren't good enough and that they *should* follow a certain religion. Why can we keep to ourselves, yet Christians feel they must change everybody?
RosaMagika
Slaves of the Almighty are called to be a separate people.
We must NOT be unequally yoked, for so commandeth the Word of God.
Please read:
1 Cor. 6
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[2] ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[3]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[4]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
Slaves of the Almighty are called to be a separate people.
We must NOT be unequally yoked, for so commandeth the Word of God.
Please read:
1 Cor. 6
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[2] ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[3]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[4]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
SouthStar,
Okay then.
With the above quote you stated that unbelievers, and thereby me here, are:
wicked
dark
Belial[2]
have nothing in common with the believers
worship idols
unclean thing.
Are you saying that this is justification enough to go and kill us, or at least change us?
Are you saying that in regards to 1 Cor. 6 Christians must consider themselves to be better than unbelievers?
Okay then.
With the above quote you stated that unbelievers, and thereby me here, are:
wicked
dark
Belial[2]
have nothing in common with the believers
worship idols
unclean thing.
Are you saying that this is justification enough to go and kill us, or at least change us?
Are you saying that in regards to 1 Cor. 6 Christians must consider themselves to be better than unbelievers?
No, it's a bit worst than faults. Someone who believes they are perfect will not be able to improve. This is different, however, from freedom from guilt.
Someone has to know within themselves if they've committed a mortal sin.
There are some laws that must be imposed. For instance, the laws against murder and stealing clearly extend outward from the perpetrator yet are also considered sins.
I really think others should do it. If someone believes something should be a law, by all means fight for it. If there others in the society who do not want it to be a law, then this will be apparent.
Well, I don't want to really comment on this. If Christianity and true belief did not give any benefits over some other religion, then will be no point in becoming Christian. But its most likely wrong to extend this to the individual level. Clearly, for someone to say "I'm better" they mean the "Self is better" and they are not being humble.
Because he can, insofar as his belief is true.
Not the agnostics at this board. Buddhists believe that there are many different paths. Each separate path, however, contradicts one and each other, and while under the guise of choice, Buddhism offers no way for an individual to choose.
.
RosaMagika said:
What do you mean "kill" you (plural)? As for "changing" you, the "great commission" is entrusted to all slaves of God on earth. And it is certainly NOT Christians who chance, but the eternal Spirit of Holiness of whome we bear witness.
Unless you have found a Christian who does not sin, I wouldn't say so.
§outh§tar said:
Not being a smartass here , but everytime you say that it creeps me out.
Why would you except this belief of being a slave in any shape or form ?
We are not slaves man. I dont care how you define it. A slave is a slave is a slave.
I'll never understand this revealed religion. And if you are right..... if all of it is true... I guess thats the way God wanted it. So be it. Im not going to be his slave , Im not going to be the Devils slave..... Im not going to be anyones slave, Im going to be myself. So if your right....... to hell with me.
www.deism.com
OliverJ said:
You must be missing the point. You are a slave to God whether you like it or not. God wants you to accept it and love Him for it.
Just because certain things in human history have given slavery a bad connotation in human history in NO way makes slavery to the Father "bad".
I was reading up a bit on Aquinas, and the problem of our perspective struck me. This thought might not be related to him as such, but it's related to the subject.everneo said:
Aquinas was working from within a Platonic-Aristotelian framework, where ideals were realities. We don't operate within that framework anymore, therefore what he said seems strangely... judgmental. Maybe the solution is that non-Christians should supply the context in which they see virtue, define its worth according to their "weltanschaung". Does virtue have any intrinsic value in their scheme of things?