jar - On Christianity

explain the american nazis.

you're right, a better person would be Stalin or Mao.
still, people will follow other people, and those leaders may or may not be crazy.

so to say that the reason that jesus is followed by so many was because he was sane is a touch presumptous. He may have been infact sane. But you know, even Lincoln had his mental problems--disease begins with an m, can't remember, oh, duh--marfan's syndrome (how it sounds, spelling is wrong).
and many people followed lincoln and today still think he was a good leader.

point put shortly--people follow crazies as much as they do sanies.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

And how do you account for the apparent sanity and realism of so many who follow Him? You quote some of them with appreciation, such as Samuel Johnson, Jonathan Edwards, William Law, Pascal. And in fact all of these believed in the whole supernatural package.

These writers never talk about the person of Jesus. What attracts me is that they talk very realistically about the nature of life as it is lived by us--very different from the modern sentimental sensibility, as evidenced by the posters on this forum.

These writers never talk about the person of Jesus. What attracts me is that they talk very realistically about the nature of life as it is lived by us--very different from the modern sentimental sensibility, as evidenced by the posters on this forum.

That's a cop-out answer. They are all total believers in Jesus, the Deluded One according to you.

explain the american nazis.

A fringe group? Really now . .

The question is how you account for how these orthodox traditional believers in the deluded Christ talk so much more realistically than those who have the modern sentimental sensibility.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's a cop-out answer. They are all total believers in Jesus, the Deluded One according to you.

I was telling you what attracted me to these writers.

Faith writes:

And how do you account for the apparent sanity and realism of so many who follow Him? You quote some of them with appreciation, such as Samuel Johnson, Jonathan Edwards, William Law, Pascal. And in fact all of these believed in the whole supernatural package. How do you account for the duration of His influence if He was deluded -- people believing in Him by growing millions in every generation for the last 2000 years, and even in our modern times in which the majority have rejected the very idea of the supernatural? How do you account for the millions who have been and still are persecuted and even killed for believing him Him in Asia and Africa and the Middle East, refusing to repudiate their faith even for the sake of saving their lives? I guess a sizeable portion of the world is deluded. Well, that's OK, He told us that's how we would be viewed.

God save us from reheated Josh MacDowell garnished with sprigs of persecution complex.

By this logic all world religions are true, because all of them boast sane followers and great thinkers.

How many people here think Faith accepts all world religions as valid?

---

Archer

All species are transitional.

yeah, and there not too far off from the KKK. even if just, say, one percent of america is a nazi that makes 3,000,000 people.

and that many 60 years after hitler.
and I don't think america is home to the only nazi's in the world.

how many people were christians after christ died? how long until it hit the one percent mark of the population of the roman empire.

christianity was a fringe religion--just like nazism is a fringe philosophy (or position?). One follows a supposedly sane, dead, person. the other a supposedly insane, dead, person.

again, sanity is no defining principle of believing in people.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I was telling you what attracted me to these writers.

I understand that, but they are all orthodox Christians -- strikingly committed dedicated Christians, not just in-name-only Christians -- and their realism is a striking characteristic of them at the same time, so I would think their believing in a deluded leader would have to create some cognitive dissonance for you -- as in, how can crazy people have such realism? I mean four is a big number of crazy people for you to be so attracted to their realism.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

exactly why I brought up mohammed--the founder if Islam.
apparently he has to be sane and logical for a good chunk of the world's people to believe in the religion, right?

also why I brought up Hitler.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

The particular four I named who are these realists Robin has quoted are not ordinary Christians but truly orthodox uncompromising exmplary Christians.

The question is how you account for how these orthodox traditional believers in the deluded Christ talk so much more realistically than those who have the modern sentimental sensibility.

Probably because they are not modern. There were nihilistic writers as well. Shakespeare was technically a member of the Church of England, but he was a nihilist at heart. And there's Hemingway who portrayed life realistically at times, and he only flirted with the Catholic church once because one time it seem to cure his impotence.

In the 60s the world, contrary to popular belief, grew sentimental, and it's been on a campaign ever since to wipe out rational nihilism and make us all public-spirited.

It's a cultural rather than religious matter.

No it's not a cultural matter. These guys, certainly Pascal, Edwards and Law are minute-by-minute totally sold-out followers of the supernatural Jesus Christ, and if you read much of them you won't be able to avoid this about them. Shakespeare was at best a nominal Christian and Hemingway's flirting with religion is a ridiculous comparison.

{Edit: They are realists, which is thoroughly compatible with true Christianity, they are not nihilists.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

jar writes: IMHO the other thing that must be emphasized is that the Second Commandment is a two parter. Before you can love others you must first love yourself. Until you can honestly handle that part, look at yourself, recognizing what you have done right, what you have done wrong, how you might do better, you cannot love others.

After the discussion on loving ourselves I just happened to be thumbing through "Christian Reflections" by C.S. Lewis and he had this to say on that:

C.S. Lewis writes: You are told to love your neighbour as yourself. How do you love yourself? When I look into my own mind, I find that I do not love myself by thinking myself a dear old chap or having affectionate feelings. I do not think that I love myself because I am particularly good, but just because I am myself and quite apart from my character. I might detest something which I have done. Nevertheless, I do not cease to love myself. In other words, that definite distinction that Christians make between hating sin and loving the sinner is one that you have been making in your own case since you were born. You dislike what you have done but you don't cease to love yourself. You may even think that you ought to be hanged. You may even think that you ought to go to the police and own up and be hanged. Love is not an affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.

I don't think that it settles any difference that you and I have on the subject but it is an interesting perspective and probably something that we can both agree with.

Greg

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

No it's not a cultural matter. These guys, certainly Pascal, Edwards and Law are minute-by-minute totally sold-out followers of the supernatural Jesus Christ, and if you read much of them you won't be able to avoid this about them. Shakespeare was at best a nominal Christian and Hemingway's flirting with religion is a ridiculous comparison.

You were asking me why I admired the writings of these devout Christians, and I was explaining to you that the reason I admired their writings was for the same reason I admired the writings of others in the past who were a far cry from devout Christians.

So it's not that they were Christians--it was that they had a view of the world that had some meat in it, not just candy.