Why isn't unconditional love enough?

[antifreeze]

how dare you try to banish us to the cesspool! i take umbrage sir, severe umbrage!

i'm joking, i really don't care either way, i just like to be quip-y. carry on.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

This will be my first post in this thread. I have not read all of the responses to these questions, so forgive me if I repeat anything that has already been said. I will attempt an answer to these questions.

I am of the belief that the core message of Jesus is very simple: love, unconditionally. That's not just love someONE or someTHING unconditionally, but more: to BE love. Easy to say, not so easy to do. The Christians that I say this to agree with the love part, but most of them also say that I am missing the "salvation" part of the picture.

Now, I am of the belief that by loving unconditionally, by being love, then one is immediately in good graces with any Creator that would be worthy of the name, and that there is no need to read the Bible, attend any church, or worry about eternity, because one is already living in an eternal connection, no longer fearing death, and thereby living life fully.

However, just so that I understand the salvation part (and please don't refer me to the text, I want YOU to explain it to me in your own words, 5th grade level please), I would like someone to explain why the concept of salvation comes into play. That is, why is unconditional love - a manner of living - OUTWEIGHED by the need to ask Jesus Christ for salvation?

Specifically, I don't yet understand what it means that "He died for our sins." I mean, there was a prophet, Jesus - who may or may not have been God's son, and he set a good example of this way of life of unconditional love, and that's a good message. Now, "He died for our sins"? What does that mean? And if he died in 28 A.D. or thereabouts, what does it mean to me that "He died for our sins"? How can he die for my sins? Aside from being an educational memory for civilization, what is the premise for an ongoing need for "salvation"?

I personally believe that if Jesus is a presence in the cosmos today, that he cares much more that I am living love unconditionally than whether I am acknowledging his services from 2,000 years ago, or whether I ask for salvation or not. And I certainly don't think he cares about Heaven or Hell, but rather that he recognizes that people live heaven when they are loving unconditionally, and that they are living hell when not, and that's all we need to know

Can someone enlighten me?

What you must first understand about Christianity is that there have been many divisions that have taken place within it, particularly within the past 500 years. Because of this, you will get many different answers because there are varying viewpoints concerning the question of Salvation.

The major division concerning the question of salvation lies between Catholocism and Protestantism (and all denominations which arose from the initial "reformation"). Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodox aren't normally categorized under protestantism, though they clearly arose from some disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic Magesterium. The majority of Protestant groups that you will encounter will claim that salvation can only be attained by "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior." It is with this teaching, I believe, that you have difficulty? Catholocism, which is the original branch of Christianity of which I am part, has a viewpoint that isn't so, shall we say, simple.

The basic Christian teaching as far as the need for salvation goes is that humanity had been banished from heaven because the first human, Adam, father of the human race, it's representative, rebelled directly against God and God's plan for humanity. From this first sin, by Adam, the inclination to sin was passed on to every human thence forth. It is taught that the human race was incapable of redeeming itself in the sight of God both because the act of redemption needed to be perfect, from a sinless person, and because the redeeming act needed to be performed by the Divine, because the offense was against the Divine. Humanity had no such capacity, in and of itself, in either need. Thus, humanity needed a savior, one who would "reopen the gates of heaven to humanity."

There had been a practice in Judaism for centuries which is the origin of the term "scapegoat." Basically, what it involved was a sacrifice of a lamb, or goat, for the sake of the redemption of a town or village. It was believed that if someone from the village sinned against man or against God, that the whole village would be cursed and suffer for it. In order to redeem the village, everyone in the village would place all of the guilt for their own sins, as well as the outstanding sinner, upon the goat (spiritually of course), and the lead the goat out into the desert to be left for starvation as a sacrifice to God. Thus it was that the village was redeemed, and saved from being cursed. This tradition was kept in the person of Jesus Christ, as Christian teachings go. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of each human being and offered Himself as sacrifice on behalf of the human race in atonement for the sin of Adam.

The problem with the scenario is that the goat couldn't simply take on the sins of the villagers, the goat doesn't have that capacity, it was the villagers who needed to place their sins upon the goat. So it is within Christianity. It is not simply enough that Jesus died for the sins of each person, but each person must actively place their sins on Christ. The perfection of the sacrifice is that, being Divine, Christ has the capacity to be connected to every moment in time, while simultaneously offering the sacrifice on Calvary. Meaning that it isn't simply Christ offering the sacrifice, but every human being who connects himself to Christ, and offers himself, through Christ, as part of that Sacrifice. In essence, it is not simply one man atoning for the sin of Adam, but the whole human race (or at least all those connecting themselves with Christ).

This is why the Catholic Church teaches that when Christ said "this is my body, this is my blood," that he really meant it in the literal sense, so that each of us may, in a very real way, be united, connected to Christ and the sacrifice of Calvary.

Incidentally, it is much more than simply a sacrifice to which we attach our sins, but we attach our whole selves, our sins, our successes, our sorrows, our joys, everything. Loving unconditionally, when added to that perfect sacrifice, becomes much much more.

 

[Lori_7]

Beyondtimeandspace,

That was absolutely beautiful.

Amen,

Lori

 

[water]

Ellion,

people are the same, look around you, people are not the same. everyone is diiferent and there is no difference between any body.

You are trapped in the material, on the surface.

why must there only be one reality, if that reality is many realities, can you allow that reality to be one reality and many realities at the same time?

If we assume that people are essentially different one from another, eventually, there can exist no truth. You get a group of solipsists.

 

[panopticon707]

Onefinity, I would appreciate if you would reiterate your idea one more time for me, because I don't think I get it. First I was confused by what you meant to "be love." Then you said that it meant to love unconditionally. What do you mean by that? Love what? Everything?

You can see why I might be confused. Loving everything seems impractical and impossible. Why should I love AIDS or the holocaust? Please explain.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Traditionally, to love unconditionally simply meant to love others without reservation. In other words, race, sex, gender, religion, political stance, philosophy, even the actions of others should not be deterrants for you to love them. To love unconditionally is to love another person no matter who he is, what he is, what he believes, nor what he does, to you or anyone else. When you love someone because he loves you back, you're loving because of that condition. If you love someone because his skin is a particular pigment, then you're loving under that condition. If you love someone because he believes what you do, then you're loving under that condition. I think Onefinity is speaking about love without such conditions.

 

[ellion]

Ellion,




You are trapped in the material, on the surface.

what material? on the surface of what? my bed? seriously! if you are going to judge people give them something to understand how you are making the judgement. actually i dont care how you judge others but when you judge me please tell me why you judge me thus. or i may fall out and seriously seek to undermine your integrity.

If we assume that people are essentially different one from another, eventually, there can exist no truth.

do you speak from experience or is this speculation?

You get a group of solipsists.

you really love to label things dont you? from now on i am going to point out all the times you categorize something, i would love to know why you do it. i guess it is something to do with you needing to isolate in order to appreciate. tell me, if you care too.

 

[antifreeze]

"Meaning that it isn't simply Christ offering the sacrifice, but every human being who connects himself to Christ, and offers himself, through Christ, as part of that Sacrifice. In essence, it is not simply one man atoning for the sin of Adam, but the whole human race (or at least all those connecting themselves with Christ)."
okay. but what is the sacrifice of a couple of hours sitting in church made by the christians i know compared to the sacrifice made by the christ. i guess what i am saying is, what is faith without good works? note: i'm not trying to rail against protestants here, just inquiring.

 

[water]

Mr. Freeze, where have you been so long? My favourite logician!
Welcome back.

* * *

Ellion, I shall devote you proper attention in a short while.

 

[antifreeze]

heh. undue flattery. it's been a while. i've been out living life, working, etc.

 

[water]

I'm back!


ellion,

You are trapped in the material, on the surface.

what material?

I apologize, I wasn't clear enough.
I was using the term "material" as it is used in the Bhagavad-gita.

Some examples of use:

14:5
Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes.

7:4
Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies.

13:20
Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.

3:27
The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.

5:29
The sages, knowing Me as the ultimate purpose of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attain peace from the pangs of material miseries.

7:20
Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

Also see the purport to 7:5​

In the Bible, the roughly equivalent terms are "worldly" and "flesh".

if you are going to judge people give them something to understand how you are making the judgement. actually i dont care how you judge others but when you judge me please tell me why you judge me thus.

I am not judging you, and I don't know why you think I do. I have made an assessment of you, this I have, but I have not judged you. How could I?!

or i may fall out and seriously seek to undermine your integrity.

This is unnecessary.

If we assume that people are essentially different one from another, eventually, there can exist no truth.

do you speak from experience or is this speculation?

It is a logical argument which can easily be proven true in everyday life.
If we assume people are essentially different one from another, then there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth -- truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer.

If you and I would insist that we are essentially different, this would ultimately mean that we cannot understand eachother and that this communication is meaningless.
If we had indeed believed that we are essentially different, we wouldn't have entered this communication and continued it -- or we would have entered it only to fight and to win.

People communicate because they believe they can communicate -- and this is due to the belief that we can understand eachother -- which reveals the underlying belief that there is truth, and that it can be accessed.

you really love to label things dont you? from now on i am going to point out all the times you categorize something, i would love to know why you do it.

The human mind works with words -- labels, categories.
As soon as you name something, you have categorized it. The only difference between these categorizations being that some are more common, more traditional and thus less stygmatized, seemingly neutral, and thus not really perceived as categories; while other categorizations are more novel, more stygmatized, and thus more likely to be (seemingly) non-neutral.

i guess it is something to do with you needing to isolate in order to appreciate.

If we appreciate something, we have thereby isolated it, in a way. So appreciation and isolation go hand in hand.

tell me, if you care too.

There is no need for this defeatist tone.


* * *


antifreeze,

i guess what i am saying is, what is faith without good works? note: i'm not trying to rail against protestants here, just inquiring.

James 2:14-26

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.



James 4:17

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.​

 

[§outh§tar]

truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer.

That is far too specious. What does "exists" mean in this context?

 

[antifreeze]

"I will show you my faith by what I do."
interesting, so there really is no sect of christianity [put thusly] wherein belief in god alone will grant one ascendance into heaven. :bugeye: guess you learn something everyday.

"What does 'exists' mean in this context?"
i suppose it's the tree that falls in the woods when nobody is there to hear it.

 

[ellion]

I was using the term "material" as it is used in the Bhagavad-gita.

right in that case you were kind of right, i am that. but to say "i am stuck in it" suggests that i should not be in it.
what perhaps you dont appreciate because of your tendency to isolate is i am more than that material. which means i am not really stuck in it.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies.

this is incomplete as there is no emotional principle which is the foundation of love and fear, being the two factors at the heart of human motivation the emotiuanl principle should be considered seriously in a text that is given as much credit as this is.

knowing Me as the ultimate purpose of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attain peace from the pangs of material miseries.

this is reasonably close, but not quite.

Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

so true, so, so true, and thus we have religion! come worship the christ for salvation! follow the bhudda the all wise and compassionate, bow unto allah almighty all powerful one and only superme being! hare krsna, hare krsna. krsna krsna, hare hare. hare rama, hare rama, rama rama, hare hare! er! which one was real again?

In the Bible, the roughly equivalent terms are "worldly" and "flesh".

sorry, but i dont feel guilty about my sexuality, it is divine.
okay maybe that was hasty. how would i know if you have a hang up about sex?

I am not judging you, and I don't know why you think I do. I have made an assessment of you, this I have, but I have not judged you. How could I?!

assesment is a more acceptable label. you made a judgement about my beliefs , which to me are not beliefs.

It is a logical argument which can easily be proven true in everyday life.

can also be proven false. you are not the same as me. if we compared the size of our dicks i know without a doubt that mine is larger than the one you dont have. we can lift this out of the physical too,as even our sprirts are not the same. i say this with certainty knowing that it is also not true, because we do contain the same spirit but in different manifestations.
so it is different and the same. it is one and it is many. it is all and it is none.

If we assume people are essentially different one from another, then there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth

are you saying men and women can ultimately never understand each other? would that really be such problem and why?

truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer

so the truth is out there, somewhere? sorry, but i know that it is individual! there is no absolute.unless what you consider the unmanifest as the absolute. everyone lives there own reality some realities are closer to togehter than others but we all live at the same time in the one. the many are in the one the one is in the many, they are interdependent and unique in their indivduality. i understand if you cant allow that to be true for me. but whether you or anyone else allows it, you cannot take it. you may remove it from my expressions so that you no longer see it, but it can never be taken away.

If you and I would insist that we are essentially different, this would ultimately mean that we cannot understand eachother and that this communication is meaningless.

can you explain why? please! why would we no be able to understand eachother if we were essentialy different? everyday i undersrtand things (including people) that are not essentially the same as myself.

If we had indeed believed that we are essentially different, we wouldn't have entered this communication and continued it -- or we would have entered it only to fight and to win.

i do indeed believe that we are essentially different and i did enter this communication in order to understand you. if i thought i could not understand you then i would be less willing to engage you in converstation. it must be something in you that is creating this belief.

People communicate because they believe they can communicate -- and this is due to the belief that we can understand eachother -- which reveals the underlying belief that there is truth, and that it can be accessed.

this is your belief thing again, your way of interpreting the world which you believe is the way everbody interprets the world. replace world with reality if you like.

The human mind works with words -- labels, categories.
As soon as you name something, you have categorized it. The only difference between these categorizations being that some are more common, more traditional and thus less stygmatized, seemingly neutral, and thus not really perceived as categories; while other categorizations are more novel, more stygmatized, and thus more likely to be (seemingly) non-neutral.

i dont have a problem with labels as words for the prupose of identification, it is when you are doing your ridiculing bit, discrediting alternative interpretations by giving them demeaning labels such as the slopsolist one used above. i have no idea what it means but is sounded like something i didnt want to be. "oh, no! i am not a slopsilist, am i?"

If we appreciate something, we have thereby isolated it, in a way. So appreciation and isolation go hand in hand.

do you know how this should read?
"if I appreciate something, I have thereby isolated it, in a way."

There is no need for this defeatist tone.

it is just that you have tendency to avoid self disclosure, and i dont mind that but i prefer to engage.

the "defeatist" label. care to tell me why you choose to use this label here? it had a purpose, what was it?

 

[Onefinity]

Thanks, BeyondTimeandSpace. That was the information I was looking for.

Regards,

Matthew

 

[water]

Ellion,

right in that case you were kind of right, i am that. but to say "i am stuck in it" suggests that i should not be in it.

Of course. People never communicate just like that, there is always a purpose to communication, even though this purpose may not be clearly spoken.
I am, at least a little, trying to convince you to come to my side. Hence my actions and words say or suggest so.

what perhaps you dont appreciate because of your tendency to isolate is i am more than that material.

I know that. If you were only material, I wouldnt' be talking to you this way. I'd try to get rid of you or be indifferent.

which means i am not really stuck in it.

I assessed that you haven't gone the full course yet. Intellectually, we understand and accept things much sooner than we are able to live them.

“ Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies. ”

this is incomplete as there is no emotional principle which is the foundation of love and fear, being the two factors at the heart of human motivation the emotiuanl principle should be considered seriously in a text that is given as much credit as this is.


“ knowing Me as the ultimate purpose of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attain peace from the pangs of material miseries. ”

this is reasonably close, but not quite.


“ Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures. ”

so true, so, so true, and thus we have religion! come worship the christ for salvation! follow the bhudda the all wise and compassionate, bow unto allah almighty all powerful one and only superme being! hare krsna, hare krsna. krsna krsna, hare hare. hare rama, hare rama, rama rama, hare hare! er! which one was real again?

Have you read the Bhagavad-gita?

In the Bible, the roughly equivalent terms are "worldly" and "flesh".

sorry, but i dont feel guilty about my sexuality, it is divine.

The biblical terms "worldly" and "flesh" are not referring merely to sex, mind you. Sex per se is not a sin; it is a way to procreate that was so ordained by God.
"Worldly" and "flesh" mean all the things that are not spiritual, that are against God -- like striving for fame, money, possessions, immediate gratification, things that may please people, but are not godly.

okay maybe that was hasty. how would i know if you have a hang up about sex?

I don't "have a hang-up about" sex. I rail against godlessness.
When people have sex without loving eachother or the possible children, they are being godless.

assesment is a more acceptable label. you made a judgement about my beliefs , which to me are not beliefs.

What else can a person have, but beliefs? Ie. mental contents.

It is a logical argument which can easily be proven true in everyday life.

can also be proven false. you are not the same as me. if we compared the size of our dicks i know without a doubt that mine is larger than the one you dont have.

Well, if you think that having a dick is essential to being human ...

we can lift this out of the physical too,as even our sprirts are not the same. i say this with certainty knowing that it is also not true, because we do contain the same spirit but in different manifestations.

There you go -- "because we do contain the same spirit but in different manifestations" -- thus, we are essentially the same.

so it is different and the same. it is one and it is many. it is all and it is none.

Such paradoxes serve nothing.

If we assume people are essentially different one from another, then there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth

are you saying men and women can ultimately never understand each other?

I'm not saying that. My sentence began with "If we assume ..."

would that really be such problem and why?

If we would be essentially different, social life, and thus humanity, were impossible.

People who believe we are essentially different, seek manifestations of these alleged differences -- and they find them in esp. gender, race, caste. "A king is a completley different kind of human than a beggar -- they have nothing in common. A man is a completely different kind human of human than a woman -- they have nothing in common. A black person is compeltely different than a white person -- they have nothing in common. Etc."

All such differences are material, superficial. Yet people, who *are* stuck in the material, make them out to be essential. And human society tends to behave that way indeed.

The problem arises when those differences are sanctioned -- on what basis are they sanctioned? Why should the law release a king who committed murder, while a beggar who also committed murder is punished? But have it the other way -- Why treat them both the same? Why persecute black people? Why not?
“ truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer ”

so the truth is out there, somewhere? sorry, but i know that it is individual!
there is no absolute.

*tsk*tsk*
You can't prove a negative. You must reformulate your statement, or it is logically inacceptable.

unless what you consider the unmanifest as the absolute. everyone lives there own reality some realities are closer to togehter than others but we all live at the same time in the one. the many are in the one the one is in the many, they are interdependent and unique in their indivduality. i understand if you cant allow that to be true for me. but whether you or anyone else allows it, you cannot take it. you may remove it from my expressions so that you no longer see it, but it can never be taken away.

I do not disagree with you.

If you and I would insist that we are essentially different, this would ultimately mean that we cannot understand eachother and that this communication is meaningless.

can you explain why? please! why would we no be able to understand eachother if we were essentialy different?

To use an analogy, if the sign [A] would mean to you what the sign means to me, ie., if we were essentially different, then we would not understand eachother.

everyday i undersrtand things (including people) that are not essentially the same as myself.

Are you sure they are essentially different than you?
On what do you base those essential differences?

i do indeed believe that we are essentially different and i did enter this communication in order to understand you. if i thought i could not understand you then i would be less willing to engage you in converstation.

Why do you think that you can understand me? How come you have this motive and this ability?

People communicate because they believe they can communicate -- and this is due to the belief that we can understand eachother -- which reveals the underlying belief that there is truth, and that it can be accessed.

this is your belief thing again, your way of interpreting the world which you believe is the way everbody interprets the world. replace world with reality if you like.

You'll see.

i dont have a problem with labels as words for the prupose of identification, it is when you are doing your ridiculing bit, discrediting alternative interpretations by giving them demeaning labels such as the slopsolist one used above. i have no idea what it means but is sounded like something i didnt want to be. "oh, no! i am not a slopsilist, am i?"

Oh. That was a silly thing to do then, thinking "solipsist" is a demeaning label -- when you don't even know what "solipsist" means.

And just maybe, you are after my approval too much, if you give such an emotional reaction to what I say.

If we appreciate something, we have thereby isolated it, in a way. So appreciation and isolation go hand in hand.

do you know how this should read?
"if I appreciate something, I have thereby isolated it, in a way."

But the pattern is true for all appreciation. I could also say "To appreciate something, is to isolate it, in a way."

it is just that you have tendency to avoid self disclosure, and i dont mind that but i prefer to engage.

I don't know why you think I avoid self-disclosure, I don't think I am. I answer questions, or say I dont' understand them. I also don't know what you expect from this communication.
You mentioned this before. Maybe my more general tone leaves the impression of avoiding self-disclosure. But as far as arguments go, I try to be objective, and present them in ways of informal logic. If I could, I would formulate all my arguments into the premise-premise-conclusion form -- it allows for a very quick cognition.

the "defeatist" label. care to tell me why you choose to use this label here? it had a purpose, what was it?

You said "or i may fall out and seriously seek to undermine your integrity." and this sounded almost like a threat. My purpose was to let you know that I am not in any way malignant to you, even though you seem to have that impression of me.
I have praised your avatar, haven't you noticed? I really like it. If I had anything against you, I would refrain from saying that, even though I would really like the avatar.
So there is no need for a defeatist tone.

 

[ellion]

You said "or i may fall out and seriously seek to undermine your integrity." and this sounded almost like a threat. My purpose was to let you know that I am not in any way malignant to you, even though you seem to have that impression of me.

i will reply proper later, i dont have time now, this one quickly cause its important and its convenient.

how it sounded to you was exactly how it was, almost like a threat, not quite a threat, but almost. i know you are not malignant to me. i am not malignant to you, you know this, i know you know this.
i dont think it was defeatist, i am not sure what defeatist means but i hope i am not one.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem arises when those differences are sanctioned -- on what basis are they sanctioned? Why should the law release a king who committed murder, while a beggar who also committed murder is punished? But have it the other way -- Why treat them both the same? Why persecute black people? Why not?

Water can I ask if you feel that God love is conditional on having heard or knowing of Jesus?

Do persons that have never heard of or will never hear of Christianity have access to Gods Unconditional love?
Those differences are sanctioned by the church are they not? Christian vs other persons of different beliefs.

By what right does Christianity hold a monopoly on Gods love?
[btw I am not suggesting that this is your belief, simply posing a question]

 

[water]

Ellion,


defeatist
adj, nc: (of) a person who considers it impossible to win, be successful etc.

defeatism
nu: the mental condition in which one expects to be defeated


Oh well, I guess I could have also said "Don't be a loser". To which you would again object and so on.


* * *


Quantum Quack,

Water can I ask if you feel that God love is conditional on having heard or knowing of Jesus?

First of all, this isn't about feeling whether God's love is conditional or not. It is a theological argument.

No, I do not think that God's love is conditional on having heard of Jesus.
While there certainly is more than just a little dispute on that, it also holds that humans do not know God's ways, so we should in no way make claims like "God's love is conditional upon knowing Jesus".
(Read Romans chapter 2, esp. 13-16.)
We do not know in whom God is working and how, this is why the Gospel is to be preached to all, and everyone be treated as a potential son or daughter of God. We do not know who God's little ones are, so we must do good to all (see also Matt.25:37-46).

Do persons that have never heard of or will never hear of Christianity have access to Gods Unconditional love?

I think so.

Those differences are sanctioned by the church are they not? Christian vs other persons of different beliefs.

Yes, so it is, sadly. But please don't think that the earthly organizations that consider themselves to be of God, are automatically faithful representatives of God!
It would be a grave mistake to think so. Christ is the measure, not people.

By what right does Christianity hold a monopoly on Gods love?

??
They do not.
I understand how one might get such an impression. But don't let people rule what you consider your experience of God.

 

[ellion]

I am, at least a little, trying to convince you to come to my side. Hence my actions and words say or suggest so.

i understand that if you are happy on your side you want to share that with people but what if i am happy on my side what if the side you are trying to pull me out of is much better than your side? fair enough we should always share our experience but to say your side is better than mine is a touch arrogant dont you think? i can never be on your side we are too different we have not had the same experiences in life we do not have the same way of interpreting reality. we dont have the same "mental contents" i can never stand in your space or look at the world through your eyes.

I know that. If you were only material, I wouldnt' be talking to you this way. I'd try to get rid of you or be indifferent.

so what was the "stuck in the surface material" a cunning rouse to strike up a converstation along a specific line of thought, perhaps? and me knowing all along and colluding with your game?

I assessed that you haven't gone the full course yet.

the course has no end. therefore show me aught that has.

Intellectually, we understand and accept things much sooner than we are able to live them.

are you saying that i have not lived?

Have you read the Bhagavad-gita?

yes! does that change my credibility?

The biblical terms "worldly" and "flesh" are not referring merely to sex, mind you. Sex per se is not a sin; it is a way to procreate that was so ordained by God.
"Worldly" and "flesh" mean all the things that are not spiritual, that are against God -- like striving for fame, money, possessions, immediate gratification, things that may please people, but are not godly.

i tell you my problem with this. i see there can be nothing that is not godly. what is wrong with having money, if it is does not deprive another? what is wrong with seeking fame if it harms no one? why should we not seek gratification if it cause no pain?
why should we not enjoy our life this world our bodies?

why do you think these things not godly?

I don't "have a hang-up about" sex. I rail against godlessness.
When people have sex without loving eachother or the possible children, they are being godless.

and this has much to do with your relationship with god. do you appreciate that my relationship with god is not your realtionship with god?
could this be so if we were essentially the same? i do not say these things to decieve you.

What else can a person have, but beliefs? Ie. mental contents.

are all your mental contents beliefs?

Well, if you think that having a dick is essential to being human ...

of course i dont hitnk that. what i hope you will recognise is the dimensions of cock that i was gifted with are essential to my unique pants contents, similarly and i hoped you would do this work without my direction, the mental contents, the emotional contents are all unique to each and every individual to make all persons non different you would need no contents. eliminate all experience eliminate all charecteristics to all be equal.

There you go -- "because we do contain the same spirit but in different manifestations" -- thus, we are essentially the same.

and at the same time different. unless you just isolate that little bit that fits your purpose and pretend all the rest doesnt exist.

Such paradoxes serve nothing.

maybe not. why should they serve something they just are, i just observe them. i dont need them to do anything and i dont need to put labels on them or isolate them for appreciation. i am not trying to say that my side is better than yours. it is better for me, thats all.

I'm not saying that. My sentence began with "If we assume ..."

if we take the assume part out will the analagoy still serve?

people are essentially different one from another, so there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth

do you agree that male and female are different?

If we would be essentially different, social life, and thus humanity, were impossible.

People who believe we are essentially different, seek manifestations of these alleged differences -- and they find them in esp. gender, race, caste. "A king is a completley different kind of human than a beggar -- they have nothing in common. A man is a completely different kind human of human than a woman -- they have nothing in common. A black person is compeltely different than a white person -- they have nothing in common. Etc."

All such differences are material, superficial. Yet people, who *are* stuck in the material, make them out to be essential. And human society tends to behave that way indeed.

these are material differences not essential differences. yes, i think i see what your saying now. it is this common factor that you are calling essence (or essential). so, when you say 'i am stuck in the material' you are saying i cannot see beyond the differences presented to me by physical appearance?

The problem arises when those differences are sanctioned -- on what basis are they sanctioned? Why should the law release a king who committed murder, while a beggar who also committed murder is punished? But have it the other way -- Why treat them both the same? Why persecute black people? Why not?

sanctioning prejudice is bad, i agree.

“ truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer"

this is truth as external phenomena?

To use an analogy, if the sign [A] would mean to you what the sign means to me, ie., if we were essentially different, then we would not understand each other.

i understand your analogy but i disagree with you. words are signs that can be interpreted many ways, communication is a process of transformation of experiential contents into mental contents into verbal contents by the communicator then back into mental contents by the receiver. my abilty to take your Contents and your particular style of transformation and to use them gives my understanding of you. my abilty to transform my understanding into a form that you can use and understand is why we can communicate while being different in more ways than material. (i am avoiding essence (essential) till i know what you mean by it)

Are you sure they are essentially different than you?
On what do you base those essential differences?

yes!
qualities!
bearing in mind that i was reffering to things not just humans. can you understand a concept? do you need to be essentially the same as the concept in order to understand it?

Why do you think that you can understand me? How come you have this motive and this ability?

understanding is something i am good at, from expreince, a gift of tribulation, a crown that none may take. i am not certain that i will understand all that you express but i am willing to try. it is motivated by curiosity because i know that all people are different every body has something new and interseting for me. each person has their own message that they broadcast conciously or unconsciously. the more i connect to those messages the more i appreciate people and value their unique interpretations of experience.

You'll see.

if you can show me.

And just maybe, you are after my approval too much, if you give such an emotional reaction to what I say.

you think i am after your approval, really?

it is not your approval i seek, your expressions, your experience, the caress of your soul, but i dont really need your esteem, when you give it if you are moved to do so, of course i will value it. but as for seeking approval from you, no.

But the pattern is true for all appreciation. I could also say "To appreciate something, is to isolate it, in a way."

but would it be true in this sense? when it is yours i could accept it is true, but when you make it a law of nature i have to question its validity. appreciation is appreciation, isolation is isolation. the two are not in any way the saem thing, when you isolate something it is removed form a structural context how do you appreciate something that is part of a structure if you remove it form the structure? i know you dislike relativism and i am in anticipation of your condemnatory labelling.