Bloody heck Jar, that was a fantastic essay. Had it been more than a page then it would have been a page turner as well!
And very useful in that it provides deep background regarding the source of the position you hold- not only on God directly, but also with regard to your position on issues that would derive from ones view of God. I have at times viewed you as someone who deliberately attempts to take pot shots at faith alone adherents simply for the fun of it. That view must now be modified - you must, to your mind, be opposing what you see as heretical teaching as energetically as I oppose what I see as your heretical teaching. Your motivation is not as I thought it to be. Also, my charge that you are not a Christian must have been hurtful to one who genuninely considers himself to be such - and whilst I stand by that statement (for the definition of a Christian as I understand it differs from yours), I fully recognise that you would not see it that way. Nor should you be expected to. I apologise for hurt caused if it was experienced.
Great essay I say again.
I note one thing which runs throughout the whole and it seems to me to be the crux of the difference between us. In your whole essay there isn't one mention of anything which would lead me to conclude that there was any direct relationship between you and God. God is remote and every idea you have about him appears to be the result of the various influences that others and nature have had on you during the course of your life. The model you have of God (for that is what is comes across as) in an intellectually-derived one - for all the chiselling that resulted in the model taking the shape it does, are of the intellectual variety.
Soon after the section dealing with the Confirmation (which ran a cold chill down my spine) a young Jar says to his parents:
â€œI know that you and GOD will help.â€
You had grounds to believe your parents would help - we can see that you had a direct, personal relationship with them which would inform your knowing. But there is no equivilent mention of a personal relationship with God on which you could base your knowing He would help. Your knowledge at that point and thereafter appears to be based purely on the belief that what you have been taught by others ("God will help you") or have intellectually rationalised for yourself, is true.
A god in your own (variously influenced) image and likeness it would seem. And barring direct, personal experience of Him, the only one possible for any man.
Ian . . . . . . ps: AdminAsgara, I wouldn't mind trying my hand at this format. How do I go about it?
Re: Still struggling to find something significant in any of your post.
I donâ€™t agree. I think more people are more people would at least take your claim to be a Christian a little more seriously if you had mentioned a relationship with God, maybe you can put it in version 2?
That struck me as curious too. The soundest basis for such a belief being the very thing that is never mentioned in an essay on ones belief system. An architects drawing of a house which doesn't show the foundations?
a) what it is about the statement which makes it work.
When you try to treat others as you would like to be treated, everybody wins.
That is a subjective opinion surely, not something about which one could say "it is true". True for you perhaps?
b) how something working makes it true? My lightswitch works - does that make it true?
ROTFLMAO. It makes it work. Who cares if it is TRUE. That may well be the dumbest question I have EVER seen asked.
I was attempting to point out your weak use of English to you (in this case - your English in the OP was excellent). The statement in which you say is true is incomplete and cannot even claim to be true as it is:
Love GOD and love others as you love yourself is true regardless of the source
Had you said "love God and love others means everyone wins is true - regardless of the source" then there wouldn't be a problem in the sentences structure (aside from whether it is an accurate statement or not)
Your being very evasive Jar. You've put up a statement of belief yet when asked about aspects of it you engage in weaving around with partial statements which don't hold together in themselves and which, when followed up, result in more weaving and attempts at ridicule. Did you not foresee that aspects of your statement would be examined and if so why evade that examination. What was the point?
You could have said you believe "Love God/others" to be true because it works (subjective, for you personally) but when you say it actually is true (objeectively, for all) you must expect to justify that statement with clear reasoning. That reasoning so far?
Its not so much that Iano loves or does not love his sorry self its more that iano's love for himself is defined by what it is that constitutes healthy self-love. And healthy self-love must be defined by an other in order to be sure it is healthy. For who can safely define self-love for themselves?
My problem is in loving all those others. Many of them are not very lovable, for one thing,
Not by your standard or mine, I agree. If someone comes along though, and shows you just how loveable you are and you find that nigh-on impossible to accept (for you know of your own unlovable-ness - in detail) then it becomes easier. Not simple but easier.
for another thing, I only have so much love in me too pass around. I have to be frugal.
Frugal is someone running on a tank that cannot be internally replenished - like, whoever heard of a tank that is internally replenished. Sure, I can be tight with my love at times. But then he fills the tank again and I'm free to press on the gas again. Externally replenished tanks can run forever