God to You

[Thomas]

Aka, in Latin: "quid pro quo"
In common parlance: "What have you done for me lately"

Well that might be your take on the matter, but let me assure you that in Christianity we hold to a more sophisticated philosophy.

It is a universal factor that prompts the acquition of "Our Daily Bread" that is behind Ritualistic Rites. None Other.

No it's not.

Non-material devotion to God is "to be without want".

I don' think so. If one didn't want God, one wouldn't look for God, would one? This sounds like secular self-justification to me.

Such approaches of the devotion path must be learnt directly from the chain of disciplic succession.

And by that rule, you're in no position to criticise, are you?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Well that might be your take on the matter, but let me assure you that in Christianity we hold to a more sophisticated philosophy

you're in no position to criticise, are you?

"Criticise"

This is you quagmire.

The ball is in your court!

Swing at it and keep your eyes open.

Christ was the sacrificial Lamb.

Explain it professor.

Never mind the Critic's Schtick.

Christ was the sacrificial Lamb.

Why is there a "quid pro quo" scenario with Almighty God?

If you do not understand the calibre of my sophistication then simply do not pose a reply.

After all your past posts on esoteric writtings of medevial Christian Saints I had been made to think that I could approach you for anwsers.

A Envoy has basic tract info to share with others . . . maybe.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Aka, in Latin: "quid pro quo"

Well that might be your take on the matter, but let me assure you that in Christianity we hold to a more sophisticated philosophy.
"quid pro quo" = one thing in return for another.
As seen in the pray citation I make below:

It is a universal factor that prompts the acquition of "Our Daily Bread" that is behind Ritualistic Rites. None Other.

No it's not.
“Our father how art in Heaven . . . Give Us our Daily Bread . . .”
This is a requisition of Daily commodities and similar earthly needs.
We humans seek our needs to be provided by God by beseeching him with ritual rites.
Have you been attempting to say that there is a new covenent that no longer requires such ritualistic offerings?

Non-material devotion to God is "to be without want".

I don' think so. If one didn't want God, one wouldn't look for God, would one? This sounds like secular self-justification to me.
Are thought you were an intellectually learned person. Are you angry?
Non-material means Transcendental.
Transcendental means Non-material.
Transcendental devotion to God is “To be without want”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see what point you have made.
"Secular justification" ---What does this mean?

Devotion to God means giving up material goals so as to get through the eye of the needle.

THE LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. . . . in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Such approaches of the devotion path must be learnt directly from the chain of disciplic succession.

And by that rule, you're in no position to criticise, are you?

I refer to the Path of “Non-material” Devotion --- I do not refer to the Path of Criticism.
What criticism are you referring to?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It's interesting, we discussed the pro and con of tradition elsewhere. One thing that traditions provides is a common interpretation of scripture, with many generations of experience.
And then some guy comes along and and tells them all that they are doing it wrong because he "do have the Bible on [his] computer".

 

[seattlegal]

It's interesting, we discussed the pro and con of tradition elsewhere. One thing that traditions provides is a common interpretation of scripture, with many generations of experience.
And then some guy comes along and and tells them all that they are doing it wrong because he "do have the Bible on [his] computer".

Well, have we been improving over time and new ways of interpretation have been tried? Have we gotten worse?

{I acknowledge that we have killed more people in the 20th century than throughout all of history--but that was mostly where the "State" was "God."}

 

[Snoopy]

{I acknowledge that we have killed more people in the 20th century than throughout all of history--but that was mostly where the "State" was "God."}

Yes, it was not until the 20th century that science and industry enabled man's killing desire to translate to such a magnitude of death.

 

[seattlegal]

Yes, it was not until the 20th century that science and industry enabled man's killing desire to translate to such a magnitude of death.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. ~Friedrich Nietzsche
​

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I was more referring to the fact that people think other people interpret their own scripture wrong. I personally have no opinion where Catholics interpret the bible correctly, they seem to think so and that's good enough for me.

 

[radarmark]

ACOT, I agree. If a tradition is not caught up in wild-eyed Divosian ideology or "kill them all G!d will recognize his own" or preaching misogyny and child rape or any of another million things we should find objectionable, their beliefs and interpretations must make sense (at least to them).

That is the beauty of a site like this, we can share and dicuss and try to understand these other interpretations.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt

 

[Snoopy]

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. ~Friedrich Nietzsche
​

Hitler was a personification of evil. But as perhaps Nietzsche intimates, a war is not waged by one individual.

 

[IowaGuy]

One thing that traditions provides is a common interpretation of scripture, with many generations of experience....I was more referring to the fact that people think other people interpret their own scripture wrong.

I think another variable is one's view of absolute vs. relative truth.

If one believes in absolute truth (and many times the view that "absolute truth" was revealed in their scripture), then if someone else uses an alternative interpretation they are "wrong" since I am "right". i.e. their alternative interpretation is not the "truth".

Subjective truth (which you seem to believe in) is much more flexible in how people interpret holy scriptures.

If one believes in subjective truth and moral relativism, then why should a tradition keep a rigid interpretation of scripture throughout the centuries? Is this an advantage or disadvantage?

Are multiple interpretations of the bible (and the numerous splinter protestant denominations that have resulted) a good thing for Christianity and the world as a whole?

 

[seattlegal]

I think another variable is one's view of absolute vs. relative truth.

If one believes in absolute truth (and many times the view that "absolute truth" was revealed in their scripture), then if someone else uses an alternative interpretation they are "wrong" since I am "right". i.e. their alternative interpretation is not the "truth".

Subjective truth (which you seem to believe in) is much more flexible in how people interpret holy scriptures.

If one believes in subjective truth and moral relativism, then why should a tradition keep a rigid interpretation of scripture throughout the centuries? Is this an advantage or disadvantage?

Are multiple interpretations of the bible (and the numerous splinter protestant denominations that have resulted) a good thing for Christianity and the world as a whole?

If they follow these words of Jesus, then yes:

John 13:34-35
34 "I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."​

Showing that it is possible to get along together even if everyone has different interpretations/beliefs would be a good thing for the world as a whole, imo. This is my interpretation of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

 

[Etu Malku]

Hitler was a personification of evil. But as perhaps Nietzsche intimates, a war is not waged by one individual.

See the thing here is that Hitler may have been an evil to you, he certainly was not to the Nazi Party or to Communists around the world. He was rather a savior was he not?

 

[Etu Malku]

If they follow these words of Jesus, then yes:

John 13:34-35
34 "I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."​

Showing that it is possible to get along together even if everyone has different interpretations/beliefs would be a good thing for the world as a whole, imo. This is my interpretation of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

What makes you say these are the words of Jesus? We don't even know if they were the words of John!

 

[seattlegal]

See the thing here is that Hitler may have been an evil to you, he certainly was not to the Nazi Party or to Communists around the world. He was rather a savior was he not?

**Raises an eyebrow** Are the millions of deaths due to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin subjective?

 

[Snoopy]

See the thing here is that Hitler may have been an evil to you, he certainly was not to the Nazi Party or to Communists around the world. He was rather a savior was he not?

I mean no reference to passing opinions of peoples or politics. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet state were both totalitarian but ended on opposite sides.

Simply put, Hitler's overt expounding of genocide makes him a man of evil, IMO.

 

[seattlegal]

What makes you say these are the words of Jesus? We don't even know if they were the words of John!

Alright, these words attributed to Jesus.

They are good words, no matter who said them.

 

[Etu Malku]

**Raises an eyebrow** Are the millions of deaths due to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin subjective?

**Lowers SG's eyebrow** I suppose as subjective as the million or so killed during the Crusades and the millions murdered in the New Testament?

The post in question was

Originally Posted by Snoopy
Hitler was a personification of evil. But as perhaps Nietzsche intimates, a war is not waged by one individual.

And my point was that evil is a moral subjectivity.

 

[seattlegal]

**Lowers SG's eyebrow** I suppose as subjective as the million or so killed during the Crusades and the millions murdered in the New Testament?

Let's get some objective numbers here:

Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1) 63 million Second World War 20C
2) 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
---40 million Genghis Khan 13C
4) 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
5) 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6) 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
---20 million Joseph Stalin 20C
8) 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
9) 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10) 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11) 15 million First World War 20C
----15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C
13) 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14) 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
----10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16) 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
17) 8 million Fall of Rome 5C
----8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
19) 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C
----7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C

The post in question was And my point was that evil is a moral subjectivity.

Alright, what sort of change did these guys make within themselves (subjectively) to manifest such widespread bloodshed (objectively?)

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

IG, good points.

I think another variable is one's view of absolute vs. relative truth.

If one believes in absolute truth (and many times the view that "absolute truth" was revealed in their scripture), then if someone else uses an alternative interpretation they are "wrong" since I am "right". i.e. their alternative interpretation is not the "truth".

What I reacted to was bhaktajan, who I understand isn't Catholic or even Christian, telling Thomas how and why Christians practices religion. It was meant as a quick remark people could just glance over, but I don't seem to articulate my opinion very well.

Subjective truth (which you seem to believe in) is much more flexible in how people interpret holy scriptures.

I really have no idea what I believe, especially since I got here, the world have turned into a blur. I don't think I have seen any objective truth so any truth makes as much sense as any other I guess. Subjective or objective, both could be true.

If one believes in subjective truth and moral relativism, then why should a tradition keep a rigid interpretation of scripture throughout the centuries? Is this an advantage or disadvantage?

Are multiple interpretations of the bible (and the numerous splinter protestant denominations that have resulted) a good thing for Christianity and the world as a whole?

It all comes down to balance for me. Both objective and subjective interpretations exists in the world, chaos and creativity balances against order and ages of wisdom. Interacting, creating and destroying. Beautiful.