Herepton quoted only the first part the statement--
How do you love Someone who is invisible and cannot be touched ?
It is interesting that Herepton edited the statement before asking the question.
'Love God, and love others as you love yourself.' Yeshua and his followers always taught that the second part of that statement has everything to do with the first part. Herepton removed the words that answered the question before asking it.
Those who say, â€˜I love Godâ€™, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
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?
Might I be so presumptious as to suggest you find a resting place with those who say they find their rest in him. That of all worldviews (bar nihilism), Christianity strikes you as most reasonable - the only problem being you can't see it?
God pulls people to him by eliminating all other possibilities (in my own experience)
I missed the part where the other worldviews were discussed and eliminated.
This is remarkable, considering most of the arguments being made on behalf of Christianity by you and Faith in this thread could be made of any world belief with barely a word changed. Meaning to life, check. Reputable adherents, check. Aesthetic appeal, check.
You are arguing for the importance of having a belief system. You do not argue for Christianity. You assume Christianity.
How many other possibilities have you really considered?
You are ignoring the context of our comments, which is Robin's strong attraction to some quintessentially Christian writings, including some of the Bible, especially the book of Ecclesiastes, and four of the most famous and orthodox greats in Christian history.
Ecclesiastes is a great book. One of my favorites, too.
But it is demonstrably not a 'quintessentially Christian writing.' It is a quintessentially Jewish writing. Its author was not a Christian. Its author had never heard of Christianity.
The book was accepted as part of the Hebrew canon centuries before that came to be incorporated into the canons of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christian churches.
Yeshua was not a Christian, either. Logically speaking, people who truly intend to be 'like Christ' should convert to Judaism.
1. Eastern religions--they seem rather vague to me. The doctrines are going to have be clear, distinct and definite in order for me to have any truck with it. They mention the way to nirvana is to lose one's desire for whatever, but don't explain how this wicked desire came about in the first place.
You are talking about Buddhism with your mention of Nirvana. But your demand that Buddhism give you 'clear, distinct and definite doctrines' and an explanation of 'wickedness' is asking for a Western product from the outset.
Eastern ideas seem vague to you at the moment because, most likely, you lack a sufficient vocabulary to render them. It's like using the language of computer science to describe astronomy. Square pegs and round holes and all that. The concepts of anything remain elusive to us if we have to translate them into inadequate and biased terms.
4. nihilism (my belief)--a logical extension of atheism. Fits with evolution, fits with the apparently accidental nature of life. No very cogent explanation of moral feelings and uncertainty about how "consciousness" might have arisen.
This is very interesting. Before you insisted on 'clear, distinct and definite doctrines.' Now you say you like ambiguity.
Nihilism is convincing to you because it offers 'uncertainty' and 'no very cogent explanation.' You find it credible because it does not try to explain everything. The impression I take from that is that you like its humility. It does not claim to know more than it can know. It leaves room for mystery and discovery.
But within the mysteries of nihilism you still have room for precision and clarity, don't you? You have science.
How do you understand these two poles: your desire for clarity and the desire for mystery? Do you see them as something you must choose between? As something you can synthesize, perhaps as you are doing with science and nihilism? What do you think?
Thanks for the clarification, robin. I was trying to be fair and stay with your statement as much as possible.
The idea of nihilism is pretty definite. There is no God; life has no purpose. There's nothing particularly humble about nihilism.
I have no desire for mystery. Now, it is true, mystery has a romantic aesthetic value, but that's not important here.
Aesthetics, schmaesthetics. Mystery is a fact.
Unless you expect to answer every riddle of existence in the brief time you have on this planet--is that realistic?--mystery is something you're stuck with. Lack of 'desire' for unanswered questions does not change this.
If you want to account for all the facts, you have to account for the fact that you will never acquire all the facts. A certain amount of mystery is a given.
Did I understand you to say, jar, that you are CoE?
If so, you keep some good company. TS Eliot and CS Lewis, Purcell and Holst, Queen Elizabeth and George Washington... a long list. Two of the most influential works in English literature--the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer--come to us from the Anglicans.
Would you say this rich tradition has affected your outlook in any way? If so, how?