Islamic Converts...

[enlightenment]

its because of Jesus and what he did for you on the cross, because of Jesus you can enter into a relationship with God the Father the creator and sustainer of everything, and thats really good news.

thats what I believe

Whatever Jesus did, whoever he did it for, he did not do it with me in mind.

If Jesus was crucified (and there is great doubt as to how accurate that is, given that the great record keepers, the Romans, somehow forgot to keep a record of this particular crucifixtion..), then I do not feel bad about it. He didn't do it for me, I would consider it insane if a modern day person told me that they were going to permit themselves to die a slow and lingering death, 'for me', let alone someone from two thousand + years ago, who lived in a different culture.

I am not sure if you are male or female, but imagine coming home one day, and there are police cars and paramedics parked up, outside your house, and when you got in, they told you that your partner had allowed themselves to die in the most painful way possible. Then a note was produced, from your partner, saying that they 'did it for you'.

Be honest - would that not creep you out a little? A lot..? Would it not cross your mind that perhaps they had been acutely mentally ill, and you had failed to see the signs..?

Anyway..

So, according to what you believe, it is only born again(sic) Christians who get to have this relationship with god.

I suppose we had best define 'born again'.

Would you say this is close...

'A Christian who has experienced a dramatic conversion to faith in Jesus'

Is it the conversion process that is key?

For example, my mum, she is a RC, didn't convert to it, born into the culture, given that she is Maltese/Italian.

Are you saying that by virtue of the absence of the conversion process, she cannot have, according to you, a personal relationship with god?

I only ask so that I am absolutely clear what you mean, when you say such things.

See it as a courtesy.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Whatever Jesus did, whoever he did it for, he did not do it with me in mind.

If Jesus was crucified (and there is great doubt as to how accurate that is, given that the great record keepers, the Romans, somehow forgot to keep a record of this particular crucifixtion..), then I do not feel bad about it. He didn't do it for me, I would consider it insane if a modern day person told me that they were going to permit themselves to die a slow and lingering death, 'for me', let alone someone from two thousand + years ago, who lived in a different culture.

I am not sure if you are male or female, but imagine coming home one day, and there are police cars and paramedics parked up, outside your house, and when you got in, they told you that your partner had allowed themselves to die in the most painful way possible. Then a note was produced, from your partner, saying that they 'did it for you'.


Be honest - would that not creep you out a little? A lot..? Would it not cross your mind that perhaps they had been acutely mentally ill, and you had failed to see the signs..?

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Jesus died for you because he loves you so much

Anyway..

So, according to what you believe, it is only born again(sic) Christians who get to have this relationship with god.

I suppose we had best define 'born again'.

Would you say this is close...

'A Christian who has experienced a dramatic conversion to faith in Jesus'

Is it the conversion process that is key?

For example, my mum, she is a RC, didn't convert to it, born into the culture, given that she is Maltese/Italian.

Are you saying that by virtue of the absence of the conversion process, she cannot have, according to you, a personal relationship with god?

I only ask so that I am absolutely clear what you mean, when you say such things.

See it as a courtesy.

being born again does not have to be a dramatic conversion experience, you repent and give your life to Jesus and thats the beginning of your Christian walk.

 

[Saltmeister]

no thats not true.

Have I misunderstood you or have you misunderstood me?

How is Christianity not an alternative? Consider the following passage attributed to Jesus:

Matthew 11:28-30
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Obviously someone was asking too much of the people of that generation and Jesus came to give people another option. You might find these articles interesting. They explain Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and puts it in context.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/beithillel/beitshammai.shtml
Jesus and the Pharisees

So, according to you, only 'born again' Christians can have a personal relationship with god, am I understanding you correctly?

Not necessarily true. I think it's a very simplistic understanding of what the Gospels and epistles really say. Christianity is best understood when we examine the social, political, economic and historical context. The simple view does not consider that. I hope the two links I provided above are helpful.

Do people really have to be "Christian" to have a relationship with God?

Most of the time when people label themselves or someone else as "Christian" they mean someone who follows the "official," established or mainstream interpretation.

But in the first century, there was no official, established or mainstream interpretation. There was no interpretation. People naturally understood what the leaders taught. There may have been interpretations of Judaism, but no interpretations of Christianity. Christianity was "right there" in the people and it was also in the process of developing and emerging. Christianity was in its "infant stages," and proto-Christianity is what we have been trying to get back to for 2,000 years and we are confused about what it is.

To be truly "Christian" you must be able to recreate the original social, political, economic and historical context. To understand what it means to be "born again," you have to understand what it meant to the people in that environment. Being "born again" is more important than being "Christian." The ultimate goal of being "born again" is to escape this world and enter the "kingdom of heaven."

It may be great to be "Christian," but if you don't escape this world by being "born again," being Christian doesn't help you.

Jesus said you could have eternal life, if you followed "the way" that he taught. I remember dauer saying in a thread two years ago that Jesus' teachings were similar to those of an earlier guy named Hillel. If the teachings are more important than who taught them, then as long as adherents of another tradition understand and follow the same ethics, they might be "born again" too.

The Hebrew word halakha in Judaism means "way of walking." The Arabic word sharah in Islam means "way" or "path." If Jews follow a halakha that is similar to that of Jesus and if Muslims follow a shariah similar to Jesus then it wouldn't be hard to show that Jews and Muslims can be "born again" too.

Whatever Jesus did, whoever he did it for, he did not do it with me in mind.

Jesus' final act has to be seen in social, political, economic and historical context. If it wasn't for you, then it might have been some other demographic. It wasn't necessarily just for that generation or that geographic area. Humans have had to deal with social, political and economic issues since the beginning of their race. Many of the same conditions present back then would recur.

He didn't do it for me, I would consider it insane if a modern day person told me that they were going to permit themselves to die a slow and lingering death, 'for me', let alone someone from two thousand + years ago, who lived in a different culture.

Wrong example. How about putting yourself in front of a Japanese whaling ship to act as a human shield? How about standing in front of an armoured tank like a guy holding two bags did during the Tianamen Square massacre?

I am not sure if you are male or female, but imagine coming home one day, and there are police cars and paramedics parked up, outside your house, and when you got in, they told you that your partner had allowed themselves to die in the most painful way possible. Then a note was produced, from your partner, saying that they 'did it for you'.

Jesus' final act had much wider implications that just a relative or friend committing suicide.

I suppose we had best define 'born again'.

'A Christian who has experienced a dramatic conversion to faith in Jesus'

Different people will have their different concepts of what it means to be "born again."

I wouldn't describe "born again" as being about a "personal transformation," but about "where the heart is." In the discussion Jesus has with Nicodemus, Jesus doesn't talk of being "born again" in this world, but in heaven. To be "born again" is to connect with an alternate reality and in doing so to be able to escape this world and migrate to the other when some life-threatening scenario arises.

A lot of Jesus' teachings had an economic context. While I don't believe Jesus taught socialism and I know he certainly didn't teach capitalism, I do think he taught charity. He said we should store our treasures in heaven, because where one's treasure is, that is also where your heart is. Do you work hard to be rich in heaven or rich while on earth?

Getting rich is not so much the problem. What is more of a problem is your attachment to wealth. Remember the subprime mortage crisis in America, the global financial crisis? Millions of Americans received loans that they could not pay back. The greedy banks were all too happy to bait people into taking those loans. People became ridiculously obsessed with home ownership. It was something to show off to family and friends. You were a "bum" if you couldn't keep up with the lifestyle of living beyond your means.

Developed economies already have enough strength to feed everyone continuously. People just want to get rich. We want more power, a better and more comfortable life. More space, more fun, more technology. But do we really need all that?

I think God is happy to let us all enjoy what we have done here, but I think He also wants to give the disadvantaged in this world a chance to live an equally comfortable life, without a developed economy or modern technology. These are the people who would want to get into the "kingdom of heaven" Jesus often talked about, to get a second chance at life.

A simple rule if you want to get into the kingdom of heaven is to work hard to get what you do need and discard everything else and give it to charity. The harder you work, the more you will have for yourself and the more you can share with others. So if you earn $50,000 a year and only have a $20,000 lifestyle, you can give the other $30,000 to charity. Most people, however, keep it all for themselves. It has a lot to do with people aiming for that big dream of home ownership.

Is it the conversion process that is key?

The "conversion process" would be a life-long endeavour. If charity is a way of escaping this world and gaining a foot-hold in the other, then the more you liberate yourself from the social pressure to accumulate private property and store up riches for home ownership, and the more you give to the homeless and disadvantaged, the more you have to gain in the alternate reality. The people you helped may return the favour in the next world.

The kingdom of heaven is driven more by charity than capitalism, so if you learn how to live by the "way of charity" rather than the "way of capitalism," you may be better suited to living in that world than this one.

Are you saying that by virtue of the absence of the conversion process, she cannot have, according to you, a personal relationship with god?

What does she do for the community?

 

[enlightenment]

being born again does not have to be a dramatic conversion experience, you repent and give your life to Jesus and thats the beginning of your Christian walk.

In what way specifically do you 'give your life to Jesus'?

 

[enlightenment]

What does she do for the community?

My old maw?

Well, for the community which is my family, she raised three children under difficult circumstances. Does that matter, anyway? A friend of mine (Christian) tells me that it is not a deeds based gig, anyway...

 

[enlightenment]

Wrong example. How about putting yourself in front of a Japanese whaling ship to act as a human shield? How about standing in front of an armoured tank like a guy holding two bags did during the Tianamen Square massacre?

And there are people, of course, who did that. In those instances, I would acknowledge their convictions, however, I would stop short of thinking that they had done this for me. They would have had their own motives, I wouldn't even enter their minds, I wouldn't have thought.

Likewise, if Jesus chose to let himself die on the cross, he did that for his motives (whatever they were, we can only really speculate).

 

[enlightenment]

The ultimate goal of being "born again" is to escape this world and enter the "kingdom of heaven."

So they really desire death, and the promise of something *better* upon death, is what you are effectively saying.

But we know this world, warts and all.

I rather like living in it (most of the time).

If I were of a mind to aspire to change it for something else, I would need to know in great detail precisely what I was changing it for.

This would be a normal thought process, for anyone, in any situation, wouldn't it?

Before packing up all that you have and leaving your present city, you would wish to know detail of what your next destination would be like.

Before telling your boss to stuff his job, because you were going to take a new one, you would want to know what the new company were like, and in detail.

 

[Saltmeister]

My old maw?

Well, for the community which is my family, she raised three children under difficult circumstances. Does that matter, anyway? A friend of mine (Christian) tells me that it is not a deeds based gig, anyway...

It's more about freedom and liberation than glory and greatness. Raising three children sounds more like slavery. The freedom I am talking about is something you do that you want to do, not something you need to do.

Society expects people to grow up, get a job, earn money, buy a home, buy a car, get married, start a family, change nappies, raise kids and watch them grow. That is how society defines "success." I dislike the idea that you are "less of a person," if you can't do all that.

A lot of people who raise kids do it as an ego trip. They say you're a great bloke if you're willing to change the nappies of three babies, wash their clothes and dishes and give them a bath. Talk about a deeds-based society. We already have it and we don't need a religion to create a deeds-based attitude. Christians who demonise homosexuals, saying that "breeders" are better than non-breeders are deeds-based people. I dislike the idea that those who make babies are better than those who don't.

We already have 6 billion people on this planet. I don't think we have enough energy and resources to sustain the kind of the lifestyle people have in Western and developed countries. Making more babies is not an environmentally and ecologically friendly behaviour.

The world doesn't need more babies. It needs more charity, and charity isn't about deeds. Charity is about community. It is about sharing, giving away and letting go. You let go of what you don't need and give it to people who do need it. You don't keep accumulating stuff you don't need.

There is a lot of useless and wasteful economic activity in the world, driven by people's desire for glory and greatness. They buy homes to show off their wealth. They make babies as a way of showing off. Getting married, getting a girlfriend is a way of showing off.

Holden Caulfield, the narrator in J. D. Salinger's, Catcher in the Rye said these people were phony and superficial. I happen to agree.

I think there is more courage in helping three homeless people (in the long term) than raising three kids. You don't have to be married and be a sex machine to have dignity and self-respect.

I think people should return to the basics rather than trying to live the bigger and grander lifestyle. After all, Jesus says the meek will inherit the earth.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

So they really desire death, and the promise of something *better* upon death, is what you are effectively saying.

But we know this world, warts and all.

I rather like living in it (most of the time).

If I were of a mind to aspire to change it for something else, I would need to know in great detail precisely what I was changing it for.

This would be a normal thought process, for anyone, in any situation, wouldn't it?

Before packing up all that you have and leaving your present city, you would wish to know detail of what your next destination would be like.

Before telling your boss to stuff his job, because you were going to take a new one, you would want to know what the new company were like, and in detail.

not quite but one of the promises of Christianity is eternal life with God the Father in which case I will never die.

as for the Kingdom of Heaven I want to see it manifest right here and right now.

 

[enlightenment]

It's more about freedom and liberation than glory and greatness. Raising three children sounds more like slavery. The freedom I am talking about is something you do that you want to do, not something you need to do.

Society expects people to grow up, get a job, earn money, buy a home, buy a car, get married, start a family, change nappies, raise kids and watch them grow. That is how society defines "success." I dislike the idea that you are "less of a person," if you can't do all that.

A lot of people who raise kids do it as an ego trip. They say you're a great bloke if you're willing to change the nappies of three babies, wash their clothes and dishes and give them a bath. Talk about a deeds-based society. We already have it and we don't need a religion to create a deeds-based attitude. Christians who demonise homosexuals, saying that "breeders" are better than non-breeders are deeds-based people. I dislike the idea that those who make babies are better than those who don't.

We already have 6 billion people on this planet. I don't think we have enough energy and resources to sustain the kind of the lifestyle people have in Western and developed countries. Making more babies is not an environmentally and ecologically friendly behaviour.

The world doesn't need more babies. It needs more charity, and charity isn't about deeds. Charity is about community. It is about sharing, giving away and letting go. You let go of what you don't need and give it to people who do need it. You don't keep accumulating stuff you don't need.

There is a lot of useless and wasteful economic activity in the world, driven by people's desire for glory and greatness. They buy homes to show off their wealth. They make babies as a way of showing off. Getting married, getting a girlfriend is a way of showing off.

Holden Caulfield, the narrator in J. D. Salinger's, Catcher in the Rye said these people were phony and superficial. I happen to agree.

I think there is more courage in helping three homeless people (in the long term) than raising three kids. You don't have to be married and be a sex machine to have dignity and self-respect.

I think people should return to the basics rather than trying to live the bigger and grander lifestyle. After all, Jesus says the meek will inherit the earth.

Good post - and thanks for it.

I agree with much of it too, however, it reads more like a political endeavour than one that has any need to bring a god or a prophet into it.

 

[Saltmeister]

And there are people, of course, who did that. In those instances, I would acknowledge their convictions, however, I would stop short of thinking that they had done this for me.

I didn't say he did.

Likewise, if Jesus chose to let himself die on the cross, he did that for his motives

of course

Jesus' final act applies to everyone not in the sense of everyone wanting to gain from it. It applies to everyone in the sense of not discriminating according to race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, class or religious background.

So they really desire death, and the promise of something *better* upon death, is what you are effectively saying.

Death is inevitable. If I was a scientist and don't try to discover or invent a technology that would make immortality possible, does that mean I desire death?

But we know this world, warts and all. I rather like living in it (most of the time).

Enjoy

If I were of a mind to aspire to change it for something else, I would need to know in great detail precisely what I was changing it for. This would be a normal thought process, for anyone, in any situation, wouldn't it?

Before packing up all that you have and leaving your present city, you would wish to know detail of what your next destination would be like.

Before telling your boss to stuff his job, because you were going to take a new one, you would want to know what the new company were like, and in detail.

Jesus tells us a number of things about the "kingdom of heaven," so it isn't just about "how to get there," but also "what it will be like" when we get there. That's because "what it's like" will influence the process of getting there.

If I was going to describe in ways that are meaningful how the other world differs from this world, I'd say that it is driven by charity rather than capitalism. If you can live a life driven by charity, rather than a life driven by capitalism, then you are already making yourself more compatible with the kingdom of heaven.

 

[enlightenment]

not quite but one of the promises of Christianity is eternal life with God the Father in which case I will never die.

as for the Kingdom of Heaven I want to see it manifest right here and right now.

But why would you want 'eternal life'..?

I don't think our minds can conceive of what an enternity really means, which is fair enough, since we would struggle to imagine what even ten thousand years really feels like.

Wouldn't you get bored, living eternally?

If it were possible to live forever in this world, and let us assume that there was no war, hunger etc, would you wish for this, as well?

Either way, your goal is this eternal life, in which you never die (despite already having done so), and living this life with god. Okay, so you are there - what now, what's the point or objective, from that point onwards?

In reinforces my point, all the more.

If I was going to dedicated my life to (as a comparison), one day being able to go live in another nation, I would want to know everything there is about that nation, before I chose to devote my life to getting there.

How populated is it?

What are the people like?

What will I do, each day?

What are the rulers like?

What if the nation turns out to be nothing like it said in the brochure, can I alter my choice?

I would want to know the answers to those things, and in detail, long before I would commit myself to such a thing. All the more if my decision was for all eternity.

Anything less than that would be foolhardy of me, no?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

But why would you want 'eternal life'..?

I don't think our minds can conceive of what an enternity really means, which is fair enough, since we would struggle to imagine what even ten thousand years really feels like.

Wouldn't you get bored, living eternally?

If it were possible to live forever in this world, and let us assume that there was no war, hunger etc, would you wish for this, as well?

Either way, your goal is this eternal life, in which you never die (despite already having done so), and living this life with god. Okay, so you are there - what now, what's the point or objective, from that point onwards?

In reinforces my point, all the more.

If I was going to dedicated my life to (as a comparison), one day being able to go live in another nation, I would want to know everything there is about that nation, before I chose to devote my life to getting there.

How populated is it?

What are the people like?

What will I do, each day?

What are the rulers like?

What if the nation turns out to be nothing like it said in the brochure, can I alter my choice?

I would want to know the answers to those things, and in detail, long before I would commit myself to such a thing. All the more if my decision was for all eternity.

Anything less than that would be foolhardy of me, no?

well you can experience eternity right this moment, but your mind will never understand it.

 

[Saltmeister]

Good post - and thanks for it.

I agree with much of it too, however, it reads more like a political endeavour than one that has any need to bring a god or a prophet into it.

Thanks and I'm glad you got something out of it.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that your mother was wrong for having three kids. Breeding and making babies was considered normal and non-problematic in the last century. But in today's world where people are living the "bigger and grander life," breeding contributes more and more to the relentless rape of the earth's resources.

It definitely sounds political, but there's a twist.

I believe we are in the process of destroying the planet. The Great Powers of our day (USA, China, Russia, etc.) have not gotten rid of their nuclear weapons. A lot of people expect a World War III. We could hope for world peace, but what if that doesn't happen? What if there is a nuclear war and most of the 6 billion are wiped out?

There must be a way to save these 6 billion people.

There would be several ways of escaping a catastrophic disaster that threatens to wipe out most of the human race and render the planet uninhabitable. Here are two:

1) build lots of space ships and start a new life somewhere else in the galaxy

2) hope that there is truth to the words of Jesus and try to escape this world and migrate to the so-called "kingdom of heaven."

In the process of going through option #2, we may find ourselves transforming into either higher beings or to a different kind of human being, one immune to the effects of radioactivity.

Jesus' miracles were thought of as "heaven breaking in," so in the anticipated disaster described above where nuclear weapons destroy most of our planet, heaven will "break in" and save those who have already made a connection with the "kingdom of heaven." The earth will be transformed and made anew, but only those who connected with the kingdom will survive.

 

[enlightenment]

well you can experience eternity right this moment, but your mind will never understand it.

Can I?

There is no use you saying that, then just writing me off, is there?

If you are offering to demonstrate enterity here and now, that is a staggering carrot, and I am interested in what form this experience would take.

Yet you write me off, and decide that I am not fit to understand it.

Notwithstanding, I don't think that really addressed the points I made in my previous post, NCOT.

 

[enlightenment]

There would be several ways of escaping a catastrophic disaster that threatens to wipe out most of the human race and render the planet uninhabitable. Here are two:

1) build lots of space ships and start a new life somewhere else in the galaxy

2) hope that there is truth to the words of Jesus and try to escape this world and migrate to the so-called "kingdom of heaven.".

Interesting (again).

From those two options, here is what I think.

See the men who would have the power to effect a large scale nuclear war (that is not you and I, btw!)..?

These men, their associates and families, they already have state of the art residences which have been built, with the sole intention of making sure their ass is safe, were there to be such a war.

Many of these same men might pretend to believe in a conventional heaven, but in reality they are lying (to you, maybe themselves), because by virtue of the fact that they have made provisions to preserve themselves in this life, they patently do not have true faith in any other.

Indeed, that 'End Of Days' crowd that contaminate US politics, your Palin's et all, I bet she would be first into her bespoke anti nuke residence!

In an odd way, I would actually have more respect for the Muslim suicide bomber, because as odious as his actions may seem, at least there is a perverse kind of 'honesty' in their delusion.

I believe that there has been monies invested in the study of potentially colonising the moon. I am not sure how much has been invested, nor how close we are to being able to do that, but you can bet we are doing it for a good reason - the reason, imo, is to turn the moon into one giant safe haven, away from the nukes that were going off, on earth.

Here's the sick irony.

Be it through the aforementiond anti-nuclear residences, which already exist, or through the more ambitous moon colonisation, those most likely to live on, and be given the chance to live there would be the very same people who caused the wars to start with.

So all the peaceful people are killed, and the killers inherit the earth and the sky.

That's the most likely way that one would play out, imo..

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Can I?

yes

There is no use you saying that, then just writing me off, is there?

If you are offering to demonstrate enterity here and now, that is a staggering carrot, and I am interested in what form this experience would take.

Yet you write me off, and decide that I am not fit to understand it.

Notwithstanding, I don't think that really addressed the points I made in my previous post, NCOT.

i'm not writing you off, but spiritual things are to be understood spiritually, this is for your spirit not your mind.

as for your other points whatever they were I cant remember, but the promise of Christianity is personal relationship with God for eternity, take it or leave it I dont mind really.

 

[enlightenment]

as for your other points whatever they were I cant remember.

(*reminder)


reinforces my point, all the more.

If I was going to dedicated my life to (as a comparison), one day being able to go live in another nation, I would want to know everything there is about that nation, before I chose to devote my life to getting there.

How populated is it?

What are the people like?

What will I do, each day?

What are the rulers like?

What if the nation turns out to be nothing like it said in the brochure, can I alter my choice?

I would want to know the answers to those things, and in detail, long before I would commit myself to such a thing. All the more if my decision was for all eternity.

Anything less than that would be foolhardy of me, no?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

(*reminder)


reinforces my point, all the more.

If I was going to dedicated my life to (as a comparison), one day being able to go live in another nation, I would want to know everything there is about that nation, before I chose to devote my life to getting there.

How populated is it?

What are the people like?

What will I do, each day?

What are the rulers like?

What if the nation turns out to be nothing like it said in the brochure, can I alter my choice?

I would want to know the answers to those things, and in detail, long before I would commit myself to such a thing. All the more if my decision was for all eternity.

Anything less than that would be foolhardy of me, no?

fair enough.

eternity with God the father is got to be beyond life as we know it, no pain no death no fear, but endless joy peace and love thats what I reckon.

 

[enlightenment]

fair enough.

eternity with God the father is got to be beyond life as we know it, no pain no death no fear, but endless joy peace and love thats what I reckon.

So eternal joy and love, with no concept of sadness, dissapointment, and so on?

But surely, unless you experience sadness, dissapointment etc, it becomes impossible to appreciate 'joy' to the full, given that you have nothing to measure it against.

And were this fixed state to be one in which you existed for ALL ETERNITY, wouldn't it become rather bland?