A theological question for Unitarians

[Anchorman]

Aha! The "Ego Eimi" again. Thanks, NM!

[NicholasMarks]

Aha! The "Ego Eimi" again. Thanks, NM!

I think you should read the whole of that section of John and try not to avoid the point where Jesus says that he honours his father. It is a little like saying identical twins are just one person and refusing to acknowledge the other.

Now...are you refusing to acknowledge Jesus or Almighty God...in righteous terms this is a very serious point.

[Anchorman]

Eh? Christ Jesus - God Incarnate - is Lord of my life.

[Sassy]

Just one point I'd like to make here Sassy...which might clear up one point at least. Jesus lived in Heaven before he was spiritually delivered to Mary. There was no need for him to come here to planet Earth and grow up alongside us but he chose to fulfil one of God's requirements...to deliver righteousness to the inhabitants on the Earth. By doing it so perfectly he made himself God-like...higher than the angels in Heaven...but the Holy Bible tells it best...as long as we read it accurately and not via iniquity which tries to populize the difficult concepts.

Did you miss my earlier post? In it Christ is shown to say:-

King James Bible
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

[/b]

Christ had to be fully human, surely you understood this?

[Sassy]

Eh? Christ Jesus - God Incarnate - is Lord of my life.

No! You have to know both the Only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent to have eternal life making Christ the Lord and the Father known to you.

You throw words about which are powerless and aimless in the great scheme of Gods truth.
If you were sure you belonged to God you would not have written earlier posts I replied to this evening.

In fact, no one worth his salt would have even wrote, let alone admitted to writing what you wrote.

[Anchorman]

No! You have to know both the Only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent to have eternal life making Christ the Lord and the Father known to you.

You throw words about which are powerless and aimless in the great scheme of Gods truth.
If you were sure you belonged to God you would not have written earlier posts I replied to this evening.

In fact, no one worth his salt would have even wrote, let alone admitted to writing what you wrote.

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when UI surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
You must have been a fly on my bedroom wall, then.

[Sassy]

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when UI surrendered all that I am to Christ?

So now you want to make this a competition about who is who in Christ and our heavenly Father.

Jeremiah 1:5. Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.

That is always how it has been with me. God letting me know about himself and Christ from my earliest abilities.

Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?

The Lord Jesus was already in my life since childhood well over 10 years earlier than you.

Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
You must have been a fly on my bedroom wall, then.

When I was small, I always knew Jesus was the Son of God. It has kept me through many heartaches but the truth is by that
belief in Jesus, I have always known the presence of God. From my earliest times I have always wanted to do the right thing.
Matthew 5:6. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled.

I personally, through Christ and God find no competition or no establishing of a level of acceptance by what we say or do.
For Christ is all and in all, is the level of communication is all that is required to understand the way to God.
How anyone comes to God through Christ gives them no standing for the righteousness of God in a believer is bought only through the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

Grand gestures to redeem yourself, as within the post is worth absolutely NOTHING when something is pointed out to you which you were blatantly wrong about.

For me to live is Christ. Sometimes we need to know who we are in Christ through the Father, Gods eyes.
Glory belongs to God and he alone deserves all thanks and praise for sending Jesus Christ.

I have made errors in judgement I think 2010 was the worst year. But just as Christ with Peter, " Before the cock crows tonight you will deny me three times."  I didn't deny Christ or God but I knew like Peter something would happen before it did.
It took away any reasoning that an atheist can be honest or really believe that people can be good and treat others properly without being in Christ.


It showed me that nothing can separate us from the Love of God and all the world anchors after is hurting others.
I avoid fairweather friends and people who just want to say the right things but have absolutely no power or convictions of what they are saying.  But we are also to love at all times.  There is something we have other atheists do not.
When all else fails even us. God will stand us up, dust us down and set us back on our way restored and forgiven.
Whilst atheist remain ever more entrenched in their lack of hope and stuck in their false little triumphs. Failures help show that we are still human but they also ensure we grow stronger in the Lord and are sure of our salvation.
The atheist see the sin but cannot see how God sees us. Loved, restored and forgiven.

How or when we came to God through Christ is not about when but who we know in doing so.

[Anchorman]

I do not 'make a competition' of anything, Sass. You questioned MY commitment to Christ - who is God Incarnate - and I simply answered your point. Should you wish to further question my acceptance of Christ as my Lord and my God, please take it up in the faith sharing .....with less Jacobean English bits.

[Hope]

The best way to interpret the Bible is to question everything in it, and to put it to the probability test. If it isn't probable, it is unlikely to have happened as stated.

Do you have any evidence that this is the best way to interpret the Bible, Floo?  After all, many eminent sceintists of bygone centuries would have laughed a lot of what we now know to be true out of the metaphorical court, on the grounds that they were not only improbable, they were probably impossible - eg atom splitting, genetic engineering, large swathes of modern medicine and medical care.

[Sassy]

I do not 'make a competition' of anything, Sass. You questioned MY commitment to Christ - who is God Incarnate - and I simply answered your point. Should you wish to further question my acceptance of Christ as my Lord and my God, please take it up in the faith sharing .....with less Jacobean English bits.

Quote from: Anchorman on December 09, 2016, 06:55:15 PM
Eh? Christ Jesus - God Incarnate - is Lord of my life.

No! You have to know both the Only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent to have eternal life making Christ the Lord and the Father known to you.

You throw words about which are powerless and aimless in the great scheme of Gods truth.
If you were sure you belonged to God you would not have written earlier posts I replied to this evening.

In fact, no one worth his salt would have even wrote, let alone admitted to writing what you wrote.

I didn't  question anything... I simply stated the obvious from the bible and also made a statement about the way you use words and make comments which have absolutely no basis in the Scheme of Gods truth. Again... you appear unable to take in the facts.

[Anchorman]

".....unable to take in your version of the facts" There, Sass, I'll agree with your (amended) statement.

[ippy]

I wonder why one or the other of the mods haven't moved this soppy pointless thread over to faith sharing.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder why one or the other of the mods haven't moved this soppy pointless thread over to faith sharing.

ippy

because your post is allowed

[Hope]

I wonder why one or the other of the mods haven't moved this soppy pointless thread over to faith sharing.

ippy

Probably because it isn't a poster sharing their faith, but asking other people about theirs, ippy.  If I was to ask you a question about your 'faith' (aka humanism - or should that be atheism ( ), would you expect to find it on the faith sharing section?

[ippy]

 

This load of old nonsense being discussed on this thread wouldn't look the least bit out of place within its own pointless kind on that other catogory.

Why do you think of things like atheism and humanism as faiths/beliefs; strictly speaking I'm not an atheist Hope, you must know, the same as I'm not a non-stamp collector or a non-unicornist.

Just because you've let yourself be taken in big time by all of this religion/faith stuff doesn't mean we all use the various religions/faiths as datums for the measure of our lives, if that's what you want to do fine but don't assume we all think and wish to act in the same way as you.

Atheism and humanism don't really have much to do with faith, if anything at all.

Ippy

[Hope]

This load of old nonsense being discussed on this thread wouldn't look the least bit out of place within its own pointless kind on that other catogory.

Why do you think of things like atheism and humanism as faiths/beliefs; strictly speaking I'm not an atheist Hope, you must know, the same as I'm not a non-stamp collector or a non-unicornist.

ippy, if you are not interested in matters religious, why are you a member of a 'religion and ethics' discussion board.  Aren't there other boards where you can discuss the pros and cons of ethical issues without having to worry about any religious element. 

I, on the other hand, have developed my ethical stance at least in part, (though not exclusively) in the context of my belief system, which happens to be Christianity.    As has been pointed out a number of times over the years, language usage often outpaces dictionary definitions so, despite the dictionary definition of the term 'belief' often making reference to a deity or God, modern English will use thew term just as comfortably for a political position and understanding; hence my use of it in reference to humanism and atheism.  They are both understandings of the world on which humans base their lives.

[Sebastian Toe]

ippy, if you are not interested in matters religious, why are you a member of a 'religion and ethics' discussion board. 

I belong to a darts and dominoes club. I have no interest in dominoes whatsoever.
Nobody there questions my membership.
Maybe they are kinder than you?

[Aruntraveller]

if you are not interested in matters religious, why are you a member of a 'religion and ethics' discussion board.

I thought this board was open to all whether believers or not.

Furthermore as far as I can see Ippy never expressed the thought (that is, that he was not interested in matters religious) that you accused him of. He thought this thread was pointless - but that is an entirely different position to the one you attributed to him.


It is not up to you to appoint yourself as some kind of arbiter of who is suitable and who is not.

[floo]

I thought this board was open to all whether believers or not.

Furthermore as far as I can see Ippy never expressed the thought (that is, that he was not interested in matters religious) that you accused him of. He thought this thread was pointless - but that is an entirely different position to the one you attributed to him.


It is not up to you to appoint yourself as some kind of arbiter of who is suitable and who is not.

Non believers have just as much right to air their views as believers have. Some theists get very touchy when their views, which they state are factual, are challenged because they can't support their claims with verifiable evidence.

[ippy]

ippy, if you are not interested in matters religious, why are you a member of a 'religion and ethics' discussion board.  Aren't there other boards where you can discuss the pros and cons of ethical issues without having to worry about any religious element. 

I, on the other hand, have developed my ethical stance at least in part, (though not exclusively) in the context of my belief system, which happens to be Christianity.    As has been pointed out a number of times over the years, language usage often outpaces dictionary definitions so, despite the dictionary definition of the term 'belief' often making reference to a deity or God, modern English will use thew term just as comfortably for a political position and understanding; hence my use of it in reference to humanism and atheism.  They are both understandings of the world on which human base their lives.

Trent has pointed out the more obvious to you Hope and further to that surly establishing that these people really did exist and did in fact have their various viewpoints, with all of the various very questionable supernatural goings on happening in the background, before it's worth spending any effort analising even one word of any it?

Yes I'll go with you on the language altering as time passes, like people had sidebords when I was a youngster, they now have sideburns, cars used to have radios fitted, usually an extra and before stereo broadcasting we didn't refer to them as monos but we now have radios misnamed as stereos, I know I'm just another old git but as you quite rightly say language keeps moving on.

Religious believer, humanist and atheist aren't exactly the correct description of how we are for a lot of us, although I don't mind being referred to as an atheist as a form of shorthand but it does tend to catigorise me as an unbeliever, I'm no more an unbeliever than I'm  non-unicornist or a non-stamp collector, I never have and haven't ever seen anything anywhere that would make me think that there is any such thing as a god so as you can see, how can I not believe in something that for me isn't there in the first place to not believe in?

Referring to people as religious believers is only used by me as a general term as in the case of using the general term of atheist, whilst no offence is intended when using the religious believer term and as I'm sure the atheist term in return isn't either but I do feel sorry for the religious believers and again that's another story.

Regards ippy

[Hope]

I thought this board was open to all whether believers or not.

Furthermore as far as I can see Ippy never expressed the thought (that is, that he was not interested in matters religious) that you accused him of. He thought this thread was pointless - but that is an entirely different position to the one you attributed to him.


It is not up to you to appoint yourself as some kind of arbiter of who is suitable and who is not.

Over the months, Trent, ippy has judged a number of religiously-orientated threads as 'pointless' (either in so many words or by implication), even when they have been started by non-religious people.  To me, that is tantamount to his being judgemental of other posters.  All I have done is ask why, if he takes this attitude to the issue, he chooses to belong to a board that deals with the issue.

[Hope]

Non believers have just as much right to air their views as believers have.

I don't disagree, Floo.  What ippy appears in a couple of posts on this thread to want to do is to close down any airing of views that are based on religious beliefs.  It's not the first time that this has been done nor, I suspect, will it be the last

Some theists get very touchy when their views, which they state are factual, are challenged because they can't support their claims with verifiable evidence.

Whilst some non-theists get very touchy when their views - which they also state are factual - are challenged because they believe that 'verifiable evidence' has to be of the scientific, naturalistic sort; an attitude which seems to misrepresent life as a whole.

[Walter]

I don't disagree, Floo.  What ippy appears in a couple of posts on this thread to want to do is to close down any airing of views that are based on religious beliefs.  It's not the first time that this has been done nor, I suspect, will it be the last
Whilst some non-theists get very touchy when their views - which they also state are factual - are challenged because they believe that 'verifiable evidence' has to be of the scientific, naturalistic sort; an attitude which seems to misrepresent life as a whole.

what's it like to see things that aren't there Hope? your life must be proper weird .

[Ricky Spanish]

Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when UI surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
You must have been a fly on my bedroom wall, then.

"Oh, what a night, late September back in '77.

When I surrendered myself to my lord in heaven. What a feeling, what a night!

For I.. invited him with every part of my being.

Yes, I... knew he was there without even believing...

Oh, what a night, the joy I felt I cannot begin to describe. His presence was there, standing right by my side.

What can I say; just what a day."


(Sung to a tune of your choosing)!!

[Anchorman]

Yep. It stopped me in my tracks.... And took me away from the atheism I had espoused for a few years as well.